Currently, International Humanitarian Law (IHL) also known as the law of armed conflict, makes the distinction between international and non-international armed conflicts. International armed conflicts are regulated by more treaties than their non-international counterparts. Furthermore, the regulation of international armed conflicts is also considerably more comprehensive than that offered for participants in and victims of non-international armed conflicts. This book asks whether the legal distinction between international and non-international armed conflicts remains viable or whether inte ... More

Currently, International Humanitarian Law (IHL) also known as the law of armed conflict, makes the distinction between international and non-international armed conflicts. International armed conflicts are regulated by more treaties than their non-international counterparts. Furthermore, the regulation of international armed conflicts is also considerably more comprehensive than that offered for participants in and victims of non-international armed conflicts. This book asks whether the legal distinction between international and non-international armed conflicts remains viable or whether international law should move to maintain its consonance with the situations it seeks to regulate by developing a unified legal regime applicable in all armed conflicts. There is considerable precedent to support moves towards the elimination of the legal distinction between international and non-international armed conflicts. This book argues that IHL, a law which has, as one of its primary aims, the protection of the person in times of armed conflict, should not distinguish between types of armed conflict, specifically in how the law treats the vulnerable in times of armed conflict – those hors de combat due to illness and injury, and those deprived of their liberty through capture or surrender