To Kill or not to Kill.....

                              To Kill or Not to Kill

                                               By : Paul Bonnin Pfiffner

At the core of the law of armed conflict is the regulation of the use of force. Whilst we tend to concentrate today on what used to be called ‘Geneva’ law, that relating to the protection of victims of war, the traditional basis of the ‘law of war’ was the regulation of the conduct of hostilities. Whatever the legal niceties, war in the final analysis comes down to the regulated use of force. This regulation applies not just to the strategic level where senior commanders plan their campaigns but also to the tactical level where individual meets individual face to face. It is at this lower level that it is perhaps most essential to have clear rules so that the individual can act instinctively in accordance with the rules. If the rules are not clear, the risk of confusion and unlawful activity increases dramatically.

The changing nature of conflict over the last 20 years has been accompanied by similar changes in the legal frameworks relating to the spectrum of violence. Just as the traditional boundaries that have divided conflict into different types appear to have broken down, so the legal regimes have merged into one another with not altogether satisfactory results.

The ancient distinction between ‘war’ and ‘peace’ began to collapse after the end of the Second World War. War had always been considered to be the prerogative of States. Internal conflict was not a matter for international concern and was subject solely to domestic law. However, in 1949, when a Diplomatic Conference was examining and reformulating the earlier Geneva Conventions of 1929, the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC)—with remarkable foresight—pushed for them to be extended from international to non-international armed conflict. This was a step too far for States and the end result was a single article.