Acceso usuarios
The prevailing view of the form which the effort to regulate non-international armed conflicts should take has been summarized by the Appeals Chamber of the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY) in the Tadic interlocutory appeal on jurisdiction: �[w]hat is inhumane, and consequently proscribed, in international wars, cannot but be inhumane and inadmissible in civil strife�. 1 This mirroring approach of emulating the laws applicable in international armed conflicts in the non-international context was subsequently adopted by the drafters of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court in 1998; the drafters chose to include a list of war crimes applicable in cases of non-international armed conflicts which resembled (though was still narrower than) the list of crimes applicable in international conflicts. The recent Kampala ICC review conference expanded the non-international crimes list, further narrowing the gap between the �international� and the �non-international� lists of crimes. 2 Taking a similar position, the 2005 study on customary international humanitarian law (IHL) published by the International Committee of the Red Cross concluded that all but a handful of the rules identified as customary applied in international and non-international armed conflicts equally. 3 Given the traditional resistance by states to assuming the same degree and range of constraints which apply in international armed conflicts in internal ones, humanitarian advocates have sought to advance the regulation of internal armed conflicts by supplementing IHL with norms borrowed from international criminal law (ICL) and international human rights laws (IHRL). The resulting international law of internal armed conflicts has thus been a patchwork of norms which ostensibly apply to all non-international armed conflicts, drawn from the IHL of international conflicts, ICL, and IHRL, often proving to be incoherent, unworkable, and ineffective.
