CYIL vol. 11 (2020)

CYIL 11 (2020) THE CLASSIFICATION OF ARMED CONFLICTS – INTERNATIONALIZED, … one international (thus IAC law applicable) and another non-international (thus NIAC law applicable). Thus, it was not two regimes in a single internationalized conflict, rather two different regimes, each in one conflict where one of the actors was active in both conflicts. Though the issue is far from settled and case law has not helped resolve the matter, general international law may be of guidance. Solely for the purposes of a non-state actor under either complete dependence or effective control (if we accept the degree required by ICJ to attribute the violations of law committed by the non-state actor to the supporting state), it might be suggested that (if the acts in question were in fact of armed character) in case of the non-state actor being completely dependent on the supporting state (assimilated organs) that the entity in fact acts on behalf of the supporting state because it is in an analogous situation to its organs de iure and the violations of law are attributable to that state. Consequently, due to their status, it is as if the supporting state used its organs de iure and that would definitely lead to an IAC and applicability of IAC law. As such, if the non-state actor is an assimilated organ, the applicable law should be IAC. If, however, the group is “only” controlled effectively (the less if by overall control), it still acts on its own (though some of its acts may be attributed to the supporting state) and it may not be compared in the same way to a supporting state acting by its own de iure organs. Thus, NIAC should apply to the relationship between the rebels and the government they fight. However, neither the complete internationalization nor mixed regimes completely fit the current needs of militaries and states. Without sufficient and convincing practice or a new treaty-based regulation, we are limited to the current classifications or to de lege ferenda suggestions. 4. Transnational conflicts Though internationalized armed conflicts by intervention through an effectively controlled non-state actor within the territory of another state are complicated enough, they do not exhaust the examples of problematic armed conflicts in the least. There are numerous other examples that do not entirely fit into the categories of IAC and NIAC. While the internationalized armed conflict does not fit the terminology because it takes place within the territory of one state (thus it should be an internal armed conflict) even if several states take part, other examples (as shown below) might be between a non-state actor(s) on one side and state(s) on the other, taking place in various territories. This category is called transnational armed conflicts. 41 The following text first briefly describes a short scenario and then discusses it and suggests their possible classification. 4.1 State A attacks a non-state group C within the territory of state B without B’s consent There is IAC between A and B and an NIAC between A and C. The reason for the IAC between A and B is that the use of force was exercised on B’s territory without its consent, regardless of whether the use of force against C was based on self-defence. It does not matter whether B responded with armed force against A as well because the definition 41 BÍLKOVÁ, V., New Challenges to the Classification of Armed Conflicts. In: Recueils de la Société Internationale de Droit Penal Militaire et de Droit de la Guerre , vol. 20, 2015, p. 295.

323