CYIL vol. 8 (2017)

TUOMAS HEIKKINEN – MARTIN FAIX CYIL 8 ȍ2017Ȏ 2009), Brisbane, Australia (2003) and Prague, Czech Republic (Ph.D., 2011, JUDr., 2012). In his teaching and research, Dr. Faix focuses on the law of International Organisations (especially regional organisations), International Human Rights Law and International Security Law (military operations of international organisations). Introduction Conduct of warfare by two or more States forming arrangements usually in the form of common Alliances or Coalitions (of States) is an old phenomenon, but only the last decades have brought a significant increase of Multinational Military Operations (MMOs) with a high degree of coordination and integration of participating actors. 1 This is the case especially with multinational operations carried out under the auspices of international organizations, such as the United Nations, NATO or others. 2 From a legal point of view, multinational operations are an extremely complex undertaking. Their normative framework comprises international and domestic law rules and the question of sources of applicable legal norms, the scope of their application and content, must necessarily take into account features and specificities of each operation. Undoubtedly, one of the important parts of such normative framework are the rules of international humanitarian law. The applicability of IHL to peace operations conducted under unified command and control (of international organisations) has continued to be a matter of considerable debate. Nevertheless, the majority of authors accepts nowadays the idea of IHL applicability in such situations and considers the UN and some other international organisations as a subject of IHL. The modalities, such as the scope and content of applicable IHL rules remain however unclear. The reasons for such legal murkiness are various. International organisations, for example, cannot become party to IHL treaties or directly implement certain rules of IHL. The burden of ensuring that IHL will be applied properly lies thus in the hands of States participating in the operation, i.e. Member States and third States (if they contribute to the MMO). This contribution aims at exploring the content of obligations of TCSs resulting from the Common Article 1. Under Common Article 1, States are obligated to “ respect and to ensure respect for the present Convention in all circumstances. ” The authors will attempt to show that the clause has developed into meaning that High Contracting Parties to the Geneva Conventions must not only follow the Geneva Conventions themselves, but also take measures to stop and prevent other entities from breaching IHL. It will be shown that while Common Article 1 was originally not to be understood as requiring to ensure respect for IHL 2 The United Nations, being originally the first and only organisation under the auspices of which peace operations were conducted, pledged and urged since the 1990s regional organisations for greater involvement in peace operations and thus “sharing the burden” (SAMS, Katie E. IHL Obligations of the UN in International Missions. In: ODELLO, Marco, PIOTROWICZ, Ryzsard (eds.), International Military Mission and International Law , Leiden: Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, 2011, pp. 45-73, at pp. 48-49). The NATO, the European Union, the Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS) or the African Union (AU), and other regional organisations reflected this request and have been showing growing willingness to deploy forces under their auspices, often also outside of the territory of their members states, conducting so-called “out of area” deployments. 1. 1 STEIN, Torsten, Coalition Warfare and Different Legal Obligations of Coalition Members under International Humanitarian Law. International Law Studies , 2002, Vol. 78, p. 315.

322