The Applicability of International Humanitarian Law between States and Terrorist Groups

Difficulties that arise for the classification of an extraterritorial armed conflict between states and terrorist groups include identifying the existence of armed conflict and classifying the nature of the armed conflict correctly. Difficulties may also arise in terms of the geographical scope of application of IHL, especially where the conflict between parties is scattered about numerous locations. Generally, a conflict which has on the one side a state party and a non-state party such as a terrorist group, on the other hand, will usually be non-international in nature, even if it expands to include the territory of other states. If the force being used in another state is non-consensual, there will be a need to determine whether such extraterritorial use of force has not also triggered an international armed conflict. Situations may arise in which there exist an affiliate of a group engaging a state across several territories. Under such situations, it may be necessary to determine whether the affiliated group is part of an identifiable party and whether extraterritorial use of force can be extended to those affiliates on the basis that the conflict is a single pre-existing conflict. It is not clear how such situations should be determined. Nevertheless, an armed group seemingly being controlled by another armed group may suffice. IHL as a legal framework is not necessarily concerned with the geographical constraints that may exist in physical. It is primarily concerned with how its rules will apply to situations of armed conflict regardless of the geographical dislocation of the parties to the conflict. On a whole, extraterritorial conflicts present considerable challenges across all relevant areas of IHL. Nevertheless, this study demonstrates that through a concise and careful appraisal of those complexities, they can sufficiently be addressed by the existing legal paradigm