Modern martial law, particularly in Additional Protocol I to the Geneva Conventions of 1949, prohibits attacking persons who parachute from aircraft in distress, regardless of the area over which they are located. Once they land in an enemy-controlled area, they must be given the opportunity to surrender before being attacked, unless it is obvious that they are performing an enemy act or attempting to escape. This prohibition does not apply to the dropping of airborne troops, special forces, commandos, spies, saboteurs, liaison officers and intelligence officers. Therefore, these parachute descenders are legitimate targets and can therefore be attacked even if their aircraft is in distress. The sum of international humanitarian law consists of treaty law, customary law and the general principles mentioned above – judicial decisions and leading academics being subsidiary means of determining law. In the Indian subcontinent, the Mahabharata describes a discussion among brother leaders about what constitutes acceptable behavior on a battlefield, an early example of the rule of proportionality: in both cases, people protected by the Red Cross/Crescent/Star or White Flag are expected to maintain neutrality and not engage in acts of war. In fact, participating in war activities under a protected symbol is in itself a violation of the laws of war known as perfidy. Failure to comply with these requirements may result in the loss of protection status and make the person violating the requirements a legitimate target. [ref. Moreover, the decision of the Nuremberg War Trials on the “War Crimes and Crimes Against Humanity Act”[15] under the Nuremberg Principles concluded that treaties such as the 1907 Hague Convention, which had been widely accepted by “all civilized nations” for about half a century, were then part of the customary law of war and were binding on all parties. whether or not the party is a signatory to the specific contract. In addition to their treaty status, the substantive provisions of the conventions are binding on all states under customary international law – an extremely dense body of unwritten international law that binds all states as evidence of “general practice accepted as law.” Therefore, if a new country is formed or an existing State party withdraws from the Conventions, their substantive provisions would remain binding.
After Ethiopia`s secession in 1993, Eritrea did not ratify the conventions and explicitly opposed their successive application until it ratified them in 2000. Consequently, the conventions were not applicable under treaty law in the early years of the war between Ethiopia and Eritrea. However, the Eritrea-Ethiopia Claims Commission considered that the substantive provisions of the Geneva Conventions had acquired customary law and were therefore applicable independently. Technical and detailed provisions of the Conventions, such as the authorization of prisoners of war to consume tobacco, have been proposed as examples of rules that are not substantive and would not be binding under customary law. The laws of IHL are necessarily the same for everyone, regardless of their nationality and whether or not you think they are fighting for a just cause. When you reflect on your opinion about the correct interpretation of laws or what you think laws should be, remember that you cannot have one set of rules for your nation and another set of rules for everyone else. The good guys of your country have the same permissions, restrictions, and protections as the evil enemies, and the civilians of your country are treated the same as the civilians of any other country. Whenever you apply the law to a scenario where your nation is involved in the struggle, try to reverse the roles and see if you still get the same result.
Why do we have different rules for CAIs and CAINS? The simple answer is that the nations of the world – who collectively enact IHL laws – do not want to grant immunity to non-state armed groups (which could include groups that have taken up arms to overthrow their governments) from the international community`s resolution of conflicts they consider to be purely internal issues. and consider that extending the protections and guarantees offered by the Interim Court law to non-State armed groups would give them an element of legitimacy that States wish to avoid at all costs. Martial law is binding not only on states as such, but also on individuals and especially on members of their armed forces. The Parties shall be bound by the laws of war, provided that such observance does not jeopardize the achievement of legitimate military objectives. For example, they are required to do everything possible to avoid damaging people and property not participating in combat or the war effort, but they are not guilty of a war crime if a bomb accidentally or accidentally hits a residential area. [ref. needed] List of declarations, conventions, treaties and judgments relating to the laws of war[27][28][29]: Far from being states of anarchic anarchy, armed conflicts are subject to one of the most important sets of rules in all of international law.
