as a cover for their operations.
When the situation reaches this level, a Peace Operation is an available solution to the international community to react against this menace to international peace and security, and restore and preserve a safe and secure environment for the civilian population.
The Pakistani government may not support Al Qa’ida actively, but the terrorist group was taking advantage from their sovereignty as a shield to carry on their operations, and the targets were many Nations of the West (The United States, France and England, for example).
The Washington-Islamabad tension in 2011 could have been solved much easily if the international community and Pakistan considered terrorism a crime in international law, and al Qa’ida a non-State player acting outside IHL in terms of objective (jus ad bellum) and methods (jus in bello). From this point of view, the incursion in Pakistani territory is completely genuine, and the intention of US troops was not to occupy or raid foreign territory, but to find and neutralize a combatant, and a person sought for crimes in international law.
This case shows the need that a peacekeeping force needs soldiers trained specifically for this kind of operation, in order to provide a counterterrorism capability available to deal with potential spoilers of the peace process. If Blue Helmets have the legitimacy, they must also have the equipment and training to deal with persons not willing to dialogue or negotiate.
We conclude that State’s Sovereignty can not just be a shield for terrorist activities but also the main target of terror. And in both cases, a Peacekeeping Mission is a solution to the terrorist menace in fragile countries, as well as other menaces to peace and security.
CONCLUSION
The main sources of international humanitarian law are consuetudinary, but there are also the Hague Regulations of 1907, about the laws and customs of war on Land, the Geneva Conventions of 1949, the two Additional Protocols of 1977, and many other conventions restraining and/or prohibiting certain weapons. These regulations shall apply to all persons engaged in combat, no matter what kind of combatant s/he is, or the compliance to its rules.
Additionally, in any circumstances an armed conflict is regulated by Article 3 Common to the Four Geneva Conventions of 1949. In this respect, the International Court of Justice has considered it the least considerations of humanity, a regulation applicable to armed conflicts, be they international or not.
As previously exposed, in all kinds of armed conflict, one of the most important rules for the conduct of hostilities is that all parties do the distinction between themselves, as warring parties, and persons not directly involved in the conflict, like the civilian population, armed groups that surrendered or become hors de combat, by illness, injuries, detention or other causes.
Also, all persons that are not, or no longer, participating in the conflict shall be treated humanely, and they shall not suffer acts against their lives and physical integrity, including mutilations, torture or other cruel treatments. In addition, any person engaged in combat, disregarding his nationality, must respect the core rules for the conduct of hostilities, be they armed forces, militia, criminal organizations or terrorists.
However, the asymmetry of a conflict, especially in technological resources, may lead the defavorized party to disrespect IHL rules, in order to endure in action, that is, take the only possible alternative to keep fighting. Nonetheless, this option is illegal, and must be considered a crime in international law. In legal terms, this is how terrorism arises.
Thus, in order to prevent terror, the international community must show that it is not a legal option to any party in a conflict, and confirm it in both strategic and tactical levels.
The best way for the combatant to survive is to avoid the enemy to locate him and identify the enemy troops in the field. This disguise can be done by many legal methods (camouflages, ruses de guerre, counterintelligence, etc.).
On the other hand, if one combatant tries to disguise himself among the civilian population, by wearing civilian clothes during the attack, or using the proximity of civilian persons or property to shield themselves, to benefit from the statute of protected person, they are not only disguising themselves, but are also exposing the civilian population to the danger of collateral damage. This is Perfidy, and is considered a crime in international law.
Terrorists go further. They do not only use Perfidy to carry on their operations, covering themselves as non-combatants, but they also target Protected Persons or Properties, with the intent to spoil the sovereignty of a State. By doing this, they put in danger the same State that protects the civilian population. This is a crime against humanity, and in this way the violators of LoAC and IHL must be prosecuted for crimes of international nature.
Today slavery and pirating are considered crimes of international character, but a few centuries ago the efforts against these two illegal conducts were not considered as such. Until the international community became aware that slavery and pirating must be fought worldwide, their perpetrators still had safe havens to carry on their businesses.
During the Eighteenth Century many international agreements were signed to restrain slavery. Some of them were successful, and many were not, due to the absence of proper institutions and procedures for enforcement. The first international document specifically related to slavery was the 1815 Declaration relative to the Universal Abolition of Slave Trade, with limited scope and applicability.
Due to a doctrinary evolution, now slavery is considered:
- A crime in international law, regardless of any quality of the person (race, sex, etc.);
- When committed by a government, it is a crime against humanity;
- If committed by a nation at war against the citizens of the opponent, a war crime.
Piracy is similar to an act of aggression, but committed by non-State actors against a vessel. They are not mere acts of robbery and violence, but an act of interference to free trade among nations, and a menace to international commerce. If the international community did not consider pirating a crime in international law, the efforts to fight pirates would be palliative.
Terrorism is the worldwide hazard of the XXIst Century, as slavery and pirating were in the past. Appropriate understanding of the criminal act is a must to do a suitable countering, and it is reasonable to believe that terrorism will follow the same path as the previous international menaces.
In the past, threats to international peace and security were dealt by each country separately, according to their military capability and their financial possibilities. However, nowadays a Peace Operation is an instrument capable of fighting these menaces in countries that don’t have enough resources to deal with it (fragile countries), because it may bring legitimacy and unity of effort for all those who deal with perils to peace.
Terrorism is a threat to the State Sovereignty, and therefore to the existence of a Nation. Be it small or huge, be the victim a strong or failing State, it shall be considered a threat to international peace and security, and a crime in international law, to be fought adequately both in tactical and strategic levels.
In conclusion, fighting terror is the challenge for the international community in this century. Peace Operations capable of countering terrorism, authorized by their mandate and their Rules of Engagement, and also authorized to act as the executive organ of International Criminal Tribunals, together with proper doctrine of terrorism as a crime in international law, and intelligence services to collect evidence according to International Humanitarian Law, are a great opportunity to have a long-standing counter terrorism policy.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
ABC News, Available at . Accessed in May 02, 2011.
BALMOND, Louis. Droit du recours à la force. Université de Nice, 2010.
BBC News. Available at . Accessed in May 02, 2011.
BOLZ, Frank Jr; DUDONIS, Kenneth J. Counterterrorism Handbook. CRC, 2002
BOUCHET-SAULNIER, Françoise. La Guerre contre le terrorisme et le droit humanitaire. Universit�
� de Nice, 2010.
BOUVIER, Antoine A. International Humanitarian Law and the Law of Armed Conflict. Peace Operations Training Institute, 2008.
BROWNLIE, Ian. Principles of Public International Law. Oxford Press, 2008.
CONOIR, Yvan. The Conduct of Humanitarian Relief Operations: Principles of Intervention and Management. Peace Operations Training Institute, 2008.
FOLHA ONLINE, Available at < https://www1.folha.uol.com.br/folha/reuters/> Access in: Jun 12 2011.
GASSER, Hans Peter. Acts of Terror, Terrorism and International Humanitarian Law, Université de Nice, 2010.
HÅRLEMAN, Christian. An Introduction to the UN System: Orientation for Serving on a UN Field Mission. Peace Operations Training Institute, 2008.
JONES, Bruce. Looking to the Future: Peace Operations in 2015, Recueil de Lectures du Séminaire d’approfondissement des Missions de Paix de Nations Unies. UQAM, 2011.
MARIGHELLA, Carlos. Minimanual do Guerrilheiro Urbano, New World Liberation Front, 1970, p. 32.
MEDHURST, Paul. Global Terrorism. Peace Operations Training Institute, 2008.
MEYROWITZ, Henri. Le principe de l’egalité des belligérants devant le droit de la guerre. Université de Nice, 2010.
MILLET-DEVALLE, Anne-Sophie. Religions et Droit International Humanitaire. Université de Nice, 2010.
SECONDAT, Charles de
Combating the Good Combat - How to fight Terrorism with a Peacekeeping Mission Page 15
