Initiated in 2007 and hosted by the Geneva Academy of International Humanitarian Law and Human Rights, the Rule of Law in Armed Conflicts (RULAC) project is a website that systematically qualifies situations of armed violence, using the definition of armed conflict under international humanitarian law. RULAC also identifies the parties to armed conflicts. The website is still under development and new entries continue to be added. Presentation with Dr Sandra Krähenmann, Research Fellow at the Geneva Academy.
Whom and what is this site for?
The portal is intended as a legal reference source for a broad audience, not only specialists or academics. The browsable map allows for a more intuitive approach. By using multiple map filters for types of armed conflicts and parties to such conflicts, visitors can visualise where conflicts take place and which states are parties to these conflicts.
The selection of classification criteria seems to have been very important. Why did you choose this specific methodology?
One may use different definitions of armed conflicts for different purposes. The definition used in international humanitarian law is just one amongst many others. Yet the question whether a situation of armed violence amounts to an armed conflict under international humanitarian law has far-reaching consequences. Most importantly, states involved in armed conflicts will have rights and duties that do not exist in times of peace. Or, war crimes can only be committed in connection with an armed conflict.
The classification of situations of armed violence under international humanitarian law is fraught with difficulties. Governments frequently deny that they are involved in armed conflicts, arguing that they are engaged in counter-terrorism operations not governed by international humanitarian law. Others apply international humanitarian law to situations that do not amount to an armed conflict under international humanitarian law. For example, most debates around drones start with a discussion whether drones are used during an armed conflict or outside an armed conflict. The RULAC portal provides a possible classification of such situations, using the criteria of international humanitarian law. To the best of our knowledge, there is no other institution that systematically and publicly undertakes such classification.
What was the most controversial issue you had to manage? Can you give concrete examples of the stakes behind classification decisions?
From a doctrinal perspective, the most controversial decision we took was probably in relation to the classification of the use of force by a state against a non-state armed group located on the territory of another state without the consent of the territorial state. This question remains hotly debated. For the RULAC portal we decided to opt for so-called dual qualification: the use of force against the non-state armed group is a non-international armed conflict, but there is a parallel international armed conflict between the intervening state and the territorial state. Concretely this means that for example in relation to Syria, there are multiple overlapping armed conflicts. In addition to the non-international armed conflict between the international coalition and the group that calls itself Islamic State, the Syrian government, supported by Russia, is fighting against a wide array of rebel groups, including the Islamic State group. Yet there is also a parallel international armed conflict between Syria and the international coalition.
Other difficult questions may arise when foreign states intervene with the consent of the territorial state, but the validity of consent is contested. For example, in some situations of armed conflict, such as Yemen or Libya, competing entities claim to constitute the government that represents the state and thus could validly express such consent.
Can we observe an evolution of the armed conflicts in the world?
Two aspects deserve to be highlighted. First, the protracted nature of many contemporary armed conflicts. For the launch of the new RULAC portal in January, we limited its scope to conflicts that have emerged since 2011 and are still ongoing. Many armed conflicts have been going on for much longer, e.g. most situations of military occupations, including the Occupied Palestinian Territories, or the armed conflicts in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Somalia, or Afghanistan, to name just a few. Second, while many armed conflicts are taking place in the Middle East and the African continent, the state parties to these conflicts come from across the world. For example, in Syria, there are currently 12 foreign states involved.
How do you manage to collect information from the whole world? Is it through an experts’ network?
The entries are mainly the result of desk research, relying mostly on open source information, but also databases such as the Armed Conflict Database of the International Institute for Strategic Studies. We use a non-exclusive list of sources to consult in order to ensure consistency and coherency. When researching conflicts, it is quite striking how some conflicts are very well documented, while others are almost forgotten, for example the armed conflict in Myanmar. In addition, in 2016, we initiated a collaboration with the University of Essex’ Human Rights Centre. A team of postgraduate students contributes research and entries to RULAC.
The RULAC project presents its research through an online portal. Which main lessons do you draw from this approach?
Two things come to mind. First, the decision to work with a map and to use the map as a tool to transmit information had several implications. Most importantly, it forces you to take a decision. Based on an appreciation of the available facts, you have to decide whether a country is involved in an armed conflict or not; there cannot be an “it depends”: either the country appears on the map or it doesn’t. Second, contrary to a project that results in a publication, an online portal is a dynamic and living product. In some way, the real work starts with the launch of the portal as you have to keep it going and add new content. Currently we are in the process of updating the existing conflict entries and adding new ones.