 I should speak about what is an armed conflict and this is a specificity of international humanitarian law that it applies only to armed conflicts and therefore it's decisive whether we have an armed conflict because otherwise humanitarian law does not apply. My first point is perhaps about, I see so many faces of experts that I don't dare to say it but perhaps for the few people who are not experts to clarify who decides because I most often ask this question and I have to tell you it is not the states concerned who decide finally whether there is an armed conflict or not so when there is an armed conflict in the ICC I don't speak about countries so Utopia there's an armed conflict in Utopia and Nirvana supports some rebels in Utopia and the question is first is there a non-international armed conflict in Utopia or is it even an international armed conflict because there is such a support of these rebels it's neither Utopia nor Nirvana who have the final say everyone every subject of international law or international organizations the ICC every scholar can have an opinion about this but obviously they cannot impose their opinion on Utopia and Nirvana because Utopia and Nirvana if they say there's no armed conflict what the others say is not decisive because we are in international law where most of the time we don't have a court or a body deciding the same thing is if in a hypothetical Gulbekistan 100,000 troops are fighting against terrorists and the government of Gulbekistan says these are simply terrorists and there's no armed conflict in our country it is since 1949 no longer the case that it is Gulbekistan deciding whether there is an armed conflict but no one else can impose on Gulbekistan the classification so let's look what is an armed conflict and in my view there is no unique definition of armed conflict but there are international armed conflicts these armed conflict between states and there are non-international armed conflicts which are armed conflicts between armed groups or between an armed group and one 15 or 100 states on the other side so decisive is not where it happens but who are the parties to determine whether it's an international or a non-international conflict and let's start with international armed conflict the first your question is the triggering act the nature of the triggering act in my view there it is necessary that there is a use of force but every use of force between states triggers an international armed conflict this is not uncontroversial in the pique des commentaries of the ICSC it is said that also the capture of a soldier is sufficient to trigger an international armed conflict sounds good but the theory behind it is that IHL applies as soon as a situation arises for which there are rules but there are also rules in IHL on the detention of civilians and the treatment of sick people you cannot say every time someone is sick there is an armed conflict nor every time someone a foreigner is arrested therefore I think at the basis there must be a use of force while I agree with the ICSC commentary and the ICSC that for international armed conflict just can be very low the first shot has written this is not uncontroversial the international law association has adopted a report which adopts a unique concept of armed conflict and says there is need of a certain level of violence and otherwise there's no international armed conflict and at least when we hear what states say they indeed don't call international armed conflict everything which means violence between two states but they may have used at Bellum arguments and as we say in Latin falza demonstrazio no notes it in the sense it's not a terminology used by the parties which is decisive then from whom must it come this violence this is everyone who is attributable to a state if that person is not declared by a higher authority as not representing the state the state is then nevertheless responsible but there's no international armed conflict I always give the example of my son who is a Swiss soldier as all Swiss men and if he is drunken and on the French border he kills a French soldier and immediately his commander says we are sorry then there was no international armed conflict between sorry I mentioned two countries but you understand okay and this is quite the majority opinion which is something where I have adopted a minority opinion after teaching for years the opposite and it was one of my doctoral students who convinced me is the target in my view when a state is specifically targeting an armed group in another country even if that country doesn't consent that's a violation of the UN start obviously except if it is in self-defense but it is a non-international armed conflict while the majority opinion is that as soon and this is what I taught to two generations of students so I feel sympathetic to this opinion the majority opinion is as soon as you use force on the territory of a non- consenting state there is an international armed conflict I think the rules are simply not appropriate say today sorry I mentioned countries the US attacks on the so-called Islamic State on the territory of Syria if we assume that Syria does not consent with them the rules of international armed conflicts are not really appropriate to that and therefore while the use that bellow applies obviously in use in Bello I would apply the law of non-international of non-international conflicts and with that we come to non-international conflict non-international conflicts need a higher level of violence because while fortunately it's not normal between states to use force it is normal that there is violence within a state unfortunately not every violence in a state is an armed conflict because in an armed conflict you can do many more things which would be prohibited in peacetime and in addition the armed group must have a minimum level of organization which is quite a level of organization there is a controversy whether there is a third criterion which is a political aim I have some sympathy in theory for the idea that if the aim is purely drug dealing this is not an armed conflict but it creates great problems of application and every state will then say our rebels this is not a political aim they are simply criminals and then you have to discuss is this criminal or not criminal and are the terrorists and so on and therefore I think political aim and it's nowhere in the texts that the political aim is decisive and how do you define political aims and so on so then protocol additional two has a higher level you must control territory and it must be a conflict between governmental forces and rebel forces then some conflicts to some non-international armed conflicts the whole of international human attain law applies which is if there's an agreement between the parties or if there's a recognition of belligerency which must be expressed by the government now how can a conflict be mixed obviously many conflicts are mixed there here we have two situations either if a state has overall control this was the case of nova nirvana and utopia has overall control over rebels in a neighboring country then in reality this is an international armed conflict one single international conflict another possible situation is if we have an intervention of a state in a non-international armed conflict without control over the armed group then we have two conflicts we have the conflict between the armed group and the government and an international conflict between the outside state intervening against the state and in favor of the armed group while when outside states intervene in favor of the government the conflict remains a non-international armed conflict finally I forgot something of certain actuality among the international armed conflict there are two specific situations belligerent occupation so if utopia occupies a peninsula of nirvana even if there is no armed resistance the law of international armed conflict applies and second national liberation wars in which a people is fighting against foreign occupation colonial domination or a racist regime is at least on the protocol one an international armed conflict and I conclude by saying that somehow these distinctions between what is an armed conflict what is an international a non-international sound embarrassing especially for human Italians because they can invoke the rules only once they have classified the conflict and the other the state has a first line of defense saying we are not in an armed conflict today Switzerland doesn't have to comply with the Sergei Neva convention because there's no armed conflict and so if Gulbekistan says there's no armed conflict it doesn't have to comply with IHL but the distinction is states like this distinction it is in my view inherent in the Westphalian system and it has also some advantages for the persons affected by armed conflict because precisely when there is no armed conflict things are prohibited which are at least not prohibited in armed conflicts like to kill deliberately people or to detain people without judicial control for an indefinite time which is the prisoner of war status and even between international and non international armed conflict I think but here I'm nearly a minor this is a minority opinion that is also in the interest of victims that the two are not governed by the same detailed rules because anyway armed groups could never respect those rules thank you very much because this allows me on the first issue to correct the wrong impression I have given my point about every use of force was about international armed conflict for non-international armed conflict you need a level of violence which in my view is quite high here I'm not in agreement with piquete simply at the time of piquete humanitarian law was all we had while today we all have human rights law so we have to take and this is not a policy I never make policy policy no it's not policy it's low because law is interpreted in the context of the rest of international law and the fact that we have other rules allows us to interpret the inter applicability of existing rules so this was for international conflict non international conflict we have a higher level of violence and I would say if and we all hope for that what you hope happens in Colombia there's no more armed conflict because the violence by the drug dealers is not of a sufficient level and the important point in my view is which should make you relax is that as far as I know all the drug dealers are not one party so if you are correct you have to take each group and analyze whether the hostilities between that group and it's not the drug dealers it's the armed group of the drug dealers it has a sufficient level of violence to be a non-international armed conflict and here's the big difference with Afghanistan the drug but they fight against each other while basically the Taliban there are dissensions and so on but they are one party to the conflict and so while out of this very justified concern you have to say let us introduce the criterion of a political aim and as I said I have some sympathy for it perhaps because I'm from the 1968 generation of political aims are for me somehow noble and people who want to deal with drugs are not noble but nevertheless I must say in international reality otherwise how every government has or nearly every government has a good case to say you know these people are only criminals and then you have perhaps because I was an ICSE delegate I imagine myself negotiating waiting with the government and saying no no these are not only criminals these are also people who have a political aim and then how do you define it is it sufficient that they declare a political aim or do we have to make a nice seminar at the Grader the Institute about because University of Geneva doesn't deal with such issues about whether this is genuinely political so you see the point the result is exactly the same you want to reach but I wouldn't add the political aim as a criteria