The classification of situations of armed violence under International Humanitarian Law has important consequences in the international legal system. In particular, states involved in armed conflicts are bestowed with rights and duties that do not exist outside an armed conflict.The international armed conflict concerns itself with two distinct categories of armed conflicts, namely, International and Non-International armed conflicts. Despite the extreme polarity between the two categories, IHL does not recognize any other category under its ambit.

The basic divergence between the two categories of conflicts is based on two factors. The first factor is the involvement of parties. While international armed conflict involves sovereign states, non-international conflict takes into account the conflict between thestate and the organized and recognized armed group within the state. Secondly, the threshold of the intensity of violence is different. The level of violence required to trigger an international armed conflict is higher than that required to constitute a non-international armed conflict.

From the perspective of IHL, when a situation of armed conflict arises within a state, between the government and the non-state actors, it is recognized as a non-international armed conflict. However, not every situation of armed violence within a state shall amount to a non-international armed conflict. The non-governmental groups involved in the conflict must be considered “parties”, meaning that they possess organized armed forces and have a certain command structure along with the capacity to sustain military operations. Mere internal strife or disturbance shall not be covered under the ambit of the 1949 Geneva Conventions. Furthermore, the hostilities within the state must reach a minimum level of intensity, for example, when the sovereign in authority is obliged to use military force against the insurgents, instead ofa mere police force.

The concept of non-international armed conflict, synonymous with internal armed conflict is analyzed based on two main treaty texts: common article 3 to the Geneva conventions of 1949 and article 1 of additional protocol II of 1977.

The word “Common article”suggests the identicality of article 3 in all four Geneva conventions.Article 3 elaborates that the non-international armed conflicts or internal armed conflicts are conflicts not of an international character and it further mentions the two prerequisite conditions for it to amount to a non-international armed conflict, already discussed above.

The additional protocol II is relevant to the internal armed conflict which takes place between a state’s armed forces and the rebel armed group which is organized and functions under command systematically. However, this does not apply to liberation wars as they are taken to be international armed conflictsunderarticle 1(4) of additional protocol I.Both of the articles when read collectively, limit the field of application of IHL under non-internationalarmed conflict.

On a concluding note, IHL continues to develop and there is a need to address the grey area amidst the black and white laws so that there is a guaranteed human treatment to each person that finds themselvesin the power of the enemy and requires that person wounded in the hostilities, including wounded enemy fighters, be collected and cared for without discrimination.