It is difficult because we try to separate the combatant from the civilian in order to protect civilians, and if we are not clear in the distinction between the combatant and the civilian, it always becomes complicated in IHL. The problem at the time was that militarily powerful States only wanted to have recognized as combatants members of the regular armed forces and that small States, sometimes without a regular army, said that in the event of aggression they should also be able to stand up to civilians who would take up arms more or less spontaneously in order to defend the country and a consensus could not be reached on this very difficult issue. It is still so today, but not in the same way. There had been some attempts before The Hague in 1899 to generally codify the law of war, but it had not been successful, notably the Brussels Conference of 1874 because too strong differences had emerged between some States on specific issues and in particular the status of combatant which was highly controversial at the time. It did not take place because of the First World War. The first codification of the law of armed conflict took place at the very end of the century, namely in 1899 with the 1907 Review Conference and the next Review Conference would have been in 1914. We will then analyse in more detail the provisions in the various chapters where this will be necessary. Presenting them means putting them in their historical context and saying a few words about their content. Before we do that, let us present the three most important sets of conventions in IHL with which we will constantly work. Before I say the role that treaties play, a fundamental role in the law of armed conflict, there is not a single area of international law where there are more treaties, more codification than the law of armed conflict. The Treaties įirst and foremost, there are the treaties.

The law of armed conflict