13
 
to distinguish between a situation of internal armed conflict and the existence of civil strife or internal disturbance, involving isolated acts of violence. Such civil strife is often considered by States to be inappropriate for international attention, and this is indeed the position of the government of the FRY in relation to the Kosovo conflict. Thus, in 1949, during the drafting of the Geneva Conventions, different criteria were evoked to define an armed conflict of a non-international character. The Commentary to common article 3 describes certain elements which could be indicative of the existence of such an armed conflict:

"(1) That the Party in revolt against the de jure Government possesses an organized military force, an authority responsible for its acts, acting within a determinate territory and having the means of respecting and ensuring respect for the Convention.

(2) That the legal Government is obliged to have recourse to the regular military forces against insurgents organized as military and in possession of a part of the national territory.

(3) (a) That the de jure Government has recognized the insurgents as belligerents; or

(b) That it has claimed for itself the rights of a belligerent; or

(c) That it has accorded the insurgents recognition as belligerents for the purposes only of the present Convention; or

(d) That the dispute has been admitted to the agenda of the Security Council or the General Assembly of the United Nations as being a threat to international peace, a breach of the peace, or an act of aggression.

(4) (a) that the insurgents have an organization purporting to have the characteristics of a State.

(b) That the insurgent civil authority exercises de facto authority over the population within a determinate portion of the national territory.

(c) That the armed forces act under the direction of an organized authority and are prepared to observe the ordinary laws of war.

(d) That the insurgent civil authority agrees to be bound by the provisions of the Convention."9

The Commentary is also careful to emphasise that the absence of such indicators does not, however, render article 3 inapplicable, for "the scope of application of the Article must be as wide as possible."

During the Diplomatic Conference which led to the adoption of the two Additional Protocols to the Geneva Conventions in 1977, it became clear that the scope of application of the second Protocol would be more restrictive than that of common article 3, which it was intended to supplement. Nonetheless, it is useful to consider also the criteria for the applicability of Protocol II for some guidance on what is considered to be an internal armed conflict. The ICRC Commentary to the Protocol states,

  1. Jean Pictet (ed.) – Commentary: Geneva Convention III Relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War (International Committee of the Red Cross, 1960).