Transnational Armed Conflicts: IAC or NIAC – The Lesser of Two Evils?

Characterization of ‘transnational armed conflicts’ as non-international armed conflicts [“NIAC”] or international armed conflicts [“IAC”] often makes more for an interesting oxonian corridor debate, especially when you’ve been taught by Prof. Dapo Akande and Judge Theodor Meron. For the purposes of international humanitarian law, I argue that transnational armed conflicts may be characterized as a classic NIAC. The factual model that I examine is as follows: A belligerent state [B] uses force against a non-state actor [N] on the territory of a territorial state [T]. Armed forces of T are not involved in the conflict and actions of N are not attributable to T. This argument hinges on four grounds: (1) Interpretation of the Geneva Conventions; (2) Rationale for separate legal regimes; (3) Consequential Reasons; and (4) Examination of counter-arguments.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Contemporary Challenges The Global Crime Justice and Security Journal
Published
2025-12-08
DOI
https://doi.org/10.2218/ccj.v5.10633
Primary Topic
International Law and Human Rights
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Transnational Armed Conflicts: IAC or NIAC – The Lesser of Two Evils?

Rakesh Singh, S. Maini
Contemporary Challenges The Global Crime Justice and Security Journal
International Law and Human Rights
article

Transnational Armed Conflicts: IAC or NIAC – The Lesser of Two Evils?

Rakesh Singh, S. Maini
article en

Abstract

Characterization of ‘transnational armed conflicts’ as non-international armed conflicts [“NIAC”] or international armed conflicts [“IAC”] often makes more for an interesting oxonian corridor debate, especially when you’ve been taught by Prof. Dapo Akande and Judge Theodor Meron. For the purposes of international humanitarian law, I argue that transnational armed conflicts may be characterized as a classic NIAC. The factual model that I examine is as follows: A belligerent state [B] uses force against a non-state actor [N] on the territory of a territorial state [T]. Armed forces of T are not involved in the conflict and actions of N are not attributable to T. This argument hinges on four grounds: (1) Interpretation of the Geneva Conventions; (2) Rationale for separate legal regimes; (3) Consequential Reasons; and (4) Examination of counter-arguments.

Contemporary Challenges The Global Crime Justice and Security JournalVol. 6
University of Oxford (GB)
Openalex Percentile: Top 57%
International Law and Human Rights
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.