Varying Rules of Engagement – Operational Consequences and Transitional Justice Implications

Abstract

With inter-state conflicts on the rise, new debates about the legality of attacks and combat behaviour emerge. In those, we can often see the confusion of moral and legal obligations, as well as the equation of different bodies of law, which were designed to regulate different scenarios. In international conflicts, ius ad bellum and ius in bello are the main bodies of law. This article will first examine the difference between the two and explain why they should not be confused with each other. Subsequently, it will present the different ways of application and interpretation of the ius in bello, using the principle of distinction as example. Lastly, it will be argued that an enhanced understanding of the different bodies of law and of state interpretation and application will lay the groundwork for stronger post-conflict peace building with robust democratic structures.