ABSTRACT
(including the Western states) are parties and it is submitted that it is now correct to include such national liberation struggles within the category of international armed conflict. Clearly, there remains a large number of actual and potential conflicts which still do not fall into the broader definition and these will be subject to the relatively more restricted provisions contained in Geneva Protocol II. The issue of the nature of the armed conflict has particular relevance in the current situation in Bosnia where the status of ‘Serbian’ troops is critical. At its simplest, the question can be posed thus: were the ‘Serbian’ forces operating in Bosnia members of the armed forces of the state of Serbia and Montenegro, or were they members of a Bosnian Serb militia? If the former is true, then the conflict must be defined as an international armed conflict since the armed forces of one state are operating without consent in the territory of another state; if the latter is true the conflict remains a non-international one. For the civilians who are suffering the question is perhaps purely an academic one, but it has important implications as to the rules of law which apply and in particular the degree of responsibility that can attach to those involved in some of the worst atrocities.
