ABSTRACT
Chapter 3 noted that ‘virtual theatres’ in cyberspace can serve to undermine the spatial conception of a war zone by increasing the capacities of groups to instigate, plan and execute operations ranging from isolated ‘lone wolf’ attacks, to smallscale ‘guerrilla’ attacks, to widespread and coordinated conventional attacks. The globally networked reach of individuals and groups has increased, and this creates the risk that the conduct of hostilities paradigm can spill over and prevail outside of combat zones and also that the distinction between crime and war, as well as our response to it, becomes increasingly blurred. Individuals may be geographically remote from a war zone, but that does not stop them from being virtually ‘in theatre’, for example, by providing intelligence, logistics and finance for specific military operations. Chapter 1 of this study noted that civilians are at major risk in contemporary crisis and conflict situations that take place in urban locations, especially where means and methods of conventional warfare are used. The application of conventional military means and methods to such situations may be permitted under IHL, but there is the risk that this is being applied to what are situations of crisis rather than conflict. This study has noted that in these situations it is very difficult to know what rules apply, how they apply and what those rules mean. In part, this is because there has been uncertainty in how to categorise a state of affairs in pragmatic terms, that is, when is violence so dangerous and intense that it exceeds the capacity of law enforcement methods and thus law enforcement regulation? This is a problem faced by state militaries and law enforcement agencies, as well as UN treaty and charter mechanisms and regional human rights mechanisms. Accordingly, state military doctrine and the authoritative decisions of a range of international human rights bodies demonstrate similar approaches and interests, but also are useful in demonstrating how different rules can be interpreted and applied in a progressive way so that they are fit for the uncertainties and complexities of contemporary unconventional and irregular crises/conflicts: for example, counterinsurgency, counterterrorism, and large-scale organised crime. Furthermore, this study has suggested that international and regional mechanisms of international civil society have become increasingly relevant in providing a range
response to the weaknesses in the institutional framework for the implementation of humanitarian law. It is suggested that the individual complaints and reporting procedures generally available within human rights mechanisms represent important interpretative dynamos for the progressive realisation of existing standards.
