Once the armed conflict threshold is reached, it can be argued that there is less added value in designation of most violent acts in opposition to civilians or terrorist’s civil objects as these acts constitute war crimes already under IHL. People suspected to have committed some kind of a war crime are those which may be prosecuted criminally through states under current jurisdiction bases within IHL. In events with serious breaches as provided in the convention of Geneva and Additional Protocol I, these individuals should be prosecuted criminally inclusive of under the universal jurisdiction principle.
Also IHL particularly indulges in prohibiting the terrorism measures and terrorism acts in opposition to people in the party’s power within the conflict. Therefore, the 4th convention of Geneva in Article 33, states that penalties collectively and on similar basis of intimidation measures should be prohibited while the Article 4 (2) (d), additional protocol II prohibits the terrorism acts in opposition to people not on no more taking part in hostile acts. The perspective on which this referral is stated to the prohibitions points to the fact that the key aim lies in underlining a common law principle that offers a criminal responsibility that prohibits the civil population to be affected by any kind especially under unlawful combatants.
The following case study on Afghanistan suicide attacks clearly illustrates the legal state of IHL to deal with suicidal attacks as unlawful combatants.In order to scrutinize the legal analysis suicide bombers of the war on terror, case study analysis of Afghanistan Suicide bombers has been considered in this paper.
The ongoing armed conflict in Afghanistan has continued to severely influence the country’s civilian population. On all sides, the combatants have shown inadequate concern to spare and protect Afghan civil population lives and property that are not a part of the fight. Also, very less focus has been given to minimize the influence of war on civil people.
The independent human rights commission in Afghanistan calls over every parties to the conflict to completely adhere to and respect IHL rules and IHRL (International human rights law). The civil population in Afghanistan in every operation needs to be made a priority condition.
Specifically, the commission is responsible for expressing the concern with regard to particular practices that are in clear International standards violation but they still keep happening again and again. These can be illustrated through various recent incidents related to Afghanistan.