War is a violent struggle between rival parties to attain competing objectives.  War is just one means used by nation-states, sub-national groups, or supranational groups to achieve disputed objectives.  War has been a basic aspect of human affairs throughout history.  The modern Western tendency to view war as an aberration in human affairs, only occasionally necessary as an operation with limited aims or an all-out campaign to destroy a clearly recognized evil, often distorts our understanding of warfare and its purposes.  Warfare is ingrained in the very nature of certain cultures.  While for nation states, war is an instrument of policy aiming at political objectives; it is also, even within this context, a phenomenon involving the full range of human emotions and irrationalities.  War has a dynamic of its own, often fueled by anger, fear, revenge, and hatred.  Thus, the resort to violence rarely remains for long tied to cold, clear political objectives; it can—and has—moved in unexpected directions.  Military professionals operate within an environment that cannot be fully replicated in training.  The arena in which military professionals operate is a deadly one.  Not only are they attempting, as General George Patton stated, to “make the other poor bastard die for his country,” the enemy is attempting to do the same to us.  Consequently, war is an arena characterized by extraordinary fear, pain, uncertainty, and suffering. Three enduring truths describe the nature of war.  Despite technological advances and the best of plans and intentions, war will never be as straightforward in execution as planned, nor free of unintended consequences.  The particular characteristics usually change from conflict to conflict, but the nature of war remains eternal.

 War is an instrument of policy.  Victory in war is not measured by casualties inflicted, battles won or lost, number of tanks destroyed, or territory occupied, but by the achievement of (or failure to achieve) policy objectives or the cultural objectives of the actors involved (including nation states and non- or supra-state entities).  More than any other factor, these objectives—one’s own and those of the enemy—shape the scope, intensity, and duration of war.  To support US national policy objectives, military objectives and operations should be coordinated and orchestrated with nonmilitary and partner nation instruments of power.  Prussian philosopher of war Carl von Clausewitz emphasized that war is a continuation of the policies of nations, but not all belligerents in war are organized nation states.

 War is a complex and chaotic human endeavor.  Human impulses and human frailties shape war’s nature—it is not deterministic.  Uncertainty and unpredictability—what many call the “fog of war”—combine with danger, physical stress, and human fallibility to produce what Clausewitz called “friction,” which makes even simple operations unexpectedly and sometimes even insurmountably difficult. 

War is a clash of opposing wills. War is collision of two or more living forces. War is not waged against an inanimate or static object, but against a living, calculating, interactively complex, and adaptive opponent.  The enemy often does not think as we think and often holds different values, motivations, and priorities than ours.  Victory results from creating advantages against a thinking adversary bent on creating his own advantages.  This produces a dynamic interplay of action and reaction.  While physical factors are crucial in war, the will of the people and the character of their leaders are also critical components of war.  Allied and enemy resolve—the determination to force one’s will on one side and to resist on the other—can be the decisive element.

Success in war requires mastery of the art of war as well as the science of war. Warfare is one of the most complex of human activities.  Success depends more on intellectual superiority, morale, and determination than it does on numerical and technological superiority.  Success thus demands an intricate combination of science (that which can be measured, studied, and controlled) and art (creativity, flexibility, intuition, and the ability to adapt).   Sound doctrine, good leadership, effective organization, moral values, and realistic training can lessen the effects of uncertainty, unpredictability, and unreliability that are always present in war.

The classification of situations of armed violence is fraught with difficulties. Some governments deny that they are involved in armed conflicts, arguing that they are engaged in counter-terrorism operations not governed by international humanitarian law. Others apply international humanitarian law to situations that do not amount to an armed conflict under international humanitarian law. Moreover, contemporary armed conflicts are increasingly complex due to the multitude of state and non-state parties involved.

 While there are many definitions of armed conflicts used for different purposes, the question whether or not a situation of armed violence amounts to an armed conflict as understood in international humanitarian law, has important consequences. Most importantly, states involved in armed conflicts will have rights and duties that do not exist outside armed conflicts as understood under international humanitarian law: international humanitarian law only applies in situations of armed conflict. Below the threshold of an armed conflict, states must respect international human rights law, which is more restrictive than international humanitarian law, in particular in respect of the use of force and detention of individuals. All parties to a conflict, including, non-state armed groups, are bound by international humanitarian law. In contrast, there are on-going discussions to what extent and under which circumstances international human rights law is applicable to non-state armed actors. Moreover, war crimes may only be committed in connection with an armed conflict, the law of neutrality may be triggered, and arms control treaties may be affected.

Similarly, the distinction between international and non-international armed conflict matters for various reasons. First, there is no generic category of armed conflict under international humanitarian law, but two discrete categories, i.e. international and non-international armed conflicts. The two categories are based on different definitions and different criteria to assess whether or not a given situation amounts to an international or non-international armed conflict. Second, there remain important differences in the regimes governing international and non-international armed conflicts. Most notably, combatant immunity or the formal status of civilian only exists during international armed conflicts. From the perspective of enforcement, the regime governing grave breaches of the Geneva Conventions is limited to international armed conflicts.

By providing an independent and impartial assessment based on open source information, ILW strives to promote a more coherent approach to classification of conflicts, and, ultimately, to foster implementation of the applicable legal framework, which is a key element for accountability and the protection of victims.