Contenido principal del artículo


Las nuevas amenazas a la seguridad que han surgido en los últimos años están poniendo seriamente en juego la importancia y la implementación del derecho internacional humanitario. Este artículo investiga el impacto de la guerra del terror en el principio de distinción en el derecho internacional humanitario. Examina, de forma específica, prácticas estatales, por ejemplo, de los Estados Unidos, que han cedido frente al surgimiento de nuevas reglas relativas al principio de distinción. Para esto, se hace un análisis de dicho principio bajo dos perspectivas: blancos concretos y captura

Noëlle Quénivet, Bristo Law School, University of the West of England

Senior Lecturer at the Bristol Law School, University of the West of England (United Kingdom).
Quénivet, N. (2010). The “War on Terror” and the Principle of Distinction in International Humanitarian La. ACDI - Anuario Colombiano De Derecho Internacional, 3, 155–186. Recuperado a partir de

Primary sources


St Petersburg Declaration Renouncing the Use, in Time of War, of Explosive Projectiles under 400 Grammes Weight. In: Roberts, A. & Guelff, R. (eds.). Documents on the laws of war. 2nd ed., 1995, at 30.

Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War (GC IV), 1949, 75 UNTS 287.

Geneva Convention relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War 1949, 75 UNTS 135.

Protocol Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, and Relating to the Protection of Victims of International Armed Conflicts 1977, 1125 UNTS 3.

Protocol Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, and Relating to the Protection of Victims of Non-International Armed Conflicts 1977, 1125 UNTS 609.

Regulations Respecting the Laws and Customs of War on Land annexed to the Hague Convention (IV) Respecting the Laws and Customs of War on Land, 18 October 1907. In: Roberts, A. & Guelff, R. (eds.). Documents on the laws of war. 2nd ed., 1995, at 44.



Military and paramilitary activities in and against Nicaragua (Nicaragua v. US), Merits, [1986] ICJ Rep. 14.

Norwegian Fisheries Case (U.K. v. Norway), [1951] ICJ Rep. 116.

Prosecutor v. Brdjanin, Case Nº IT-99-36-T, Trial Judgment, 1 September 2004.

Prosecutor v. Kordic and Cerkez, Case Nº IT-95-14/2, Judgment, 26 February 2001.

Prosecutor v. Martic, Case Nº IT-95-11-I, Trial Chamber, 8 March 1996.

Prosecutor v. Tadic, Case Nº IT-9-1-AR72, Appeals Chamber, Decision on the Defence Motion for Interlocutory Appeal on Jurisdiction, 2 October 1995.

Threat of Use of Nuclear Weapons, Advisory Opinion, [1996] ICJ Rep. 226.


Anam v. Obama, 653 F. Supp. 2d 62 (D.D.C.) 14 September 2009.

Awad v. Obama, 646 F. Supp. 2d 20, 23 (D.D.C.) 12 August 2009.

Boumediene v. Bush, US Supreme Court, 128 S.Ct. 2229, 2269, 12 June 2008.

Gherebi v. Obama, 609 F. Supp. 2d 43, 70-71 (D.D.C.) 22 April 2009.

Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, US Supreme Court, 542 U.S. 507 (2004), 9 March 2004.

Hamlily v. Obama, 616 F. Supp. 2d 63, 70-78 (D.D.C.) 22 May 2009.

Hatim v. Obama, Nº 05-1429, slip op. at 19-20 (D.D.C.) 16 December 2009.

Mattan v. Obama, 618 F. Supp. 2d 24, 26 (D.D.C.) 21 May 2009.

Public Committee against Torture in Israel v. Government of Israel, Supreme Court of Israel, HCJ 769/02, 2 December 2006.


Deputy Secretary of Defense, Order, Administrative Review Procedures for Enemy Combatants in the Control of the Department of Defense at Guantanamo Bay Naval Base, Cuba 1, 11 May 2004.

Deputy Secretary of Defense, to the Secretary of the Navy, Order Establishing Combatant Status Review Tribunal 1, 7 July 2004.

Executive Order 13,491 – Ensuring Lawful Interrogations, 74 Fed. Reg. 4893, 22 January 2009.

Executive Order 13,492 – Review and Disposition of Individuals Detained at the Guantanamo Bay Naval Base and Closure of Detention Facilities, 74 Fed. Reg. 4897, 22 January 2009.

Executive Order 13,493 – Review of Detention Policy Options, 74 Fed. Reg. 4901, 22 January 2009.


European Parliament, Resolution B5-0066/2002, 7 February 2002.

Hamlily et al. v. Obama, Government’s Response to the Court’s Order of January 22, 2009 regarding the Definition of Enemy Combatant, 2 September 2009.

In re Guantanamo Bay Detainee Litigation, Respondents’ Memorandum regarding the Government’s Detention Authority Relative to Detainees Held at Guantanamo Bay, Nº 08-0442, 13 March 2009.

Memorandum by William J. Haynes II, General Counsel of the Department of Defense to Members of the ASIL-CFR Roundtable, 12 December 2002, available at: (7 June 2009).

Memorandum from White House Counsel Alberto Gonzales to president George W. Bush, Decision re Application of the Geneva Conventions on Prisoners of War to the Conflict with Al Qaeda and the Taliban, 25 January 2002.

Protection of Civilian Populations against the Dangers of Indiscriminate Warfare, Res. XXVIII, adopted by the XXth International Conference of the Red Cross, Vienna, 1965.

The White House, Memorandum from the President for the Vice-President, the Secretary of State, the Secretary of Defense, The Attorney General, Chief of Staff to the President, Director of CIA, Assistant to the President for National Security Affairs, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, regarding Humane Treatment of al Qaeda and Taleban Detainees, 7 February 2002.

White House Memorandum, Humane Treatment of al Qaeda and Taliban Detainees, 7 February 2002.

Secondary sources


Fleck, D. (ed.). Handbook of humanitarian law in armed conflict. 1995. Forsythe, D. The Humanitarians. The International Committee of the Red Cross. 2005.

Henckaerts, J.-M. & Doswald-Beck, L. Customary international humanitarian law. 2005.

Kalshoven, F. & Zegveld, L. Constraints on the waging of war: an introduction to international humanitarian law. 2001.

Kolb, R. & Hyde, R. An introduction to the international law of armed conflicts. 2008.

McKeogh, C. Innocent civilians: the morality of killings in war. 2002.

Melzer, N. Targeted killing in International Law. 2008.

Pictet, J. Commentary of the Geneva Conventions, Fourth Geneva Convention. 1958.

Rosas, A. The legal status of prisoners of war: a study in international humanitarian law applicable in armed conflicts. 1976.

Sandoz, Y. et al. (eds.). Commentary on the additional protocols of 8 June 1977 to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949. 1987.

Chapters in books

Dinstein, Y. The ICRC Customary International Humanitarian Law Study. In: Helm, A. (ed.). The Law of War in the 21st Century. Weaponry and the use of force. 2006, at 99.

Lietzau, W. K. Combating terrorism: the consequences of moving from law enforcement to war. In: Wippman, D. H. & Evangelista, M. (eds.). New wars, new laws? applying laws of war in 21st century conflicts. 2005, at 31.

Newton, M. Unlawful belligerency after September 11: history revisited and law revisited. In: Wippman, D. H. & Evangelista, M. (eds.). New wars, new laws? Applying laws of war in 21st century conflicts. 2005, at 82.

Quéguiner, J.-F. The Principle of distinction: beyond an obligation of customary international humanitarian law. In: Hensel, H. M. (ed.). The legitimate use of military force. The just war tradition and the customary law of armed conflict. 2008, at 161.

Quénivet, N. The applicability of international humanitarian law to situations of a (counter-)terrorist nature. In: Arnold, R. & Hildbrand, P.-A. (eds.). International humanitarian law and the 21st century’s conflicts – changes and challenges. 2005, at 25.

Rodriguez-Villasante y Prieto, J. L. Terrorist acts, armed conflicts and international humanitarian law. In: Fernandez-Sanchez, P. A. (ed.). The new challenges of humanitarian law in armed conflicts. In honour of professor Juan Antonio Carrillo-Salcedo. 2005, at 13.

Sandoz, Y. Prospects for future developments in international humanitarian law. In: Lijnzaad, L.; Van Sambeek, J. & Tahzid-Lie, B. (eds.). Making the voice of humanity heard. Essays on humanitarian assistance and international humanitarian law in honour of HRH Princess Margriet of the Netherlands. 2004, at 339.

Articles in journals

Akande, D. Clearing the Fog of War? The ICRC’s Interpretive Guidance on Direct Participation in Hostilities. 2010, 59 ICLQ 180.

Belz, D. Is international humanitarian law lapsing into irrelevance in the war on international terror? 2006, 7 TIL 97.

Ben-Naftali, O. & Michaeli, K. Public Committee against Torture in Israel v. Government of Israel. 2007, 101 AJIL 459.

Camins, E. The past as prologue: the development of the ‘direct participation’ exception to civilian immunity. 2008, 90.872 IRRC 853.

Crawford, E. Unequal before the law: the case for the elimination of the distinction between international and non-international armed conflicts. 2007, 20 LJIL 441.

Dorman, K. Proportionality and distinction in the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia. 2005, 12 Austl. Int’ L.J. 83.

Fleck, D. International accountability for violations of the ius in bello: the impact of the ICRC Study on Customary International Humanitarian Law. 2006, 11 JCSL 179.

Gehring, R. W. Loss of civilian protections under the Fourth Geneva Convention and Protocol I. 1980, 90 Mil. L. Rev. 49.

Goodman, R. The detention of civilians in armed conflict. 2009, 103.1 AJIL 48.

Henckaerts, J.-M. Customary international humanitarian law: a response to US Comments. 2007, 89 IRRC 473.

————. Study on customary international humanitarian law: a contribution to the understanding and respect for the rule of law in armed conflict. 2005, 857 IRRC 198.

Jackson, D. Application of the law of war to the global war on terror. 2009, 23 St. John’s J. L. Comm. 979.

Jinks, D. Protective parity and the laws of war. 2004, 79 Notre Dame L. Rev. 1493. ————. The declining significance of POW status. 2004, 45 Harv. Int’l L.J. 367.

Kleffner, J. K. From “belligerents” to “fighters” and civilians directly participating in hostilities. On the principle of distinction in non-international armed conflicts one hundred years after the Second Hague Peace Conference. 2007, LIV NILR 315.

MacLaren, M. & Schwendimann, F. An exercise in the development of international law: the new ICRC Study on Customary International Humanitarian Law. 2005, 6.9 German Law Journal 1217.

Matheson, M. J. Continuity and change in the law of war: 1975 to 2005: detainees and POWs. 2006, 28 Geo. Wash. Int’l L. Rev. 545-6.

Maxwell, M. D. & Meyer, R. V. The principle of distinction: probing the limits of its customariness. 2007, Army Law. 1.

Melzer, N. Targeted killing or less harmful means? Israel’s High Court Judgment on Targeted Killing and the Restrictive Function of Military Necessity. 2006, 9 YIHL 87.

Murphy, S. D. Enemy combatants after Hamdan v. Rumsfeld: evolving Geneva Convention Paradigms in the “War on Terrorism”: applying the core rules to the release of persons deemed “unprivileged combatants”. 2007, 75 Geo. Wash. L. Rev. 1105.

O’Connell, M. E. “Terrorism on Trial”: the legal case against the global war on terror. 2004, 36 Case W. Res. J. Int’l L. 349.

Paust, J. The complex nature, sources and evidences of customary human rights. 1995, 25 Ga. J. Int’l & Comp. L. 147.

Ratner, S. R. Are the Geneva Conventions out of date? 2005, Law Quad Notes 66.

Reid, J. Twenty-first century warfare. Twentieth century rules. 2006, 151:3 Royal United Services Institute Journal, available at: (8 April 2009).

Roscini, M. Targeting and contemporary aerial bombardment. 2005, 54 ICLQ 411.

Rosen, R. D. Targeting enemy forces in the war on terror: preserving civilian immunity. 2009, 42 Vand. J. Transnat’l L. 683.

Ross, J. Black Letter Abuse: The US Legal Response to Torture since 9/11. 2007, 89 IRRC 561.

Sassoli, M. The Status of persons held in Guantanamo under international humanitarian law. 2004, 2 JICJ 99.

————. Use and abuse of the laws of wars in “The War on Terrorism”. 2004, 22 LAI 195.

Schmitt, M. N. Bellum Americanum: the U.S. view of twenty-first century of war and its possible implications for the law of armed conflict. 1998, 19 Mich. J. Int’l L. 1079.

————. Targeting and humanitarian law: current issues. 2004, 34 IYHR 59.

Schöndorf, R. S. Extra-State armed conflicts: is there a need for a new legal regime? 2004, 37 International Law and Politics 1.

Stein, T. The approach of the different drummer: the principle of the persistent objector in International Law. 1985, 26 Harv. Int’l L.J. 457.

Stephens, D. & Lewis, M. W. The Law of Armed Conflict. A contemporary critique. 2005, 6 MJIL 55.

Stewart, J. G. The Military Commissions Act’s Inconsistency with the Geneva Conventions: an overview. 2007, 5 JICJ 26.

Turner, L. I. & Norton, L. G. Civilians at the Tip of the Spear. 2001, 51 AFLR 1.

Watkin, K. Assessing proportionality: moral complexity and legal rules. 2005, 8 YIHL 3.

Waxman, M. C. Administrative detention of terrorists: why detain, and detain whom? 2009, 3.1 J. Nat’l Sec. L. 1.

Articles in newspapers

Mintz, J. On Detainees, US Faces Legal Quandary. Washington Post, 27 January 2002, A22.

Rowland, K. Cheney Hits Obama’s Terrorism Policy. Washington Times, 16 March 2009.


Elsea, J. K.; Thomas, K. R. & Garcia, M. J. Enemy combatant detainees: habeas corpus challenges in Federal Court. Congressional Research Service, 15 September 2009.

Garcia, M. J. et al. Closing the Guantanamo Detention Center: legal issues. Congressional Research Service, 7-5700, 22 January 2009.

ICRC. Interpretative guidance on the notion of direct participation in hostilities under international humanitarian law. Geneva, 2009.

People on War Report. Report by Greenberg Research, Inc., Geneva, International Committee of the Red Cross, October 1999.


Bellinger, J. B. Legal Adviser, US Department of State, Address at the London School of Economics, Legal Issues in the War on Terrorism, 31 October 2006, available at: (8 April 2009).

Gill, T. The 11th of September and the international law of military operations. Inaugural Lecture, Vossiuspers UvA, 20 September 2002.

International Committee of the Red Cross. Study on Customary International Law. Document prepared by the ICRC for the 30th International Conference of the Red Cross and Red Crescent, 30IC/07/8.3, 26-30 November 2007.

United States Commission on Security and Cooperation in Europe. Senator Cardin Briefs European Parliamentarians on U.S. Detainee and Torture Policy Changes. Press Release 202.225.1901, 19 February 2009.


Los datos de descargas todavía no están disponibles.

Artículos similares

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 > >> 

También puede Iniciar una búsqueda de similitud avanzada para este artículo.