The Application of International Humanitarian Law in Somalia: A Comparative Analysis of International and Non International Armed Conflict

The protracted conflict in Somalia has been characterized by breaches of International Humanitarian Law (IHL), due to the lack of a functional government or central authority within the country to protect the rights of people who are not or no longer taking part in hostilities. This study sought to analyze the relevance of the distinction between international and non international armed conflict based on the provisions set out in the Geneva Conventions and their Additional Protocols and international customary law, to examine whether there the additional provisions regarding international armed conflict could have resulted in reduced breaches of IHL in the non international armed conflict in Somalia. The literature review carried out focused on review of ICRC publications regarding the Geneva Conventions of 1949 and the Additional Protocols of 1977 as well as publications and journals from scholars of IHL and the conflict in Somalia. The study’s operationalised its hypotheses that: Removing the distinction between international and non international armed conflict in the Geneva Conventions and Additional Protocols is likely to reduce suffering of those outside of combat, by enhancing adherence to the outlined provisions as well as setting up punitive measures in cases of non adherence. The study’s theoretical framework was based on Structural Functionalism and Legal Centralism which emphasizes the role of society’s various elements including institutions, norms, customs and traditions. The role of IHL in Somalia was analyzed in this regard. The methodology used to conduct the study involved a combination of primary and secondary sources. Since the study required qualitative type of data which required expertise on the subject matter, primary data was collected through Key Informant Interviews to ICRC officials, and International Relations scholars.