Talk:Unlawful combatant

Original research
The third paragraph currently starts with "While the concept of an unlawful combatant is included in the Third Geneva Convention, the phrase itself does not appear in the document." I think whoever drafted this sentence wrote "included", when they meant "implied". I think this sentence lapses from WP:No original research. I think whomever drafted this sentence reached a conclusion not in the the Third Geneva Convention, and not supported by supplied references. Are there any leading scholars of military law who wrote that the 3rd Geneva Convention implied the concept of an unlawful combatant? Well, if there were, this would be the place to cite them, but, even then, our rules on NPOV would require use to write something like "According to Eugene Fidell while the 3rd Geneva Convention never used the phrase "unlawful combatant"'', he thought the Convention implied the concept of an unlawful combatant. Geo Swan (talk) 06:59, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I disagree it is easy to search the primary document (GCIII) to check it is not included. This is a fair summary via WP:PSTS and the analyses is in an ICRC document already cited as a source:

and "::Generally speaking, a civilian is any person who does not belong to one of the categories of persons referred to in Article 4A (1), (2), (3) and (6) of GC III and Article 43 of PI (see PI, Article 50). Under the law governing the conduct of hostilities, as contained especially in Articles 48 et seq. of PI, and under customary international law, civilians are entitled to general protection against the dangers arising from military operations; in particular they may not be made the object of an attack. Except for the relatively rare case of a levée en masse, civilians do not have the right to participate directly in hostilities. If they nevertheless take direct part, they remain civilians but become lawful targets of attacks for as long as they do so. Their legal situation once they find themselves in enemy hands will be the crux of the following analysis.


 * Whereas the terms “combatant”, “prisoner of war” and “civilian” aregenerally used and defined in the treaties of international humanitarian law, the terms “unlawful combatant”, “unprivileged combatant/belligerent” do not appear in them. They have, however, been frequently used at least since the beginning of the last century in legal literature, military manuals and case law. The connotations given to these terms and their consequences for the applicable protection regime are not always very clear.


 * For the purposes of this article the term “unlawful/unprivileged combatant/belligerent” is understood as describing all persons taking a direct partin hostilities without being entitled to do so and who therefore cannot be classified as prisoners of war on falling into the power of the enemy. This seems to be the most commonly shared understanding."


 * it is only summerising the two not a synthesis. -- PBS (talk) 18:01, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

Private military personnel
Are members of private military companies lawful or unlawful combatants? Are they classified as mercenaries or as legitimate military? Does it depend on whether the members or their company are from a country which is a party to the war? Jim Michael (talk) 23:24, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

Enemy combatant
I removed "enemy combatant" from the first sentence. An enemy combatant is an enemy engaged in combat with friendly combatants. As such the enemy combatant is usually a privileged combatant and not an unprivileged one.

That some members of the Bush administration could not tell the difference between an enemy combatant who fight within the laws of war and an "enemy combatant who without uniform comes secretly through the lines for the purpose of waging war by destruction of life or property, [is a familiar example] of belligerents who are generally deemed not to be entitled to the status of prisoners of war" (Ex parte Quirin); is not reason why this article should follow that administration's lead. -- PBS (talk) 20:56, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

Revert 16 Feb 2021: SilverbackNet
SilverbackNet

Hi, I saw you reverted my edit. I asked for someone to check it, could you please explain the revert? I've gone over it with fresh eyes and I'm certain I got it right. I've reverted it back to my edit for now until someone can explain why its wrong

For anyone else I've pasted the text below, the underlined word in bold is what I removed and was subsequently reverted.

The assumption that such a category as unlawful combatant exists is  not  contradicted by the findings of the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia in the Celebici Judgment. The judgment quoted the 1958 International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) commentary on the Fourth Geneva Convention: Every person in enemy hands must be either a prisoner of war and, as such, be covered by the Third Convention; or a civilian covered by the Fourth Convention. Furthermore, "There is no intermediate status; nobody in enemy hands can be outside the law", because in the opinion of the ICRC, "If civilians directly engage in hostilities, they are considered 'unlawful' or 'unprivileged' combatants or belligerents (the treaties of humanitarian law do not expressly contain these terms). They may be prosecuted under the domestic law of the detaining state for such action".

My understanding is that the sources say that there are only two categories: lawful combatant and civilian. It explicitly says "there is no intermediate status". This would contradict the "assumption that such a category as unlawful combatant exists".

Please explain the revert here before changing it back. If anyone else has feedback it would be appreciated!

Permanent link: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Unlawful_combatant&oldid=990494473

John wiki 16:06, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Rereading, the final line says both "nobody in enemy hands can be outside the law" along with "in the opinion of the ICRC, "If civilians directly engage in hostilities, they are considered 'unlawful'..." Ultimately, it's not just that one opening word that's contradictory, it's the content of the two back-to-back quotes that conflict. There can't be a right or wrong summary in that case without sorting that conflict out. SilverbackNet talk 23:16, 16 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Ah ok I get where you're coming from, appears that it was badly written in the first place! Key is the first sentence, "The assumption that such a category as unlawful combatant exists". While they affirm that a combatant may theoretically be unlawful, they go on to clarify that an unlawful combatant is legally the same as a civilian, and thus is not a discrete category, see: "there is no intermediate status". The source is written in the context of terrorists being denied rights on the pretext of being unlawful combatants, and therefore being treated as a third category, aka neither prisoners of war or criminals. I'll rewrite it to remove any ambiguity, I'll replace the last quote with one a bit less misleading.

John wiki 12:43, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

What is the difference between an unlawful combatant and a murderer?
I mean, combat means violence, and murder is an act of violence, so what is the difference? 100.16.152.25 (talk) 19:10, 4 November 2022 (UTC)