Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-lnqnp Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-27T22:00:57.493Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Disconnecting Humanitarian Law from EU Subsidiary Protection: A Hypothesis of Defragmentation of International Law

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  29 April 2016

SALVATORE FABIO NICOLOSI
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The development of the Common European Asylum System (CEAS) has often revealed the tight interrelation between refugee law, humanitarian law and international criminal law. It has been argued that the latter bodies of law have, in fact, played a major role in the development of most key concept of the European Union asylum acquis.

Drawing from the judgment issued by the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) in Diakité, this article aims to prove that this assumption is not always true, especially with reference to the interpretation of specific concepts of international humanitarian law (IHL) and, in particular, the controversial notion of ‘internal armed conflict’. In tackling the sensitive issue of clarifying the meaning of ‘internal armed conflict’ in order to investigate the grounds to warrant subsidiary protection under the Qualification Directive, the Court provided an autonomous interpretation that goes beyond IHL, thus offering another occasion to investigate the interrelation between international law and the EU legal order.

While contributing to the ongoing debate on the relationship between international law and the EU legal order, the article will consider the impact of the Court's reasoning on the EU asylum acquis, and will consider whether disconnecting the Qualification Directive from IHL, instead of producing further fragmentation of international law, may contribute to its defragmentation, conceived of as a harmonic co-ordination of different branches of law.

Keywords

internal armed conflictsubsidiary protectionautonomous interpretationhermeneutical coherencedefragmentation
Type
INTERNATIONAL LAW AND PRACTICE
Information
Leiden Journal of International Law , Volume 29 , Issue 2 , June 2016 , pp. 463 - 483
Copyright
Copyright © Foundation of the Leiden Journal of International Law 2016 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 See generally S. Blockmans and R.A. Wessel (eds.), Between Autonomy and Dependence. The EU Legal Order under the Influence of International Organizations (2013); E. Cannizzaro, P. Palchetti and R.A. Wessel (eds.), International law as law of the European Union (2012); J. Wouters, A. Nollkamper, and E. de Wet (eds.), The Europeanisation of International Law: The Status of International Law in the EU and its Member States (2008).

2 See especially Case C-286/90, Poulsen et Diva Navigation, [1990] ECR 6019; Case C-162/96, Racke, [1996] ECR 3655; Joint Cases C-402/05 P and C-415/05 P, Kadi and Al Barakaat International Foundation/Conseil and Commission, [2008] ECR 6351; Case C-366/10, Air Transport Association of America e.a., [2011] ECR I-13755.

3 Case C-285/12, Aboubacar Diakité v. Commissaire général aux réfugiés et aux apatrides, Judgment of 30 January 2014, (‘Diakité’).

4 1999 Treaty of Amsterdam amending the Treaty on European Union, the Treaties establishing the European Communities and related acts, OJ 1997 C 340 (1997).

5 Collins, A., ‘Recent Developments in Asylum and Immigration Law before the Court of Justice’, (2009) 9 ERA Forum 581CrossRefGoogle Scholar, at 582. As to the CJEU original approach to asylum and immigration law, see Lenaerts, K., ‘The contribution of the European Court of Justice to the Area of Freedom, Security and Justice’, (2010) 59 International and Comparative Law Quarterly 255CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Peers, S., ‘The jurisdiction of the Court of Justice over EC Immigration and Asylum Law: Time for a Change?’, in Baldaccini, A., Guild, E. and Toner, H. (eds.), Whose freedom, security and justice?: EU immigration and asylum law and policy (2007), 85Google Scholar; Guild, E. and Peers, S., ‘Deference or Defiance? The Court of Justice's Jurisdiction over Immigration and Asylum’, in Guild, E. and Harlow, C. (eds.), Implementing Amsterdam: Immigration and Asylum Rights in EC Law (2001), 267Google Scholar; Fennelly, N., ‘The Area of “Freedom, Security and Justice” and the European Court of Justice – a personal view’, (2000) 49 International and Comparative Law Quarterly 1CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

6 The early EU asylum acquis consisted of the following binding acts: Council Regulation 343/2003, OJ L 50/1, known as ‘Dublin II Regulation’; Council Regulation 2725/2000, OJ L 316/1, known as ‘Eurodac Regulation’; Council Directive 2003/9/EC, OJ L 31/18, known as ‘Reception Directive’; Council Directive 2004/83/EC, OJ L 304/12, known as ‘Qualification Directive’; Council Directive 2005/85/EC, in OJ L 326/13, known as ‘Procedures Directive’; and Council Directive 2001/55/EC, OJ L 212/12, known as ‘Temporary Protection Directive’. On the ‘asylum acquis’ see G. Noll, Negotiating Asylum: the EU acquis, extraterritorial protection, and the common market of deflection (2000); Van der Klaauw, J., ‘The EU Asylum Acquis: History and Context’, in Van Krieken, P.J. (ed.), The Asylum Acquis Handbook - The Foundation for a Common European Asylum Policy (2000), 11Google Scholar.

7 For further references see G. De Baere, ‘The Court of Justice of the EU as a European and International Asylum Court’, Leuven Centre for Global Governance Studies Working Paper No. 118, August 2013, 1, available at: www.ghum.kuleuven.be/ggs/publications/working_papers.html; Ippolito, F., ‘The contribution of the European Courts to the Common European Asylum System and its on-going recast process’, (2013) 20 Maastricht Journal of European and Comparative Law 261CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Tsourdi, E., ‘What Role for the Court of Justice of the EU in the Development of a European Asylum Policy?: the Case of Loss and Denial of International Protection in the EU’, (2013) 68 Tijdschrift voor bestuurswetenschappen en publiek recht 212Google Scholar; Zarevac, S. Boutruche, ‘The Court of Justice of the EU and the Common European Asylum System: Entering the Third Phase of Harmonisation?’, (2010) 12 Cambridge Yearbook of European Legal Studies 53CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

8 Directive 2011/95/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council, OJ L 337/9.

9 1954 Convention relating to the Status of Refugees, 189 UNTS 137, (1951) (‘Refugee Convention’).

10 See, in particular, Matera, C., ‘Another parochial decision? The Common European Asylum System at the crossroad between IHL and refugee law in Diakité’, (2015) Questions of International Law 3Google Scholar; Bauloz, C., ‘The Definition of Internal Armed Conflict in Asylum Law: the 2014 Diakité Judgment of the EU Court of Justice’, (2014) 12 Journal of International Criminal Justice 835CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Carlier, J.-Y., ‘Guerre et paix pour les demandeurs d'asile. À propos de l'arrêt Diakité de la Cour de justice’, (2014) 14 Journal des tribunaux 237Google Scholar.

11 Qualification Directive, supra note 6, at Recital 6.

12 See, e.g., Matera, supra note 10, at 20, who concluded that ‘European Union asylum law will undoubtedly need to integrate external norms to enhance its legitimacy in the future’.

13 See Van Aaken, A., ‘Defragmentation of Public International Law through Interpretation: A Methodological Proposal’, (2009) 16 Indiana Journal of Global Legal Studies 483CrossRefGoogle Scholar. For further references see also O.K. Fauchald and A. Nollkaemper (eds.), The Practice of International and National Courts and the (De-) Fragmentation of International Law (2012).

14 Joined Cases C-175/08, C-176/08, C-178/08 & C-179/08, Salahadin Abdulla and Others v. Germany, [2010] ECR I-1493, at para. 90.

15 COM (2007) 301 final, 6 June 2007. For a critical analysis of the CEAS, see H. O'Nions, Asylum - A Right Denied. A Critical Analysis of European Asylum Policy (2014).

16 La Rosa, R., ‘European Asylum Policy: From an “Area of Common Interest” to an Integrated European System’, in Guarino, G. and D'Anna, I. (eds.), International Institutions and Cooperation: Terrorism, Migration, Asylum (2011), Vol. 2, 1011, at 1030Google Scholar. See more extensively J. McAdam, Complementary protection in international refugee law (2007), 53, and D. Bouteillet-Paquet (ed.), Subsidiary Protection of Refugees in the European Union: Complementing the Geneva Convention? (2002).

17 Plender, R., ‘EU Immigration and Asylum Policy – The Hague Programme and the way forward’, (2008) 9 ERA Forum 301CrossRefGoogle Scholar, at 309. On the former ‘Qualification Directive’ see among others: Storey, H., ‘EU Refugee Qualification Directive: a Brave New World?’, (2008) 20 International Journal of Refugee Law 1CrossRefGoogle Scholar; M-T. Gil-Bazo, ‘Refugee Status and Subsidiary Protection under EC Law: The Qualification Directive and the Right to Be Granted Asylum’, in Baldaccini, Guild and Toner, supra note 5, 229; McAdam, J., ‘The European Union Qualification Directive: The Creation of a Subsidiary Protection Regime’, (2005) 17 International Journal of Refugee Law 461CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

18 Qualification Directive, supra note 6, Art. 2(e). By adopting Directive 2004/83/EC, the EU materialized what the drafters of the UN Geneva Convention addressed as:

the hope that the Convention. . . will have value as an example exceeding its contractual scope and that all nations will be guided by it in granting so far as possible to persons in their territory as refugees, and who would not be covered by the terms of the Convention, the treatment for which it provides.

See Recommendation E, Final Act of the United Nations Conference of Plenipotentiaries on the Status of Refugees and Stateless Persons, Travaux préparatoires, 25 July 1951, available at www.unhcr.org/40a8a7394.html.

19 Qualification Directive, supra note 6, Art. 15(c).

20 It must be mentioned that in a recent case decided on 18 December 2014, C-542/13, M'Bodj, the Court did not expand the scope of the provision under Art. 15(b) QD as to include the circumstance that a person who suffers from an illness occasioning a real risk to his life or physical integrity or a real risk of inhuman or degrading treatment where there is no appropriate treatment in his country of origin or in the country in which he resides.

21 See extensively McAdam, supra note 16, at 53–67; see also Bauloz, C., ‘The (Mis)Use of International Humanitarian Law under Article 15(c) of the EU Qualification Directive’, in Cantor, D.J. and Durieux, J.-F. (eds.), Refuge from Inhumanity? War Refugees and International Humanitarian Law (2014), 247CrossRefGoogle Scholar at 247–53; Giustiniani, F. Zorzi, ‘Protezione sussidiaria ed esigenze di protezione in situazioni di violenza indiscriminata. La Corte di Giustizia si pronuncia sulla c.d. direttiva qualifiche’, (2009) 4 Studi sull'integrazione europea 779Google Scholar, at 788.

22 See, e.g., European Commission, Proposal for a Council Directive on minimum standards for the qualification and status of third country nationals and stateless persons as refugees or as persons who otherwise need international protection, 12 September 2001, COM(2001) 510 final, Art. 15(c).

23 Case C-465/07, Meki Elgafaji and Noor Elgafaji v. Staatssecretaris van Justitie, [2009] ECR I-921.

24 Ibid., at para. 43. Such extensive interpretation has been borrowed also by some domestic tribunals, see, for instance, Tribunale di Roma, judgment of 21 June 2011, No. 5944; Corte d'Appello di Napoli, judgment of 17 March 2010, No. 38. For references to other states’ practice see Errera, R., ‘The CJEU and Subsidiary Protection: Reflections on Elgafaji - and After’, (2011) 23 International Journal of Refugee Law 93CrossRefGoogle Scholar, at 102.

25 Elgafaji, supra note 23, at para. 44.

26 Ibid., at para. 36.

27 S. Sivakumaran, The Law of Non-International Armed Conflict (2012), 155. For further references see also Vité, S., ‘Typologie des conflits armés en droit international humanitaire: concept juridiques et réalités’, (2009) 91 International Review of the Red Cross 69CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

28 For references see extensively A. Cullen, The concept of non-international armed conflict in international humanitarian law (2010). Cf. also David, E., ‘Internal (Non-International) Armed Conflict’, in Clapham, A. and Gaeta, P. (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of International Law in Armed Conflict (2014), 353Google Scholar; Fleck, D., ‘The Law of Non-International Armed Conflict’, in Fleck, D. (ed.), The Handbook of International Humanitarian Law (2013), 605Google Scholar; Gray, C., ‘The Meaning of Armed Conflict: Non-international Armed Conflict’, in O'Connell, M.E. (ed.), What is War?: an Investigation in the Wake of 9/11 (2012), 69CrossRefGoogle Scholar; K. Watkin and A.J. Norris (eds.) Non-International Armed Conflict in the Twenty-first Century (2012); Ciobanu, D., ‘The Concept and the Determination of the Existence of Armed Conflict not of an International Character’, (1975) 48 Rivista di diritto internazionale 43Google Scholar; Farer, T., ‘Humanitarian Law and Armed, Conflicts: Toward the Definition of “International Armed Conflict”’, (1971) 71 Columbia Law Review 37CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

29 Sivakumaran, supra note 27, at 164.

30 See UN High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR), Safe at Last? Law and Practice in Selected EU Member States with Respect to Asylum-Seekers Fleeing Indiscriminate Violence, 27 July 2011, available at www.refworld.org/docid/4e2ee0022.html, at 104.

31 The four Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, entered into force on 21 October 1950, include: Convention (I) for the Amelioration of the Condition of the Wounded and Sick in Armed Forces in the Field, 75 UNTS 31; Convention (II) for the Amelioration of the Condition of the Wounded, Sick, and Shipwrecked Members of Armed Forces at Sea, 75 UNTS 85; Convention (III) Relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War, 75 UNTS 135; Convention (IV) Relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War, 75 UNTS 287. The two Additional Protocols of 8 June 1977, entered into force on 7 December 1978 include: Additional Protocol (I), Relating to the Protection of Victims of International Armed Conflicts, 1125 UNTS 3; Additional Protocol (II) Relating to the Protection of Victims of Non-International Armed Conflicts, 1125 UNTS 609. Full text of the core IHL instruments is available on line on the website of the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC): www.icrc.org/ihl.nsf/INTRO?OpenView.

32 Cullen, supra note 28, at 25.

33 Art. 3 common to the Geneva Conventions, supra note 31.

34 On the negotiations within the Diplomatic conference see extensively Sivakumaran, supra note 27, at 156.

35 J. Pictet (ed.), Commentary on the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, Vol. IV, (1958), 35.

36 See references in Cullen, supra note 28, at 42–6.

37 See Pictet, supra note 35, at 35–6.

38 The classical types of non-international armed conflicts are fought between governmental armed forces and non-state armed groups within one state, without any international intervention by another state or the UN. See Sivakumaran, S., ‘Re-envisaging the International Law of Internal Armed Conflict’, (2011) 22 European Journal of International Law 237Google Scholar.

39 Pictet, supra note 35, at 36, emphasized that ‘they may have even an organization purporting to have the characteristics of a State’.

40 Additional Protocol II, supra note 31.

41 Greenwood, C., ‘A critique of the additional protocols to the Geneva conventions’, in Durham, H., McCormack, T.L.H. (eds.), The Changing Face of Conflict and the Efficacy of International Humanitarian Law (1999), 14Google Scholar. See also Abi-Saab, G., ‘Non-International Armed Conflicts’, in UNESCO (ed.), International Dimensions of Humanitarian Law (1988), 236Google Scholar; H.S. Levie, The Law of non-international armed conflict: Protocol II to the 1949 Geneva conventions (1987).

42 As underscored in the relative Commentary, cf. Y. Sandoz and B. Zimmermann (eds.), Commentary on the Protocol Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, and relating to the Protection of Victims of Non-International Armed Conflicts (1987), 1351, only Common Article 3 will apply to such situations. On the relationship between Common Article 3 and Protocol II, see especially L. Moir, The Law of Internal Armed Conflict (2002), 101–3.

43 For references see T. Haeck, Armed conflict, internal disturbances or something else?: the lower threshold of non-international armed conflict (2012).

44 Diakité, supra note 3, at para. 14.

45 Prosecutor v. Tadić, Decision on the Defence Motion for Interlocutory Appeal on Jurisdiction, Case No. IT-94-1-AR72, Appeals Chamber, 2 October 1995, at para. 70, available at www.icty.org/x/cases/tadic/acdec/en/51002.htm.

46 Cf. Prosecutor v. Tadić, Opinion and Judgment, Case No. IT-94-1-T, T.Ch. II, 7 May 1997, at para. 562, available at www.icty.org/x/cases/tadic/tjug/en/tad-tsj70507JT2-e.pdf. For references see more extensively Cullen, supra note 28, at 122.

47 Sivakumaran, supra note 27, at 166.

48 See, for instance, Report of the Special Rapporteur on the Human Rights Situation in the Sudan, UN Doc. E/CN.4/2006/111, 11 January 2006, at 8; Report of the Special Rapporteur of the Commission on Human Rights on the Situation of Human Rights in the Palestinian Territories Occupied by Israel since 1967, UN Doc. E/CN.4/2002/32, 6 March 2002, at 18. For further references see Cullen, supra note 28, at 121.

49 See International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda (ICTR): Prosecutor v. Jean-Paul Akayesu, Trial Judgement, Case No. ICTR-96-4-T, T.Ch. I, 2 September 1998, at para. 619; Special Court for Sierra Leone: Prosecutor v. Fofana et al., Decision on appeal against “Decision on Prosecution's motion for judicial notice and admission of evidence”, Case No. SCSL-04-14-T-398, Appeals Chamber, 16 May 2005, Separate Opinion of J. Robertson, at para. 32; International Criminal Court (ICC): Prosecutor v. Lubanga, Decision on the confirmation of charges, Case No. ICC-01/04-01/06, Pre-T.Ch. I, 29 January 2007, at para. 233.

50 1998 Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court (ICC), A/CONF.183/9 of 17 July 1998, Art. 8(2)f, defining as armed conflicts not of an international character those ‘armed conflicts that take place in the territory of a State when there is protracted armed conflict between governmental authorities and organized armed groups or between such groups.’ For an extensive commentary on the incorporation of the Tadić formula, see Cullen, supra note 28, at 174.

51 Ibid., at 122.

52 Bauloz, supra note 21, at 260.

53 Ibid.

54 See Conseil du contentieux des étrangers, arrêt n° 60 972, 6 May 2011, at 3, it was literally stated that: ‘La Guinée a. . . été confrontée à des tensions internes, des troubles intérieurs, des actes isolés et sporadiques de violence et autre actes analogues. . .. Il n'existe pas actuellement. . . de conflit armé’.

55 Cf. Conseil d’État, section du contentieux administratif, arrêt n° 219.376, 16 May 2012, at 5, it is expressly stated that:

il ne peut être exclu, comme le soutient le requérant, que cette notion, au sens de l'article 15, c), de la directive 2004/83/CE, puisse être également interprétée de façon autonome, et revêtir une signification spécifique au regard de celle issue de la jurisprudence du Tribunal pénal international sur l'ex-Yougoslavie.

For a specific reference on this decision see D'Huart, P., ‘Le concept de conflit armé interne ou international de l'article 15, point c, de la directive 2004/83/CE: une référence au droit international humanitaire?’, (2012) 168 Revue de droit des étrangers 238Google Scholar.

56 See UNHCR, supra note 30, at 65–6.

57 HH & Others (Mogadishu: Armed Conflict: Risk) Somalia v. Secretary of State for the Home Department, CG [2008] UKAIT 00022, United Kingdom: Asylum and Immigration Tribunal / Immigration Appellate Authority, 28 January 2008, at para. 255.

58 QD (Iraq) v. Secretary of State for the Home Department; AH (Iraq) v. Secretary of State for the Home Department, [2009] EWCA Civ 620, United Kingdom: Court of Appeal (England and Wales), 24 June 2009, at para. 35. For references see Errera, supra note 24, at 93–122; Lambert, H., ‘The Next Frontier: Expanding Protection in Europe for Victims of Armed Conflict and Indiscriminate Violence’, (2013) 25 International Journal of Refugee Law 207CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Lambert, H. and Farrell, T., ‘The Changing Character of Armed Conflict and the Implications for Refugee Protection Jurisprudence’, (2010) 22 International Journal of Refugee Law 237CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

59 Z.G. v. The Federal Republic of Germany, [2010] BVerwG 10 C 4.09, Germany: Federal Administrative Court (Bundesverwaltungsgericht), 27 April 2010, at para. 24, see translation in English in (2011) 23 International Journal of Refugee Law 113.

60 Specifically on the relationship between EU Asylum Law and IHL, see extensively V. Moreno-Lax, ‘Of Autonomy, Autarky, Purposiveness and Fragmentation’, in Cantor and Durieux (eds.), supra note 21, 294.

61 Diakité, supra note 3, Advocate General's Conclusions, at para. 23.

62 As it has been argued with reference to Art. 3, para. 5, TEU, international law is a ‘constitutional objective of the EU’, cf. Larik, J., ‘Shaping the International Order as an EU Objective’, in Kochenov, D. and Amtenbrink, F. (eds.), The European Union's shaping of the international legal order (2013) 62CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

63 See, inter alia, the judgments on the ‘Kadi saga’: Kadi and Al Barakaat, supra note 2; Case T-85/09, Kadi v. Commission, [2010] ECR II-05177; Joined Cases C-584/10 P, C-593/10 P and C-595/10 P, Commission, Council and United Kingdom v. Kadi (Kadi II), Judgment of 18 July 2013. For references see Moreno-Lax, supra note 60, at 312, see also C. Eckes, ‘International law as law of the EU: the role of the Court of Justice’, in Cannizzaro, Palchetti, Wessel (eds.), supra note 1, at 353.

64 Diakité, supra note 3, Advocate General's Conclusions, at para. 23.

65 Ibid., at para. 26.

66 Legality of the Threat or Use of Nuclear Weapons, Advisory Opinion of 8 July 1996, [1996] ICJ Rep. 225, at 257, para. 79.

67 Diakité, supra note 3, Advocate General's Conclusions, at para. 26.

68 Cf. 1969 Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, 1155 UNTS 331, at Art. 31, para. 1, reading that ‘a treaty shall be interpreted in good faith in accordance with the ordinary meaning to be given to the terms of the treaty in their context and in the light of its object and purpose.’ For references, Kuijper, P.J., ‘The Court and the Tribunal of the EC and the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties 1969’, (1998) 25 Legal Issues of Economic Integration 1Google Scholar.

69 Case 26/62, van Gend en Loos, [1963] ECR 1, at para. 3.

70 Diakité, supra note 3, at para. 27. Cf. also Case C-549/07, Friederike Wallentin-Hermann, [2008] I-11061, para. 17; Case C-119/12, Probst, Judgment of 22 November 2012, at para. 20.

71 The Oxford Dictionary of English (2010) for the term conflict lists the following synonyms: dispute, quarrel, squabble, disagreement, difference of opinion, dissension; discord, friction, strife, antagonism, antipathy, ill will, bad blood, hostility, falling-out, disputation, contention; clash, altercation, shouting match, exchange, war of words; tussle, fracas, affray, wrangle, tangle, passage of/at arms, battle royal, feud, schism.

72 Périlleux, J., ‘L'interprétation des notions de « conflit armé interne » et de « violence aveugle » dans le cadre de la protection subsidiaire: le droit international humanitaire est-il une référence obligatoire?’, (2009) 42 Revue Belge de Droit International 113Google Scholar, at 122.

73 For references see generally Alì, A., ‘Some Reflections on the Principle of Consistent Interpretation Through the Case Law of the European Court of Justice’, in Boschiero, N., Scovazzi, T., Pitea, C. and Ragni, C. (eds.), International Courts and the Developtment of International Law (2013) 881–95CrossRefGoogle Scholar; F. Casolari, ‘Giving Indirect Effect to International Law within the EU Legal Order’, in Cannizzaro, Palchetti and Wessel (eds.), supra note 1, at 395.

74 See Council of the European Union, Proposal for a Council Directive on minimum standards for the qualification and status of third country nationals and stateless persons as refugees or as persons who otherwise need international protection, Doc. 12620/02 ASILE 54, 23 October 2002. Art. 15(c) of the proposal read as follows: ‘[in accordance with the 1949 Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in time of War,] serious and individual threat to a civilian's life or person by reason of indiscriminate violence in situations of international or internal armed conflict’.

75 Ibid., at footnote 1.

76 See Fennelly, N., ‘Legal Interpretation at the European Court of Justice’, (1996) 20 Fordham International Law Journal 655, at 662Google Scholar.

77 Diakité, supra note 3, Advocate General's Conclusions, at para. 26.

78 Legality of the Threat or Use of Nuclear Weapons, supra note 66, at para. 75.

79 Diakité, supra note 3, at para. 24.

80 Moreno-Lax, supra note 60, at 311, see also the cited case law therein, including Case C-84/12, Koushkaki, Judgment of 19 December 2013, at para. 21.

81 Diakité, supra note 3, Advocate General's Conclusions, at para. 66.

82 Périlleux, supra note 72, at 132.

83 Diakité case, supra note 3, at para. 22.

84 Ibid., Advocate General's Conclusions, at para. 69, pointed out that IHL operates on two levels: regulating the conduct of hostilities, on the on hand, and protecting civil population from the effects of war, on the other hand. Likewise, Y. Dinstein, The conduct of hostilities under the law of international armed conflict (2004), 16, argued that IHL ‘in its entirety is predicated on a subtle equilibrium between two diametrically opposed impulses: military necessity and humanitarian considerations.’

85 Diakité, supra note 3, Advocate General's Conclusions, at para. 67.

86 Ibid., at para. 68.

87 Cf. Soering v. United Kingdom, Judgment of 7 July 1989, [1989] ECHR (Ser. A), at 91. This is the first case in which the Strasbourg Court decided that deportation will engage the responsibility of the deporting state. For references, see Battjes, H., ‘The Soering Treshold: Why Only Fundamental Values Prohibit Refoulement in ECHR Case Law’, (2009) 11 European Journal of Migration and Law 205CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

88 Diakité case, supra note 3, at para. 26.

89 Ibid., Advocate General's Conclusions, at para. 72.

90 See, e.g., SC Res. 1214 (1998), Preamble. For references see McAdam, J., ‘Individual risk, armed conflict and the standard of proof in complementary protection claims: the European Union and Canada compared’, in Simenon, J.C. (ed.), Critical Issues in International Refugee Law Strategies toward Interpretative Harmony (2010), 59CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

91 Diakité, supra note 3, at para. 25.

92 Ibid., at para. 28.

93 Ibid., at para. 30. See also Elgafaji, supra note 23, at para. 43.

94 Bauloz, supra note 10, at 837.

95 With reference to the qualification of the conflict in Iraq, for instance, Sweden seems to have set the threshold higher than the one of the 1977 Additional Protocol II by requiring the fulfilment of the additional criterion of ‘affected civilian population’. As emphasized by Magnusson, J., ‘A Question of Definition - The Concept of Internal Conflict in the Swedish Alien Act’, (2010) 10 European Journal of Migration and Law, at 396Google Scholar, such a restrictive definition stems from a policy of avoiding the ‘continuous influx of Iraqis’. For further references, see also European Council on Refugees and Exiles (ECRE), The Impact of the EU Qualification Directive on International Protection, Report available at www.ecre.org/topics/areas-of-work/protection-in-europe/150.html, and the comments in Bauloz, supra note 21, at 262.

96 The Elgafaji case, supra note 23, prompted recognition by some member states’ courts that IHL might not be the right interpretative framework for Article 15(c) QD, thought the judgment did not directly touch upon that specific issue.

97 Lambert and Farrell, supra note 58, at 237.

98 See Matera, supra note 10, at 20.

99 Carlier, supra note 10, at 239.

100 Bauloz, supra note 10, at 845, makes reference for instance to ‘drug wars’ in Latin America that could be regarded as internal armed conflicts under the interpretation of Art. 15(c) QD, but many other situations, such as in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Yemen, are comparable.

101 Diakité, supra note 3, at para. 21.

102 Peers, supra note 5, at 85.

103 See Report of the Study Group of the International Law Commission, finalized by Martti Koskenniemi, Fragmentation of International Law: Difficulties Arising from the diversification and expansion of International law, Un Doc. A/CN.4/l.682 (2006), at para. 8.

104 Ibid.

105 Ibid. See also Koskenniemi, M. and Leino, P., ‘Fragmentation of International Law? Postmodern Anxieties’, (2002) 15 Leiden Journal of International Law 553CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

106 Van Aaken, supra note 13, at 485. See also Martineau, A.C., ‘The Rhetoric of Fragmentation: Fear and Faith in International Law’, (2009) 22 Leiden Journal of International Law 1CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

107 Smith, C., ‘International Humanitarian Law in Subsidiary Protection Applications’, (2010) 5 The Researcher 1, at 12Google Scholar.

108 See in this regard, Fisher-Lescano, A. and Teubner, G., ‘Regime-Collisions: The Vain Search for Legal Unity in the Fragmentation of Global Law’, (2004) 25 Michigan Journal of International Law 999Google Scholar.

109 See Bauloz, supra note 10, at 845.

110 Diakité, supra note 3, Advocate General's Conclusions, at para. 66.

111 See Moreno-Lax, supra note 60, at 341.

112 Wouters, Nollkamper and de Wet (eds.), supra note 1, at 3, argued that ‘the process through which an ever increasing body of international law becomes binding on the EU and through which distinct qualities and features are given to such international law within the EU, constitute core facets of the phenomenon of ‘Europeanization of international law’.

113 Cf. Isayeva, Yusupova and Bazayeva v. Russia, Judgment of 24 February 2005, App. Nos. 57947/00, 57948/00, 57949/00; Isayeva v. Russia, Judgment of 24 February 2005, App. No. 57950/00. For references see Abresh, W., ‘A Human Rights Law of Internal Armed Conflict: The European Court of Human Rights in Chechnya’, (2005) 16 European Journal of International Law 741CrossRefGoogle Scholar, at 743.

114 UN Human Rights Committee, General Comment No. 31, CCPR/C/21/Rev.1/Add.13 (26 May 2004), at 11. For further references see generally, V. Chetail, ‘Armed Conflict and Forced Migration: A Systemic Approach to International Humanitarian Law, Refugee Law, and Human Rights Law’, in Clapham and Gaeta (eds.), supra note 28, 700; see also G. Gaggioli, L'influence mutuelle entre les droits de l'homme et le droit international humanitaire à la lumière du droit à la vie (2013); Bennoune, K., ‘Toward a Human Rights Approach to Armed Conflict: Iraq 2003’, (2004) 11 UC Davis Journal of International Law & Policy 171, at 216–19Google Scholar.

115 See UNHCR Intervention before the Court of Appeal of England and Wales in the case of QD (Iraq) v. Secretary of State for the Home Department, 31 May 2009, C5/2008/1706, available at www.refworld.org/docid/4a6464e72.html, at 38.

116 See UNHCR, supra note 30, Recommendation 3, at 103.

117 See UNHCR, supra note 115, at 20.3.

118 In this regard, Burke-White, W.W., ‘International Legal Pluralism’, (2004) 25 Michigan Journal of International Law 963Google Scholar, at 978, argued that ‘the respect of legitimate difference inherent in such a pluralist conception may actually enhance the effectiveness of international law by increasing the legitimacy and political acceptability of international legal rules.’ For further references see also, Young, M.A., ‘Regime interaction in creating, implementing and enforcing international law’, in Young, M.A. (ed.), Regime Interaction in International Law: Facing Fragmentation (2015), 85Google Scholar; G. Orellana Zabalza, The Principle of Systemic Integration: Towards a Coherent International Legal Order (2012).

119 D'Amato, A., ‘Groundwork for International Law’, (2014) 108 American Journal of International Law 650Google Scholar.