This chapter provides a brief overview of China’s engagement with international humanitarian law (IHL) since the late nineteenth century. It first looks back to the late Qing dynasty and follows it through to the early decades of the People’s Republic of China. It then examines China’s contemporary IHL practices, including China’s participation in IHL treaties, its domestic legislations, its approach to IHL training and education, as well as its participation in international rule-making processes. The chapter then focusses on developments of new technologies that have called into question the applicability, relevance and sufficiency of IHL. As IHL is in the process of being adapted, (re)interpreted and expanded, China is seeking to play a more active role in these processes. The chapter concludes with a reflection on China’s changing role and perspectives of its future engagements with IHL.

International humanitarian law (‘IHL’), also known as the law of armed conflict (‘LOAC’), is a branch of international law that regulates the behaviour of participants in armed conflicts and encompasses rules on the military targeting of persons and objects, the means and methods of warfare, the protection of persons and objects, and the implementation and enforcement of the law. International humanitarian law is also one of the most highly codified fields of international law, with numerous treaties adopted over the last 150 years; many of these have also attained customary status. In developing IHL, states have recognised that, while the ultimate aim of society should be to strive to prevent war, wars will nonetheless occur, and that while ‘war will always constitute suffering and personal tragedy … rules of warfare are intended to prevent unnecessary suffering that yields little or no military advantage’. This balance between humanitarian aims and military objectives serves as the basic underpinning of all the modern laws of armed conflict.

This chapter examines to what extent ‘animal soldiers’ could obtain two related legal status in light of their contribution to the war effort. They could be combatants when involved in hostilities and prisoners of war after falling into enemy hands. In consequence, they would be protected by Geneva Convention III and Additional Protocol I. While these status have not been envisaged to apply to animals, elements of the protection provided by the said instruments could inspire the analogous design of a protective regime for ‘animal soldiers’. This regime would be based on the following principles: no military involvement in hostilities, subsidiarity, humane treatment and animal dignity.

Chapter 9, “Home Army on the Offensive: Violence in 1943-1944,” dissects mature intelligentsia military resistance. As the tide of war turned and the Germans endured their first battlefield defeats against the Soviet Union, the consolidated Home Army grew aggressive. Its most effective move was a 1943 assassination campaign targeting Wehrmacht officers, Nazi police, and German administration personnel called Operation Heads. Heads intimidated the Germans and shifted occupation policy. The Home Army’s perceived success and the advance of the Eastern Front toward Warsaw in 1944 convinced underground military leaders that they were facing their last opportunity to launch a city-wide insurrection. Their rebellion, now known as the Warsaw Uprising, failed. Remaining German personnel in the city were reinforced and crushed the insurrection, slaughtered civilians, and destroyed the city. This chapter argues that military conspiracy, like Catholic resistance, had its successes but was ultimately dependent on the international situation and could not secure the practical support of the Grand Alliance in the face of both German and Soviet opposition.

Chapter 6 relates the individual status of the “players” on an armed conflict battlefield. It is the second question students should answer (after the conflict’s status) because the players’ status determines their rights and legal duties in the conflict. Civilians and combatants predominate, of course, but there are numerous subcategories for both: prisoners of war, retainees, militia, persons accompanying the armed forces, levée en masse fighters, spies, and mercenaries. Each category is explained and placed in relation to the other players. What if a civilian captured with weapons claims noncombatant status? LOAC provides for an informal tribunal. How is the familiar “farmer-by-day-fighter-by-night” dealt with? Who is an “unprivileged belligerent” and are they the same as an “unlawful combatant”? What status for a civilian who directly participates in hostilities and what are their battlefield rights, if any? Who is a “protected person” and what makes them such? These statuses and more are considered, along with their positions vis-à-vis the combatants who engage in combat with them.