Re-envisaging the International Law of Internal Armed Conflict: A Rejoinder to Gabriella Blum

I am grateful to Professor Gabriella Blum for her thoughtful response to my article. 1 Blum's response invites further consideration of three principal issues. She notes my use of the terminology of internal as opposed to non-international armed conflict and its juxtaposition with international armed conflict and queries whether my methodological approach as well as specific suggestions would remain equally compelling in other types of non-international armed conflicts. 2The choice of terminology was deliberate. I find the descriptor non-international to be somewhat misleading as it unhelpfully defines the category by what it is not. It suggests that there is but one armed conflict and, if it is not international in character, by default it is non-international. However, in practice, an internal/non-international armed conflict is identified in a rather different manner. For example, in order for an internal/non-international armed conflict to exist, the violence must reach a certain level of intensity; yet, for an international armed conflict to exist one dominant view is that there is no such requirement. The category of internal/non-international armed conflict is thus in no way a default category which serves to catch those conflicts which are excluded from the international category. Yet this is what is suggested through the use of the terminology of non-international armed conflict. What the terminology of internal may suggest is that it is limited to those conflicts which are fought entirely within the territorial boundaries of a state. However, even this may be true only up to a certain point. For example, an internal armed conflict with a certain overspill, such as onto the high seas or into the territory of a third state, is still characterized as an internal