II.  REQUIREMENTS, LIMITATIONS AND EFFECTS OF THE CONCURRENT APPLICABILITY OF INTERNATIONAL HUMAN RIGHTS LAW AND INTERNATIONAL HUMANITARIAN LAW IN ARMED CONFLICT beyond the scope of this publication to examine the details of practice and jurisprudence on this issue. However, regional and international courts, ICRC and numerous academics have produced opinions that explain in some detail how these criteria may be interpreted. In any case, it should be noted that even if the stricter criteria of Protocol II are not entirely met, a situation may still be covered by common article 3 as international humanitarian law’s “minimum guarantee”.43 As indicated above, unlike article 1 of Protocol II, common article 3 of the Geneva Conventions does not make the same references to “responsible command”, “exercise of control” or “organized armed groups” and, therefore, has a significantly lower threshold of application. Under common article 3, an armed conflict could potentially exist between two armed groups, without any involvement of State forces. Common article 3 is, thus, seen as defining the lowest threshold of armed conflict, below which there is no armed conflict and international humanitarian law is not applicable. Finally, it is important to recall, as indicated above, that in non-international armed conflicts the intensity of hostilities plays a fundamental role in triggering the application of international humanitarian law and, thus, the concurrent applicability regime. So to distinguish an armed conflict from other forms of violence, such as internal disturbances and tensions, riots or acts of banditry, the situation must reach a certain threshold of confrontation. This question is relevant because, as has already been indicated, the application of international humanitarian law can be triggered only through the existence of an armed conflict. There is, however, no specific organ or authority with special responsibility for determining whether an armed conflict is taking place or not. It is not necessary for    The International Court of Justice held that “article 3 which is common to all four Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949 defines certain rules to be applied in the armed conflicts of a non-international character. There is no doubt that, in the event of international armed conflicts, these rules also constitute a minimum yardstick, in addition to the more elaborate rules which are also to apply to international conflicts; and they are rules which, in the Court’s opinion, reflect what the Court in 1949 called ‘elementary considerations of humanity’.” Military and Paramilitary Activities in and against Nicaragua (Nicaragua v. United States of America), Merits, Judgment, I.C.J. Reports 1986, para. 218. 43 39