108. ODIHR is of the view that the “war on terror” or the related notion of an armed conflict without geographical boundaries against al Qaeda, the Taliban and associated forces(hereinafter “the global war against terrorism”)17 as such, does not constitute an armed conflict for the purposes of the applicability of international humanitarian law.18 Although no treaty contains a universally accepted definition of armed conflict,19 jurisprudence of the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY) has clarified that “an armed conflict exists whenever there is a resort to armed force between States or protracted armed violence between governmental authorities and organized armed groups or between such groups within a State”.20 It is crucial to make a clear distinction between terrorist acts falling within an armed conflict and those that take place outside any armed conflict.21 While some acts of terrorism may amount to a threat to international peace and security, this does not mean that any terrorist act would create an armed conflict.22 Acts of terrorism committed outside an armed conflict are criminal acts and require law enforcement responses in line with international human rights law and OSCE commitments. 109. In ODIHR’s view, the “global war against terrorism” does not extend the application of international humanitarian law to all events included in it.23 Rather, international humanitarian law is applicable only to those situations that involve an armed conflict within the meaning of international humanitarian law.24 International humanitarian law in 17 In the rest of the report, these two concepts will be referred to as the “global war against terrorism”. As explained later, specific situations of organized armed violence the United States considers as having been part of the “global war against terrorism” may have amounted to armed conflict. See, for example, “International Humanitarian Law and the Challenges of Contemporary Armed Conflicts”, ICRC, International Review of the Red Cross, Vol. 89, No. 867, September 2007, pp. 724, 726, <https://www.icrc.org/eng/assets/files/other/irrc-867-ihl-challenges.pdf>. 19 “Final Report on the Meaning of Armed Conflict in International Law: The Hague Conference (2010) Use of Force”, Executive Committee of the International Law Association, 2010, p. 1, <http://www.ilahq.org/en/committees/index.cfm/cid/1022>. 20 ICTY, Prosecutor v. Duško Tadic, Case No. IT-91-1-AR72, 2 October 1995, para. 70, <http://www.icty.org/x/cases/tadic/acdec/en/51002.htm>. See, also, Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court (ICC), 17 July 1998 (hereinafter, “Rome Statute”), Art. 8(2)(f), <http://www.icc-cpi.int/nr/rdonlyres/ea9aeff7-5752-4f84-be940a655eb30e16/0/rome_statute_english.pdf>; “How is the Term ‘Armed Conflict’ Defined in International Humanitarian Law?”, ICRC Opinion Paper, March 2008, p. 5, <https://www.icrc.org/eng/assets/files/other/opinion-paper-armed-conflict.pdf>. 21 ICTY, Prosecutor v. Duško Tadic, Case No IT-94-1-T, 7 May 1997, para. 562, <http://www.icty.org/x/cases/tadic/tjug/en/tadtsj70507JT2-e.pdf>. See, also, “Assessing Damage, Urging Action”, International Commission of Jurists, op. cit., note 10, pp. 51-53. 22 United Nations (UN) Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms while countering terrorism, Martin Scheinin, Report to the Human Rights Council, A/HRC/6/17/Add.3, 21 November 2007, para. 9, <http://www2.ohchr.org/english/issues/terrorism/docs/A.HRC.6.17.Add.3.pdf>. 23 UN Chairperson-Rapporteur of the Working Group on arbitrary detention, Leila Zerrougui, the Special Rapporteur on the independence of judges and lawyers, Leandro Despouy, the Special Rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, Manfred Nowak, the Special Rapporteur on freedom of religion or belief, Asma Jahangir, and the Special Rapporteur on the right of everyone to the enjoyment of the highest attainable standard of physical and mental health, Paul Hunt, “Situation of detainees at Guantánamo Bay”, 27 February 2006, E/CN.4/2006/120, para. 83, <http://ap.ohchr.org/documents/alldocs.aspx?doc_id=12100>: “The war on terror, as such, does not constitute an armed conflict for the purpose of international humanitarian law”. See, also, “International Humanitarian Law and the Challenges of Contemporary Armed Conflicts”, ICRC, October 2011, p. 10, <https://www.icrc.org/eng/assets/files/red-cross-crescentmovement/31st-international-conference/31-int-conference-ihl-challenges-report-11-5-1-2-en.pdf>: “It should be reiterated that the ICRC does not share the view that a conflict of global dimensions is or has been taking place (…) the ICRC has taken a case by case approach to legally analysing and classifying the various situations of violence that have occurred in the fight against terrorism.”; “Assessing Damage, Urging Action”, International Commission of Jurists, op. cit., note 10, pp. 53-56. 24 “The relevance of IHL in the context of terrorism”, ICRC Resource Centre, 1 January 2011, <http://www.icrc.org/eng/resources/documents/misc/terrorism-ihl-210705.htm>; International Humanitarian Law and the Challenges of Contemporary Armed Conflicts”, ICRC, September 2007, op. cit., note 18, p. 724. 18 38