School of Law

Books

• Cullen A (2010) The Concept of Non-International Armed Conflict in International Humanitarian Law Cambridge University Press

  An examination of the concept of non-international armed conflict in international humanitarian law.

Chapters

• Cullen AT (2010) Routledge Handbook of International Criminal Law In: Schabas WA; Bernaz N (eds.) Routledge Handbook of International Criminal Law pp. 139 - 153 Routledge

  This book provides a timely and comprehensive survey of emerging and existing areas of international criminal law.

Journal Articles

• Cullen AT (2008) The Definition of Non-International Armed Conflict in the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court: An Analysis of the Threshold of Application Contained in Article 8(2)(f) In: Journal of Conflict & Security Law 12 (3) pp. 419 - 445 Oxford University Press

  This article puts forward an argument for a particular approach to the interpretation of the definition of non-international armed conflict in the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court. Focusing on the meaning of Article 8(2)(f), it is contended that this provision possesses a threshold of an application equivalent to that of Article 3 common to the four Geneva Conventions of 1949. In supporting this position, the first half of the article analyses the travaux preparatoires of the Rome Statute. Here relevant clauses relating to non-international armed conflict are analysed in order to highlight the threshold of application intended by their drafters. Following on from the travaux preparatoires of the Rome Statute, the second half of the article puts forward an interpretation of the threshold contained in Article 8(2)(f) as one applicable to all situations of non-international armed conflict subject to the court’s jurisdiction. Drawing, among other things, on the conventional usage of the term ‘armed conflict not of an international character’ and the customary status of non-international armed conflict provisions in the Rome Statute, an argument is advanced for an understanding of the threshold contained in Article 8(2)(f) as the one identical to that of common Article 3.