Source: https://casebook.icrc.org/case-study/syria-medical-support-isis
Timestamp: 2020-02-23 10:28:15
Document Index: 600243709

Matched Legal Cases: ['Art. 2', 'Art. 1', 'Art. 1', 'Art. 3', 'Art. 7', 'Art. 9', 'Art. 18']

Syria: Medical support for ISIS | How does law protect in war? - Online casebook
[Source: “New test for British policy: will the Syria nine be labelled as terrorists?”, The Guardian, 21 March 2015. Available at: http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/mar/21/uk-medics-syria-test-for-british-policy]
1. (Para. [1]) What is the nature of the armed conflict between Syria and the Islamic State (ISIS)? Is it a NIAC or an IAC? (GC I-IV, Art. 2 and 3; P I, Art. 1; P II, Art. 1)
2. (Paras [8] - [10]) Who is entitled to medical treatment under IHL of NIACs? What is the extent and content of such treatment? Can a full analogy be drawn in this respect between IHL of NIACs and IHL of IACs? (GC I-IV, Art. 3; P II, Art. 7; CIHL, Rule 110)
a. Who qualifies as medical personnel in NIACs? Do medical personnel have to be authorized by a party to the conflict to have this status? May they use the distinctive emblem of the Geneva Conventions? May persons other than authorized medical personnel administer medical treatment? Do the nine Britons in question qualify as medical personnel? (P II, Art. 9-12; CIHL, Rules 25, 26 and 30)
b. (Para. [14]) May ISIS compel medical personnel to treat only its own fighters? To give priority to its own fighters? Would persons giving such priority lose protection as medical personnel under IHL? Would it turn them into legitimate targets of attacks? Are there grounds on which giving prioritized medical treatment is authorized? (P II, 9(2) and 10(2); CIHL, Rule 26)
4. (Para. [5] - [7], [9]) May a person be punished for carrying out medical activities? Does it depend on the motives of the person? Even if the beneficiaries of the treatment are members of a terrorist group? Do you agree with the specialist from the Royal United Service Institute that the nine Britons in question provide material support to terrorists which is comparable to direct assistance in the battlefield? (P I, 16(1) and 17(1); P II, 10(1); GC I, Art. 18) Would the UK violate the above provisions if they prosecuted the medics?
5. (Para. [3]) What do you think the UK Home Office meant in stating that prosecution for taking part in a foreign war under criminal and anti-terrorism legislation will depend on the nature of the conflict? Was it referring to the qualification of the conflict as international or non-international? To the nature of the parties involved (for ex., whether one is a terrorist group)? Does IHL of IACs provide for combatant immunity against prosecution in a state not party to the IAC in question? (P I, 43(2))