Recognize an Armed Conflict Doesn't Confer Legitimacy to Organized Armed Groups to Confront the State.

Abstract

The purpose of the article is to present the hermeneutics of Common Article 3 to the four Geneva Conventions of 1949, fundamental norms of International Humanitarian Law, with emphasis on the inalterability of the legal status of the parties involved, given the recognition of the existence of non-international armed conflict. The literalness of the norm makes it possible to clearly ensure that with its validity, members of organized armed groups continue to be perpetrators, haven't legitimacy to confront the state forces, even if in fact they do, and are subject to the rigors of national criminal law. It is necessary to properly classify the situation of violence in order to apply the appropriate legal framework. The increasingly complex use of the Armed Forces in urban operations points to a gray zone, with oscillations between what is public security and what is a low-intensity armed conflict, imposing an adequate conceptualization of the factual situation. The repulsed, or mistaken, privileges armed groups, because they end up having the unbalanced response of the State, in their favor. The effectiveness of the humanitarian norm is correctly applied and legal certainty in military operations is ensured when there is a balance with the efficient performance of the State's protection mechanisms. This equity is obtained from the proper recognition of the legal status of the scene of violence, without fear of mistakenly granting legitimacy to those who confront the State.