Among those important developments of international humanitarian law brought about by those

decisions, one can quote the ones concerning:
- Definition of armed conflict and determination of the scope of application of humanitarian
law:
"...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. International humanitarian law applies from the initiation of such armed
conflicts and extends beyond the cessation of hostilities until a general conclusion of peace is
reached; or, in the case of internal conflicts, a peaceful settlement is achieved. Until that moment,
international humanitarian law continues to apply in the whole territory of the warring States or,
in the case of internal conflicts, the whole territory under the control of a party, whether or not
actual combat takes place there." (Tadic, Appeals Chamber, Decision on the Defence Motion for
Interlocutory Appeal on Jurisdiction, October 2, 1995, §. 70)
- Definition of 'laws and customs of war':
“Article 3 is a general clause covering all violations of humanitarian law not falling under Article
2 or covered by Articles 4 or 5, more specifically: (i) violations of the Hague law on international
conflicts; (ii) infringements of provisions of the Geneva Conventions other than those classified
as ‘grave breaches’ by those Conventions; (iii) violations of common Article 3 and other
customary rules on internal conflicts; (iv) violations of agreements binding upon the parties to
the conflict, considered qua treaty law, i.e., agreements which have not turned into customary
international law . . . .” (Tadic, Appeals Chamber, Decision on the Defence Motion for
Interlocutory Appeal on Jurisdiction, October 2, 1995, §. 89)
- Common article 3 is part of customary law:
“[S]ome treaty rules have gradually become part of customary law. This holds true for common
Article 3 of the 1949 Geneva Conventions. . . .” (Tadic, Appeals Chamber, Decision on the
Defence Motion for Interlocutory Appeal on Jurisdiction, October 2, 1995, §. 98)
- Definition of international armed conflict:
“It is indisputable that an armed conflict is international if it takes place between two or more
States. In addition, in case of an internal armed conflict breaking out on the territory of a State, it
may become international (or, depending upon the circumstances, be international in character
alongside an internal armed conflict) if (i) another State intervenes in that conflict through its
troops, or alternatively if (ii) some of the participants in the internal armed conflict act on behalf
of that other State.” (Tadic, Appeals Chamber, July 15, 1999, § 84)
- Definition of overall control:
“[C]ontrol by a State over subordinate armed forces or militias or paramilitary units may be of an
overall character (and must comprise more than the mere provision of financial assistance or

subject to certain conditions. July 15. Appeals Chamber. may be held to be criminally liable.” (Tadic. however. instigate. It does not exclude those modes of participating in the commission of crimes which occur where several persons having a common purpose embark on criminal activity that is then carried out either jointly or by some members of this plurality of persons.” “[I]f the controlling State is not the territorial State where the armed clashes occur or where at any rate the armed units perform their acts. or give specific instructions concerning the conduct of military operations and any alleged violations of international humanitarian law. 138) . the Party to the conflict) has a role in organising. order. Acts performed by the group or members thereof may be regarded as acts of de facto State organs regardless of any specific instruction by the controlling State concerning the commission of each of those acts. § 137. Whoever contributes to the commission of crimes by the group of persons or some members of the group. choose their targets. or its direction of each individual operation. in the context of an armed conflict. This requirement. training and equipping or providing operational support to that group. preparation or execution.” (Tadic.military equipment or training). more extensive and compelling evidence is required to show that the State is genuinely in control of the units or groups not merely by financing and equipping them.Responsibility for joint criminal enterprise: “[T]he Statute does not confine itself to providing for jurisdiction over those persons who plan. does not go so far as to include the issuing of specific orders by the State. The control required by international law may be deemed to exist when a State (or. coordinating or planning the military actions of the military group. in addition to financing. Under international law it is by no means necessary that the controlling authorities should plan all the operations of the units dependent on them. The Statute does not stop there. 1999. 1999. in execution of a common criminal purpose. Appeals Chamber. 190) . but also by generally directing or helping plan their actions. July 15. physically perpetrate a crime or otherwise aid and abet in its planning. §.