The differences and similarities between international humanitarian law and Islamic humanitarian law: Is there ground for reconciliation? *

摘要

Since 9/11, the general warfare environment has changed. There are new types of wars such as those in Iraq and Afghanistan. Asymmetrical wars have emerged. There is consequently a changing pattern of conflicts. All these changes have an effect on warfare methods. The uniformity of the law that is to be enforced in times of war is also affected by these evolutions: the universality of international humanitarian law is debated and various regional interpretations of this law are proposed. One of the regionalization issues concerns Islamic humanitarian law. Humanitarian workers have been confronted with this reality in the field; academic discussions have become real life issues. There is no competition between Islamic humanitarian law and international humanitarian law for states such as Iran, Saudi Arabia or any other. These states have abided by international humanitarian law by signing conventions. Rather, the issue lies with transnational terrorist groups and their distorted interpretations of Islamic law. These actors are supposed to respect international humanitarian law, both the conventions and customary law. However, they have loosened their interpretations of Islamic humanitarian law, the only law to which they refer. This paper explores the risks inherent in the regionalization of humanitarian law and the possibilities of reconciliation between the different legal systems, the one being international humanitarian law and the other Islamic humanitarian law.