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

military equipment or training). This requirement, however, does not go so far as to include the
issuing of specific orders by the State, or its direction of each individual operation. Under
international law it is by no means necessary that the controlling authorities should plan all the
operations of the units dependent on them, choose their targets, or give specific instructions
concerning the conduct of military operations and any alleged violations of international
humanitarian law. The control required by international law may be deemed to exist when a State
(or, in the context of an armed conflict, the Party to the conflict) has a role in organising,
coordinating or planning the military actions of the military group, in addition to financing,
training and equipping or providing operational support to that group. 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.
[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, 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, but also by generally directing or helping plan their actions. (Tadic, Appeals
Chamber, July 15, 1999, 137, 138)
- Responsibility for joint criminal enterprise:
[T]he Statute does not confine itself to providing for jurisdiction over those persons who plan,
instigate, order, physically perpetrate a crime or otherwise aid and abet in its planning,
preparation or execution. The Statute does not stop there. 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. Whoever contributes to the commission of crimes by the group of
persons or some members of the group, in execution of a common criminal purpose, may be held
to be criminally liable, subject to certain conditions. (Tadic, Appeals Chamber, July 15, 1999, .
190)