ENDNOTES 1 Individual States have accepted limited delegations from the AANES. The AANES opened a representation office in Russia in February 2016 and for the Benelux countries in The Hague in September 2016. 2 Prior to October 2019, a third, smaller camp was in operation at Ain Issa in the Raqqa Governorate close to the Turkish border. Following the Turkish incursion in September 2019, this camp was abandoned, and the women and children detained there fled to neighbouring towns or across the border into Turkey. 3 UNICEF Press Release, ‘Unwanted, exploited and abused: Tens of thousands of children in Al-Hol camp and several parts of Syria in limbo amid dire humanitarian needs’ (July 2019) UNICEF Press Release’ , available at: https://www.unicef.org/press-releases/unwantedexploited-and-abused-tens-thousands-children-al-hol-camp-and-several-parts. 4 OCHA, ‘Syrian Arab Republic. North East Syria: AL Hol Camp’ OCHA (11 October 2020) < https://reliefweb.int/sites/reliefweb.int/files/ resources/Al%20Hol%20Snapshot_11Oct2020.pdf> accessed 9 February 2021. 5 Case No IT-94-1 Prosecutor v Dusko Tadic, Decision on the Defence Motion for Interlocutory Appeal on Jurisdiction (Appeals Chamber), 2 October 1995 [70]. 6 See: Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court (Rome, 17 July 1998) UN Doc. A/CONF.183/9 of 17 July 1998, entered into force 1 July 2002, Article 8(2)(d). 7 M Milanovic, ‘The End of Application of International Humanitarian Law’ (2014) 96(893) International Review of the Red Cross 163, 179-180. See also: Tadic (n 4), [70]; and Case No IT-04-84-T Prosecutor v Haradinaj et al, Judgment (Trial Chamber), 3 April 2008 [100]. 8 Milanovic (n 6), 180-181; R Bartels, ‘Temporal Scope of Application of IHL: When Do Non-International Armed Conflicts End? Part 2’ (Opinio Juris, 19 February 2014), available at: http://opiniojuris.org/2014/02/19/guest-post-bartels-temporal-scope-application-ihlnon-international-armed-conflicts-end-part-2/; ICRC, ‘Commentary of 2016: Article 3 [Geneva Convention I]’ (‘2016 ICRC Commentary’), [491]. 9 According to the International Committee of the Red Cross (‘ICRC’), ‘[t]he question of whether humanitarian law provides inherent authority or power to detain is, however, still subject to debate.’ See: 2016 ICRC Commentary (n 7), [727]. See, for instance: L Hill-Cawthorne, Detention in Non-International Armed Conflict (OUP, 2016); D Murray, ‘Non-State Armed Groups, Detention Authority in Non-International Armed Conflicts, and the Coherence of International Law: Searching for a Way Forward,’ (2017) 30(2) Leiden Journal of International Law 1; A Clapham, ‘Detention by Armed Groups under International Law’ (2017) 93 International Law Studies 1. 10 Serdar Mohammed v Secretary of State for Defence [2017] UKSC 2, [2017] AC 821 (UKSC),[258]-[276] (Lord Reed); and at first instance in Mohammed v Ministry of Defence [2014] EWHC 1369 (QB), [241]-[251] (Leggatt J). 11 See L Hill-Cawthorne and D Akande, ‘Does IHL Provide a Legal Basis for Detention in Non-International Armed Conflicts?’ (EJIL:Talk!, 7 May 2014), available at: https://www.ejiltalk.org/does-ihl-provide-a-legal-basis-for-detention-in-non-international-armed-conflicts/. J-M Henckaerts and L Doswald-Beck, Customary International Humanitarian Law, Volume I: Rules (CUP 2005) (‘ICRC Rules’), Rule 99; and Working Group on Arbitrary Detention Report, UN Doc. A/HRCC/22/44 (24 December 2012) (‘Working Group Report’), [43]-[45]. ICRC, Internment in Armed Conflict: Basic Rules and Challenges (Opinion Paper, November 2014) 8; ICRC, Procedural principles and safeguards for internment/administrative detention in armed conflict and other situations of violence (Vol 87 No 858, June 2005), 377. ICRC, Internment in Armed Conflict (n 12) 9; ICRC, Procedural principles and safeguards for internment/administrative detention in armed conflict and other situations of violence (n 12) 380. ICRC, Procedural principles and safeguards for internment/administrative detention in armed conflict and other situations of violence (n 12) 381, 382. Ibid 385-6, 388-9. Working Group Report (n 11), [43]-[45]. See also the decision of the International Court of Justice in United States Diplomatic and Consular Staff in Tehran (United States of America v Iran) [1980] ICJ Rep 42, [91]. Human Rights Committee, Mukong v Camerron, UN Doc. CCPR/C/51/D/458/1991 (10 August 1994), [9.8]. Working Group Report (n 11), [63]. Human Rights Committee, Abbassi and Madani v Algeria, UN Doc. CCPR/C/89/D/1172/2003 (21 June 2007), [8.4]. Working Group Report (n 11), [47]. See Universal Declaration of Human Rights (10 Dec. 1948), UN GA Res 217 A (III) (1948) (‘UDHR’), Article 5; Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (New York, 10 Dec. 1984) 1465 UNTS 85, 23 I.L.M. 1027 (1984), as modified by 24 ILM 535 (1985), entered into force 26 June 1987. (‘CAT’), Article 1; International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (New York, 16 Dec. 1966) 999 UNTS 171 and 1057 UNTS 407, entered into force 23 Mar. 1976 (‘ICCPR’), Article 7; and European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (Rome, 4 Nov. 1950), 312 ETS 5 (‘ECHR’), Article 3. 46 23 On non-State actor responsibility for torture, see: Sadiq Shek Elmi v Australia, CAT/C/22/D/120/1998, UN Committee Against Torture (CAT), 25 May 1999 (‘Elmi’); and HMNI v Australia, CAT/C/28/D/177/2001, UN Committee Against Torture (CAT), 1 May 2002 (‘HMNI’). 24 ICRC, Geneva Conventions I-IV, Common Article 3.1(1). 25 Ibid art 3.1(1)(c). The additional standards often applicable to a NIAC under Additional Protocol II have no application as Additional Protocol II does not apply where the parties to the NIACs are non-State actors, or where the State party directly involved is not a signatory (as the Syrian Arab Republic is not in this case). 26 ICRC Rules (n 11), Rule 121. 27 ICRC Rules (n 11), Rule 128. 28 ICRC Rules (n 11), Rule 134. 29 ICRC Rules (n 11), Rule 135. 30 ICCPR (n 21), Article 9(1); and ECHR (n 21), Article 5(1). 31 Convention on the Rights of the Child (New York, 20 Nov. 1989) 1577 UNTS 3, entered into force 2 Sep. 1990 (‘CRC’), Article 37. 32 ICCPR (n 21), Article 7; and ECHR (n 21), Article 3. 33 UNDHR (n 21), Article 3; and ICCPR (n 21), Article 6. RIGHTS & SECURITY INTERNATIONAL