Amān and International Humanitarian Law concerning Quarter, Perfidy and Ruses of War: A Comparative Study

Abstract

There are two aspects of Contemporary International Law (CIL). They are “Jus ad bellum" and "Jus in bello". Jus ad bellum investigates whether a war among nation-states is lawful or unlawful. This aspect of CIL is dealt with by the UN Charter under the title of "Use of Force". The other aspect of CIL is "Jus in bello" which discusses ethics and conduct of war under the name of International Humanitarian Law (IHL). The aforementioned aspects of CIL also exist in Islamic International Law (IIL). The former one is known as Illāt al-Qitāl and the latter as Aāb al-Qitāl. This article investigates a comparative study of IHL with special reference to Quarter, perfidy and ruses of war in the context of Amān. IHL does not focus on the validity or legality of war; it ensures human rights during the war among the Nation States and sets laws to minimize human losses during the war. IHL negates the notion of free-hand in war among the Nation States. It declares all deceiving movement or deceiving measures unlawful such as perfidy. However, it allows ruses during the war. It also awards quarter to belligerents. Likewise, ILL also recognizes protection of belligerents under the name of Amān. Amān is to be awarded by Muslim combatants to alien combatants on or without demand during war. It may be in explicit or implied words. Any indication/gesture that shows protection of the combatants will also be considered Amān. Once Amān is awarded it cannot be terminated to avoid perfidy. IIL prohibits perfidy and allows ruses of war. Therefore, the notion of non-Muslims scholars regarding IIL that it is not compatible with ICL is clearly misinterpretation of IIL.