Unveiling Common Article 3 to the Geneva Conventions

The chapter analyses the role that contingency played in the negotiation, adoption, and interpretation of Common Article 3 to the Geneva Conventions. It focuses in particular on the choice of including the Article in the Conventions, on the terminology that is used in the provision, and on the way in which the latter is currently interpreted. Through a study of the past contingencies that shaped the (hi)story of the provision, leading to the contingency of its contemporary interpretation, the chapter challenges the concept of non-international armed conflict as it is traditionally understood, proposing an exercise of self-reflexivity on the existence of different interpretive possibilities. Borrowing from both contextual and critical approaches to history, the analysis is informed by the two sibling frameworks of false necessity and false contingency, that are put in constant dialogue with each other. By adopting a two-tiered perspective, the ultimate aim of the analysis is to show that, with respect to a same issue, the necessity stemming from a given historical moment can turn into contingency when tested against the background of a different context.