This paper examines the notion of intensity in the context of common Article 3 and Additional Protocol II (AP II) to the Geneva Conventions in order to establish whether AP II demands a different intensity threshold from the minimum threshold of intensity contemplated in common Article 3. The paper considers the question of whether the inclusion of the term “sustained” in the phrase “sustained and concerted military operations” intrinsic to the threshold in Article 1(1) of AP II introduces a temporal requirement in addition to mere protracted armed violence. The paper argues that the inclusion of the term “sustained” in Article 1(1) of AP II potentially demands prolonged protracted armed violence. The research aims to contribute to the existing literature on the notion of intensity demanded by the scope of application inherent in AP II through an interrogation of the phrase “sustained” military operations by employing the rules of treaty interpretation and by examining relevant case law and scholarly debate. In this way, the author hopes to contribute towards filling a lacuna with regard to the minimum threshold for intensity in the context of treaty law concerned with the classification of non-international armed conflicts.

中文翻译：

---

第二附加议定书：提高最低强度阈值？

本文研究了日内瓦公约共同第 3 条和第二附加议定书 (AP II) 中的强度概念，以确定 AP II 是否要求与共同第 3 条所设想的最低强度阈值不同的强度阈值。该文件考虑了一个问题，即在第二附加议定书第 1 条第 1 款的门槛所固有的“持续和协调一致的军事行动”短语中包含“持续”一词是否引入了除了单纯的长期武装暴力之外的时间要求。该文件认为，在 AP II 第 1 条第 1 款中包含“持续”一词可能需要长期持久的武装暴力。该研究旨在通过采用条约解释规则并通过检查相关判例法和学术辩论。通过这种方式，作者希望有助于填补有关非国际性武装冲突分类的条约法背景下关于最低强度阈值的空白。