Domestic counterterrorism (CT) frameworks have been increasingly employed to criminalize impartial medical care to wounded and sick from non-State armed groups labelled as criminal or terrorist in non-international armed conflicts (NIACs). It has also contributed to legitimize attacks and incidental damage on medical facilities in armed conflicts overlooking the international humanitarian law (IHL) protection afforded to the wounded and sick as well as to medical personnel and facilities. This article compares the treatment of the wounded and sick in both international armed conflicts (IACs) and NIACs in the context of the global war on terrorism. It demonstrates the impacts that CT measures have on the IHL protection of the medical mission while demonstrating the increased acceptance that some incidental damages, such as the downgrading of IHL core protections, are tolerated, by some countries in the global fight against terrorism. The article further illustrates how the special criminal status of wounded and sick from non-State armed groups in armed conflicts that are evolving in a CT context can mechanically contaminate the status of impartial humanitarian medical activities, facilities and personnel in such contexts. It also shows how the simultaneous application of CT and IHL in numerous contexts of armed conflict as well as the involvement of State armed forces under those two different bodies of law contributes to blurring the lines between IHL and CT, between protected or “criminal” humanitarian and medical activities. In contexts of complex military operations, this reality creates a mind-set conducive to legal mistakes and security incidents on the medical mission. Although there is a distinction between the protection from attacks and the protection from prosecution under IHL, in practice, numerous military operations to arrest are launched in ways similar to attacks and can end up with some killings. The article concludes that States could easily limit the impact of CT on IHL by adding an exemption in their CT framework for humanitarian and medical assistance that is compatible with IHL. This is the first necessary condition – even if obviously not a sufficient one – to end the legal ambiguity between IHL and State domestic law as to the criminalization or loss of the IHL protected status for the much necessary needed medical assistance and care activities in times of armed conflict that are evolving in a CT context.

中文翻译：

---

反恐如何将战时的医疗援助和护理倒退到前索尔费里诺时代

国内反恐 (CT) 框架越来越多地被用于将在非国际武装冲突 (NIAC) 中被标记为犯罪或恐怖分子的非国家武装团体的伤病员的公正医疗定为刑事犯罪。它还有助于将武装冲突中对医疗设施的袭击和附带损害合法化，忽视国际人道法 (IHL) 对伤病员以及医务人员和设施的保护。本文比较了全球反恐战争背景下国际武装冲突 (IAC) 和非国际武装冲突中伤病员的治疗。它展示了 CT 措施对医疗任务的国际人道法保护的影响，同时展示了人们越来越接受一些附带损害、一些国家在全球反恐斗争中容忍了诸如降低国际人道法核心保护等级的行为。该文章进一步说明了非国家武装团体伤病员在武装冲突中的特殊犯罪地位（在 CT 环境中不断演变）如何机械地污染了在这种环境下公正的人道主义医疗活动、设施和人员的地位。它还展示了在武装冲突的多种情况下同时适用反恐和国际人道法以及国家武装部队在这两种不同法律体系下的参与如何有助于模糊国际人道法和反恐战争之间、受保护或“犯罪”人道主义之间的界限。和医疗活动。在复杂的军事行动中，这一现实造成了一种有利于医疗任务中的法律错误和安全事件的心态。尽管国际人道法保护免受攻击和保护免受起诉之间存在区别，但在实践中，许多军事逮捕行动是以类似于攻击的方式发起的，最终可能导致一些杀戮。该文章的结论是，各国可以通过在其与国际人道法相一致的人道主义和医疗援助的反恐框架中添加豁免来轻松限制反恐对国际人道法的影响。