This article considers the international legal obligations relevant to States when withdrawing from situations of armed conflict. While a growing literature has focused on precisely when armed conflicts come to a legal end, as well as obligations triggered by the cessation of active hostilities, comparatively little attention has been paid to the legal implications of withdrawals from armed conflict and the contours of the obligations relevant to States in doing so. Following in the wake of just war scholarship endeavouring to distil jus ex bello principles, this article examines States’ obligations when ending their participation in armed conflicts from the perspective of international humanitarian law (IHL). It shows that while it is generally understood that IHL ceases to apply at the end of armed conflict, this is in reality a significant simplification; a number of obligations actually endure. Such rules act as exceptions to the general temporal scope of IHL and continue to govern withdrawing States, in effect straddling the in bello and post bellum phases of armed conflict. The article then develops three key end-of-participation obligations: obligations governing detention and transfer of persons, obligations imposed by Article 1 common to the four Geneva Conventions, and obligations relating to accountability and the consequences of conflict.

中文翻译：

---

战时法和国际人道法：国家退出武装冲突时的义务

本条考虑了在退出武装冲突局势时与国家相关的国际法律义务。虽然越来越多的文献关注武装冲突何时合法结束，以及由停止积极敌对行动引发的义务，但相对较少关注从武装冲突中撤出的法律影响和义务的轮廓与各国这样做有关。紧随正义战争学术努力提炼前世之战本文从国际人道法 (IHL) 的角度审视各国在结束参与武装冲突时的义务。它表明，虽然人们普遍认为国际人道法在武装冲突结束时不再适用，但这实际上是一种重大的简化；许多义务实际上持续存在。此类规则作为国际人道法一般时间范围的例外，并继续管辖退出国，实际上跨越在贝洛和战后武装冲突的阶段。然后，该条制定了三项关键的参与结束义务：关于拘留和人员转移的义务、日内瓦四公约共同第 1 条规定的义务，以及与问责制和冲突后果有关的义务。