So, is it a civil war or not? This question has dominated much of the public discussion about Syria over the last couple of days. Some say it is a civil war and some say it isn't, while others warn that if it isn't a civil war already it's going to become one very soon.

"Civil war", of course, is an emotive term and people use it for a variety of reasons – whether because it grabs readers' attention in a headline or because of what it implies for them politically.

Judging by the most widely-recognised definitions, Syria has been in a state of civil war for some time – not just because of the recently intensified fighting, as an article on CNN's website explains. 

At the same time, though, "civil war" is not a particularly helpful way to describe what is happening in Syria. The conflict, at root, is an uprising against a repressive regime and in that respect it differs from many of the more typical kinds of civil war: as Jeff White of the Washington Institute puts it in the CNN article, "the people are fighting the state not each other".

Also, although the violence in Syria is what gets the media's attention (for understandable reasons), we shouldn't forget that countless thousands are also struggling peacefully against the regime with strikes and demonstrations. That is a part of the narrative which can easily be overlooked, as EA WorldViewpointed out yesterday.

In a Syrian context, the term "civil war" has already acquired a good deal of political baggage. For some, it strengthens the case for intervention, though supporters of the Assad regime have also invoked it as a way of denying that there's a popular basis for the uprising.

The Syrian Revolution General Commission objects to "civil war" on the grounds that it creates a false equivalence between the regime and its opponents: it "makes the killer and the victim equal and ignores all the massacres committed by the Assad regime". The SRGC also says it masks "the real demands of the Syrian people who are only asking for freedom and dignity".

The Assad regime doesn't like "civil war" either – perhaps because it implies too much strength on the other side. For the moment, the regime is still sticking to the line that it is fighting "armed groups that have chosen terrorism".

At a purely practical level, though, whether we call it a civil war or not makes very little difference to what is happening on the ground.

A far more relevant question is whether the events in Syria should be described as "an armed conflict". While it may seem obvious than an armed conflict is indeed taking place, "armed conflict" is also a specific legal term. This is important, because an armed conflict in Syria (in the legal sense) would impose obligations on both sides under international humanitarian law – the need to protect civilians, the possibility of war crimes, etc.

Labelling it an armed conflict thus has more significant consequences than the more dramatic label of "civil war" and, looking at the legal definition, "armed conflict" does seem an appropriate term to use:

First, the hostilities must reach a minimum level of intensity. This may be the case, for example, when the hostilities are of a collective character or when the government is obliged to use military force against the insurgents, instead of mere police forces.

Second, non-governmental groups involved in the conflict must be considered as "parties to the conflict", meaning that they possess organised armed forces. This means for example that these forces have to be under a certain command structure and have the capacity to sustain military operations.

Posted by Brian Whitaker, 14 June 2012