Editing Resistance movement (section)

==Controversy regarding definition==

On the lawfulness of armed resistance movements in [[international law]], there has been a dispute between states since at least 1899, when the first major codification of the [[laws of war]] in the form of a series of international treaties took place. In the Preamble to the 1899 Hague Convention II on Land War, the [[Martens Clause]] was introduced as a compromise wording for the dispute between the [[Great Power]]s who considered [[francs-tireurs]] to be [[unlawful combatants]] subject to execution on capture and smaller states who maintained that they should be considered lawful combatants.<ref>Rupert Ticehurst (1997) in his footnote 1 cites ''The life and works of Martens'' as detailed by V. Pustogarov, "Fyodor Fyodorovich Martens (1845–1909){{snd}} A Humanist of Modern Times", ''International Review of the Red Cross'' (IRRC), No. 312, May–June 1996, pp. 300–14.</ref><ref>Ticehurst (1997) in his footnote 2 cites F. Kalshoven, ''Constraints on the Waging of War'', Dordrecht: Martinus Nijhoff, 1987, p. 14.</ref>

More recently the 1977 [[Protocol I|Protocol Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, and relating to the Protection of Victims of International Armed Conflicts]], referred in [[Protocol I#Part I GENERAL PROVISIONS|Article 1. Paragraph 4]] to armed conflicts "... in which peoples are fighting against colonial domination and alien occupation and against racist regimes..." This phraseology, according USA that refused to ratify the Protocol, contains many ambiguities that cloud the issue of who is or is not a legitimate combatant:<ref>Gardam (1993), [https://books.google.com/books?id=MGT2hJFS9MkC&dq=in+which+peoples+are+fighting+against+colonial+domination+and+alien+occupation&pg=PA91 p. 91.]</ref> ultimately, in US Government opinion the distinction is just a [[Politics|political]] judgment.

Some definitions of resistance movement have proved controversial. 
Hence depending on the perspective of a state's government, a resistance movement may or may not be labelled a [[terrorist]] group based on whether the members of a resistance movement are considered lawful or unlawful combatants and whether they are recognized as having a [[right to resist]] occupation.<ref name=Khan>Khan, Ali ([[Washburn University]] – School of Law). [https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=935347 "A Theory of International Terrorism"], ''Connecticut Law Review'', vol. 19, p. 945, 1987.</ref>

According to Joint Publication 1-02, the [[United States Department of Defense]] defines a resistance movement as "an organized effort by some portion of the civil population of a country to resist the legally established government or an occupying power and to disrupt civil order and stability". In strict military terminology, a resistance movement is simply that; it seeks to resist (change) the policies of a government or occupying power. This may be accomplished through violent or non-violent means. In this view, a resistance movement is specifically limited to changing the nature of current power, not to overthrow it; and the correct{{According to whom|date=January 2011}} military term for removing or overthrowing a government is an [[insurgency]]. However, in reality many resistance movements have aimed to displace a particular ruler, especially if that ruler has gained or retained power illegally.