Near the start of this thread, Wilf asked:

Why differentiate? What purpose does it serve?
It certainly does not so far as the GCs are concerned. They are based on whether there is an "armed conflict" and whether that "armed conflict" is "international" or not.

The major differentiation in application of the GCs hinges on whether the 1977 AP I and II have been adopted, along with other treaties and "customary international humanitarian law", or not (as in the case of the US).

Of course, even where only the 1949 GCs have been adopted, a country can, for military and political reasons (as the US has done) adopt ROEs and RUFs far more restrictive than what its Laws of War would allow. Just for fun, compare what FM 27-10 would allow for those rules vs what they actually are.

So, why should we want to distinguish between an "insurgency" and a "civil war" ? In what areas do advantages accrue depending on whether the "armed conflict" is called an "insurgency" or a "civil war" ?

Regards

Mike