For example, this will be dependent upon armed group dissemination and enforcement. At times, states also reflect the application of IHL in a non-global armed conflict as they do not have a wish for conceding that such a situation on their territories can amount towards armed conflicts. There are various reasons behind this such as wish of avoiding the perception that a particular region is a weak state, afraid to provide legitimacy and the urge of preserving the ability of the state to deal with these groups as an inner matter governed through local laws.
There does not lie a new phenomenon for the asymmetric nature perceived by unequal capacity of military authorities. There has always been a possession of various military strength by warring parties that have put in efforts for the utilization of significant advantage. As there is an increased rareness for occurrence of wars between the states, however, disparity across the parties have started becoming a defining attribute of several present conflict. There lies specific evidence in events of wars where there is an involvement of major power, holding both, highly advanced weapons and weapons in large quantity.
This has also been identified as the case in which a coalition among the states ends up fighting a mutual enemy like coalition led by the United States of America in Iraq or the International Security Assistance Force led by NATO in the location of Afghanistan. Armed conflicts at internal level within which the government fights against several armed groups or one armed groups can be considered as asymmetrical typically. Enhancement of asymmetric nature among the parties can be considered as being in association with the greater utilization of attacks that were perfidious and civilians being targeted deliberately by the party that is weaker. This also involves the utilization of several illegal tactics by the party that is stronger in terms of military, further being inclusive of interrogation practices, illegal detection and indiscriminate attacks.