The Status of Non-State Armed Groups in Armed Conflicts

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Asif Khan ◽  
Pervaiz Khan
Keyword(s):  
Armed Conflicts ◽  
Armed Groups ◽  
The Status

International Humanitarian Law and Non-State Practice in Armed Conflict: Combatant’s Privilege and Kurdish Fighters in Syria

2019 ◽  
Vol 24 (2) ◽  
pp. 271-296
Author(s):  
Ilana Rothkopf
Keyword(s):  
Armed Conflict ◽  
International Community ◽  
Armed Conflicts ◽  
International Humanitarian Law ◽  
Humanitarian Law ◽  
Armed Groups ◽  
Prisoner Of War ◽  
Geneva Conventions ◽  
State Practice ◽  
The Status

Abstract Do fighters associated with non-state armed groups have the combatant’s privilege in armed conflict? Non-state armed groups are commonplace in contemporary armed conflicts. However, international humanitarian law (IHL), particularly the law that pertains to combatant’s privilege and prisoner of war status, was designed with state actors in mind. This article assesses the conditions under which the members of non-state armed groups have combatant’s privilege. Throughout, it uses the case of Kurdish fighters in Syria as an example of the timeliness of this question and its ramifications for conflict actors. This article notes, with support from the Geneva Conventions, Additional Protocols, and other sources of IHL, that IHL does not foresee a combatant’s privilege for armed groups in a non-international armed conflict. It contends, however, that the international community should agree to a generalisable rule for the treatment of fighters as combatants regardless of conflict type, if these fighters demonstrate the capability and willingness to adhere to IHL. Such a rule would reduce the need to assess both conflict type and the status of individual fighters should they be captured, and more importantly, it would incentivise continued compliance with IHL.

scholarly journals The Role of Customary International Law in Regulating the Activities of Armed Groups in the Field of Human Rights

2021 ◽  
Vol 16 (5) ◽  
pp. 195-204
Author(s):  
R. I. Sharipov
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
International Law ◽  
Armed Conflicts ◽  
International Human Rights Law ◽  
Armed Groups ◽  
Customary International Law ◽  
Protection Of Human Rights ◽  
Jus Cogens ◽  
Relationship Of ◽  
Peremptory Norms

Over the past decades, there has been a significant increase in the number of armed groups involved in armed conflicts around the world, as well as in their impact on the rights and freedoms of the population under their control. Facing various situations of systematic violations of human rights by non-state actors, experts in the field of international human rights law began to consider the theoretical justification for the mandatory nature of the provisions on the observance and protection of human rights for armed groups. In this regard, a number of scholars have turned to the theory of customary international law, the acceptability of which is being investigated by the author of this paper. The author examines the provisions underlying this theory and the persuasiveness of the argumentation used by its supporters. Based on an analysis of the nature of customary international law, its structural elements, their interpretation by the UN International Court of Justice in its decisions and the relationship of customary international law with peremptory norms of jus cogens, the author concludes that the theory under consideration is currently unable to explain the existence of obligations of armed groups in the field of human rights.

Human Rights Obligations of Armed Groups

2019 ◽  
pp. 444-462
Author(s):  
Andreas Th Müller
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Potential Application ◽  
Armed Conflicts ◽  
Human Rights Law ◽  
Armed Groups ◽  
The Past ◽  
Legal Obligations ◽  
Human Rights Treaties ◽  
Recent Developments ◽  
State Actors

One of the asymmetries faced by military missions in areas of limited statehood are diverging legal obligations of state and non-state actors, in particular in relation to human rights duties. From a perspective of states bound by human rights treaties, there is a certain danger that armed groups opposing them might abuse the obligations incumbent upon state actors. Against this perception, the potential application of human rights law to armed groups is not only relevant as a tool for protecting civilians but also from a reciprocity perspective in view of the fluidity of armed conflicts and with a view to convergence of standards. The chapter assesses how international law and international legal practice in relation to armed groups have evolved over the past decade. It takes stock of recent developments and analyses the degree to which human rights obligations apply to armed groups.

The Definition of Civilians in Non-International Armed Conflicts

2016 ◽  
Vol 7 (1) ◽  
pp. 129-155 ◽  
Author(s):  
Camille Marquis Bissonnette
Keyword(s):  
Armed Conflict ◽  
Codes Of Conduct ◽  
Armed Conflicts ◽  
Armed Groups ◽  
Direct Participation ◽  
State Actors ◽  
Definition Of ◽  
Shed Light

This article analyzes the perceptions of armed groups regarding the concept of civilians in non-international armed conflicts, through their codes of conduct and other commitments. It intends to shed light on the implementation by these non-state actors of the very critical principle of distinction, the exact articulation of is hotly debated in non-international armed conflict. It thus presents the different approaches to the principle of distinction in non-international armed conflict: the specific-act approach, the membership approach, the functional non-privileged combatancy approach, and the direct participation in hostilities with extended temporal scope in light of the commitments and undertakings of various armed groups. It concludes with the findings made on the basis of the study of the commitments made by armed groups, underlying in particular the issues that remain problematic regarding the principle of distinction in non-international armed conflict, as well as the issues on which a consensus in conceivable.

Intervention by Invitation

2016 ◽  
Author(s):  
Gregory H. Fox
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
International Law ◽  
Civil Wars ◽  
Security Council ◽  
Armed Conflicts ◽  
Democratic Legitimacy ◽  
Un Security Council ◽  
The Status ◽  
The Government ◽  
Internal Armed Conflicts

This chapter examines the debate concerning a state’s intervention in internal armed conflicts based on invitation, either from the government or from a rebel group fighting against the government. It looks at the issues that arise from intervention by invitation, particularly those relating to the territorial integrity of the state, the status of the actors involved, the nature of the consent, and implications for international law in general and for politics and human rights in particular. The chapter first considers the traditional view of intervention by invitation and the recent challenges to that view. It then discusses the negative equality principle as it applies to intervention in civil wars, as well as the link between intervention by invitation and democratic legitimacy. It also analyses the position of the UN Security Council on intervention by invitation.

Exploring the “continuous combat function” concept in armed conflicts: Time for an extended application?

2018 ◽  
Vol 100 (907-909) ◽  
pp. 267-285
Author(s):  
Sabrina Henry
Keyword(s):  
Armed Conflict ◽  
Armed Forces ◽  
Armed Conflicts ◽  
Armed Groups ◽  
Function Concept ◽  
Extended Application

AbstractThis paper focuses on the “continuous combat function” concept and proposes to extend its application. First, the article will demonstrate that the continuous combat function concept should be extended to certain members of organized armed groups in cases where those groups do not belong to any of the parties to an international armed conflict and whose actions do not reach the level of intensity required for a separate non-international armed conflict (NIAC) to exist. Secondly, the paper will look at the extension of this concept in order to determine individual membership in State armed forces in the context of a NIAC, while arguing that the notion of “armed forces” should be interpreted differently depending of the nature of the conflict, be it international or non-international.

scholarly journals Lessons for the law of armed conflict from commitments of armed groups: identification of legitimate targets and prisoners of war

2011 ◽  
Vol 93 (882) ◽  
pp. 463-482 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sandesh Sivakumaran
Keyword(s):  
Armed Conflict ◽  
Ad Hoc ◽  
Prisoners Of War ◽  
International Standards ◽  
Armed Conflicts ◽  
Humanitarian Law ◽  
Armed Groups ◽  
Law Of Armed Conflict ◽  
The Law ◽  
Rules Set

AbstractArmed groups frequently issue ad hoc commitments that contain a law of armed conflict component. These commitments detail the obligation of the relevant armed group to abide by international humanitarian law, the Geneva Conventions, or particular rules set out in the commitment. They commit the group to abide by international standards, sometimes exceed international standards, or in certain respects violate international standards. Although these commitments are often overlooked, they offer certain lessons for the law of armed conflict. This article considers the commitments of armed groups with respect to two specific areas of the law that are either of contested interpretation or seemingly inapplicable to non-international armed conflicts, namely the identification of legitimate targets and the prisoners of war regime.

scholarly journals DEBATE: Should the obligations of states and armed groups under international humanitarian law really be equal?

2011 ◽  
Vol 93 (882) ◽  
pp. 425-442 ◽  
Author(s):  
Marco Sassòli ◽  
Yuval Shany
Keyword(s):  
Legal Reasoning ◽  
Legal Protection ◽  
Armed Conflicts ◽  
International Humanitarian Law ◽  
Humanitarian Law ◽  
Armed Groups ◽  
Humanitarian Action ◽  
Third Dimension ◽  
Image Position

By introducing a new ‘debate’ section, the Review hopes to contribute to the reflection on current ethical, legal, or practical controversies around humanitarian issues. This section will expose readers to the key arguments concerning a particular contemporary question of humanitarian law or humanitarian action.For this first debate, the Review asked two members of its Editorial Board, Professor Marco Sassòli and Professor Yuval Shany, to debate on the topic of equality of states and armed groups under international humanitarian law. Professor René Provost comments on this debate, adding a third dimension to the discussion.The crucial question is whether it is realistic to apply the current legal regime to non-state armed groups. How can armed groups, with sometimes very limited means and low levels of organization, meet the same obligations as states? What are the incentives for armed groups to respect rules that their opponents have enacted? Why should they respect any rules when the very fact of taking arms against the state already makes them ‘outlaws’?All participants in this discussion share an aspiration to ensure better legal protection for all those affected by armed conflicts. Professors Sassòli and Shany have agreed to present two ‘radically’ opposed stances, Professor Sassòli maintaining that equality should be reconsidered and replaced by a sliding scale of obligations, and Professor Shany rebutting this assertion. Professor Provost then reflects on the stances put forward by the two debaters and invites us to revisit the very notion of equality of belligerents.The debaters have simplified their complex legal reasoning for the sake of clarity and brevity. Readers of the Review should bear in mind that the debaters actual legal positions are more nuanced than they may appear in this debate.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document