Business and Armed Non-State Groups: Challenging the Landscape of Corporate (Un)accountability in Armed Conflicts

2020 ◽  
Vol 5 (2) ◽  
pp. 270-275
Author(s):  
Jelena APARAC
Keyword(s):  
Public Law ◽  
Armed Conflicts ◽  
International Humanitarian Law ◽  
Humanitarian Law ◽  
International Regulation ◽  
International Crimes ◽  
Recent Developments ◽  
State Actors ◽  
Business Entities ◽  
Transnational Activities

AbstractEconomic and armed non-state actors increasingly operate through their transnational activities. International public law excludes them from any international regulation or accountability process. International humanitarian law (IHL, the law of war) as a branch of international public law is an exception to this because it also regulates the behavior of non-state actors. Recent developments pertaining to the potential liability of business entities for involvement in international crimes, particularly when related to the activities of ANSGs challenge the traditional doctrine of international law and demonstrate the need for its norms to adapt to an evolving reality.

Typology of armed conflicts in international humanitarian law: legal concepts and actual situations

2009 ◽  
Vol 91 (873) ◽  
pp. 69-94 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sylvain Vité
Keyword(s):  
Armed Conflict ◽  
Armed Conflicts ◽  
International Humanitarian Law ◽  
Humanitarian Law ◽  
Legal Practice ◽  
Legal Regime ◽  
Recent Developments ◽  
Definition Of ◽  
Legal Concepts

AbstractAlthough international humanitarian law has as its aim the limitation of the effects of armed conflict, it does not include a full definition of those situations which fall within its material field of application. While it is true that the relevant conventions refer to various types of armed conflict and therefore afford a glimpse of the legal outlines of this multifaceted concept, these instruments do not propose criteria that are precise enough to determine the content of those categories unequivocally. A certain amount of clarity is nonetheless needed. In fact, depending on how the situations are legally defined, the rules that apply vary from one case to the next. By proposing a typology of armed conflicts from the perspective of international humanitarian law, this article seeks to show how the different categories of armed conflict anticipated by that legal regime can be interpreted in the light of recent developments in international legal practice. It also reviews some actual situations whose categorization under existing legal concepts has been debated.

Contemporary Research on Proportionality in Armed Conflicts: A Select Review

2012 ◽  
Vol 3 (2) ◽  
pp. 391-414 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ben Clarke
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
International Committee ◽  
Armed Conflicts ◽  
Red Cross ◽  
International Humanitarian Law ◽  
Humanitarian Law ◽  
Recent Developments ◽  
Hebrew University ◽  
Scope Of Application ◽  
Proportionality Principle

In an attempt to impose limits on the level of acceptable incidental civilian suffering during armed conflict, international humanitarian law (IHL) articulates a proportionality formula as the test to determine whether or not an attack is lawful. Efforts to comply with that formula during the conduct of hostilities can involve a host of legal and operational challenges. These challenges have inspired a growing body of doctrinal and empirical research. A recent international conference in Jerusalem, co-sponsored by the Delegation of the International Committee of the Red Cross in Israel and the Occupied Territories and the Minerva Center for Human Rights at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, brought together human rights lawyers, military experts and scholars from a variety of disciplines to assess recent developments relating to the proportionality principle in international humanitarian law. This report examines ten conference presentations which offer important insights into: the nature, scope of application and operational requirements of the proportionality principle under IHL; the modalities of investigation and review of proportionality decisions; and the challenges involved in proportionality decision-making.

scholarly journals The role of international humanitarian law in the search for peace: Lessons from Colombia

2021 ◽  
pp. 1-16
Author(s):  
César Rojas-Orozco
Keyword(s):  
Legal Framework ◽  
Armed Conflicts ◽  
International Humanitarian Law ◽  
Humanitarian Law ◽  
Peace Agreement ◽  
Peace Negotiations ◽  
State Actors ◽  
The Relationship

Abstract International humanitarian law (IHL) has traditionally been seen as a legal framework regulating armed hostilities, having little to do with peace. However, recent peacemaking and peacebuilding practice has consistently relied on IHL to frame peace efforts, mainly in non-international armed conflicts. This article explores the relationship between IHL and peace, looking at practice in Colombia, where IHL has been used in a creative way as a means to build trust, facilitate peace negotiations and enforce the resulting peace agreement. Looking at this case, the article offers general insights on how IHL can facilitate the end of conflict and reintegration, frame accountability and reparation, and shield peace deals under a framework in which both State and non-State actors can find a common bargaining zone in their search for peace.

Normative Underpinnings

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kubo Mačák
Keyword(s):  
Civil Wars ◽  
Armed Conflicts ◽  
International Humanitarian Law ◽  
Humanitarian Law ◽  
State Actors ◽  
The Law

This chapter considers the normative underpinnings of the present-day regulation of combatancy. It argues that a wholesale denial of combatant status to fighters in internationalized armed conflicts would be incongruous with the principles of distinction and equal application of the law. The chapter then considers specific objections against the extension of combatant status to non-state actors from the perspective of internationalized armed conflicts. It argues that although some of the objections carry certain weight in the context of traditional civil wars, their effect in internationalized armed conflicts is significantly weaker. The chapter thus shows that in principle, the availability of combatant status to fighters in internationalized armed conflicts is in accordance with the normative underpinnings of International Humanitarian Law.

Diplomatic Conference on the Reaffirmation and Development of International Humanitarian Law Applicable in Armed Conflicts

1974 ◽  
Vol 14 (156) ◽  
pp. 117-129
Keyword(s):  
United Nations ◽  
International Committee ◽  
Armed Conflicts ◽  
Red Cross ◽  
International Humanitarian Law ◽  
Humanitarian Law ◽  
Governmental Organizations ◽  
Geneva Conventions ◽  
Non Governmental Organizations ◽  
Recent Developments

The Diplomatic Conference on the Reaffirmation and Development of International Humanitarian Law Applicable in Armed Conflicts opened in Geneva on 20 February 1974. This Conference was convened by the Swiss Government and is being attended by plenipotentiary representatives of 118 States Parties to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949 and Members of the United Nations, as well as by many observers for intergovernmental and non-governmental organizations. The Conference will sit until 29 March to deal with two additional draft protocols to the Geneva Conventions, which the International Committee of the Red Cross has drawn up with a view to supplementing existing international humanitarian law in the light of recent developments in matters of war.

Administrative Detention by Non-State Armed Groups: Legal Basis and Procedural Safeguards

2020 ◽  
Vol 53 (1) ◽  
pp. 35-70 ◽  
Author(s):  
Maria Gavrilova
Keyword(s):  
Case Law ◽  
Armed Conflicts ◽  
International Humanitarian Law ◽  
Humanitarian Law ◽  
Legal Basis ◽  
Armed Groups ◽  
Legal Regime ◽  
Geneva Conventions ◽  
Recent Developments ◽  
Administrative Detention

The realities of contemporary armed conflicts with a complex interweaving net of actors are rarely reminiscent of classic combat scenarios envisaged by the drafters of the Geneva Conventions. The scarcity of conventional regulation of non-international armed conflicts (NIACs), coupled with the non-state character of the majority of detaining powers, lead to lack of clarity regarding the legal regime of detention of persons captured by non-state armed groups (NSAGs). In the absence of an explicit authorisation for internment under the international humanitarian law applicable to NIACs, recent developments in case law have induced a scholarly debate on what is the legal basis for administrative detention carried out by these actors. The article analyses key arguments presented by both sides of the debate, concluding that neither side can demonstrate either the existence or the absence of the authorisation in question, while the discussion itself has limited practical value in regulating the conduct of NSAGs. At the same time, the practice of states, although still ambivalent, points to the gradual transformation of mere legality, or the so-called ‘inherent power’ to intern, into a customary provision providing a legal basis for administrative detention by NSAGs.

The asymmetric war discourse and its moral economies: a critique

2011 ◽  
Vol 3 (3) ◽  
pp. 488-514 ◽  
Author(s):  
Yves Winter
Keyword(s):  
Armed Conflicts ◽  
International Humanitarian Law ◽  
Humanitarian Law ◽  
Asymmetric War ◽  
Military Conflicts ◽  
Moral Economies ◽  
State Actors ◽  
The Difference ◽  
Normative Order ◽  
War Discourse

Contemporary military conflicts are frequently referred to as ‘new’, ‘irregular’, or ‘asymmetric’, labels that are meant to distinguish contemporary conflict formations from previous ones. Yet the language of asymmetry is not just a conveniently vague gloss for a variety of conflicts; it also introduces a normative schema that moralizes and depoliticizes the difference between states and non-state actors. The description of contemporary conflicts as asymmetric allows states to be portrayed as victims of non-state actors, as vulnerable to strategic constellations they ostensibly cannot win. ‘Asymmetry’ is today's idiom to distinguish between civilized and uncivilized warfare, an idiom that converts ostensibly technological or strategic differences between state and non-state actors into moral and civilizational hierarchies. Furthermore, the claim that these types of conflicts are new is used to justify attempts to revisit and rewrite the international laws of armed conflicts. While such attempts are unlikely to succeed in the formal arena, informally, a transformation of the international normative order is already underway. At the heart of this transformation is how states interpret a key cornerstone of international humanitarian law: the principle of discrimination between combatants and civilians.

scholarly journals Protection of Children Participating in Hostilities under International Humanitarian Law and Human Rights Law: Issues of Compliance by Non-State Actors

2020 ◽  
Vol 2 (2) ◽  
pp. 66-72
Author(s):  
Sana Taha Gondal ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Armed Conflict ◽  
Legal Protection ◽  
Armed Conflicts ◽  
International Humanitarian Law ◽  
Humanitarian Law ◽  
Human Rights Law ◽  
Legal Provisions ◽  
State Actors ◽  
Indirect Part

Children enjoy legal protection under international humanitarian law and international human rights law. In situations of armed conflict, children are granted not only general protection as civilians, but special protection as children. Several legal provisions exist in the Geneva Conventions and its Additional Protocols, along with the Convention on the Rights of Child and its Second Optional Protocol on Children in Armed Conflicts. However, despite the current legal framework providing protective rights to children, there are serious issues of compliance by non-state actors, particularly in reference to inducting and using child soldiers. This highlights several legal challenges to international humanitarian law vis a vis the diminished protection of children taking direct part in hostilities. This article discusses the current legal regime protecting children in armed conflict, who take direct and indirect part in hostilities. Thereafter, an analysis is made of situations of international and non-international armed conflicts and the difference in protections accorded to these children, respectively. Lastly, an analysis is made of the compliance mechanisms that may be developed for non-state actors under international humanitarian law to prevent recruitment of children for taking direct or indirect part in hostilities. The issues of compliance by non-state actors and possible responses to such challenges are also addressed.

International Humanitarian Law and Non-State Actors: A Contradiction of Terms?

2020 ◽  
Vol 53 (3) ◽  
pp. 409-430
Author(s):  
Roberta Arnold
Keyword(s):  
International Relations ◽  
Personal Experience ◽  
Armed Conflict ◽  
Legal Issues ◽  
Armed Conflicts ◽  
International Humanitarian Law ◽  
Humanitarian Law ◽  
Pros And Cons ◽  
State Actors

There seems to have been a shift in the state-centric vision of international relations, following the increasing role of non-state actors (NSAs) on the international scene, particularly in the context of armed conflicts. Ezequiel Heffes, Marcos Kotlik and Manuel Ventura, editors of International Humanitarian Law and Non-State Actors, present through this collection of contributions an overview of legal issues arising from this new reality. The editors draw on their personal experience to explain how NSAs contribute to the development of international humanitarian law (IHL) and to suggest that in order to promote respect for IHL by all parties involved in an armed conflict, this new role should be given due consideration from a legal standpoint. The review aims to confront critically the position taken in the volume, assessing the pros and cons of an increased recognition (and potential legitimisation) of NSAs, with a particular focus on non-state armed groups. It discusses, in particular, the implications of this process for the exercise of sovereign rights and respect for fundamental guarantees, especially in relation to the powers to detain and to adjudicate.

Hybrid Conflict and Prisoners of War

2018 ◽  
pp. 191-222
Author(s):  
Jeffrey Kahn
Keyword(s):  
Armed Conflict ◽  
Prisoners Of War ◽  
Armed Conflicts ◽  
International Humanitarian Law ◽  
Humanitarian Law ◽  
War And Peace ◽  
State Actors ◽  
The Law ◽  
Hybrid War ◽  
First Time

The conflicts in eastern Ukraine and Crimea are not the first time sovereign States have clashed under murky and confused circumstances. The law governing international armed conflict, i.e. the law regulating war between States, has long recognized this fact; the threshold to trigger it is a very low one, and it applies “even if the state of war is not recognized by one of them.” Nevertheless, some perceive Ukraine as a case of “hybrid war” for which the old rules are ill-fitting at best, and no longer capable of regulation or restraint. What happens to international humanitarian law (IHL) when, according to Russian General Valériy Gerasimov, the hybrid nature of recent conflicts produces a “tendency to erase differences between the states of war and peace?” This chapter argues that there are in fact two distinct armed conflicts ongoing in eastern Ukraine. First, there is an ongoing but unacknowledged international armed conflict (IAC) in eastern Ukraine between Ukraine and Russia. Second, there is also fighting sufficiently intense and involving sufficiently organized non-State actors to be considered a non-international armed conflict (NIAC) between the Ukrainian State and rebel forces in Donetsk and Luhansk. Adding another layer of complexity, at certain times and places, it may be that this NIAC might have transformed into an IAC because of Russia’s overall control of these non-State actors.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document