Armed groups, IHL and the invisible world: How spiritual beliefs shape warfare

2021 ◽  
pp. 1-21
Author(s):  
Ana Dols García
Keyword(s):  
Armed Conflicts ◽  
International Human Rights Law ◽  
Humanitarian Law ◽  
Armed Groups ◽  
Spiritual Beliefs ◽  
Secret Societies ◽  
External Relations ◽  
Sub Saharan ◽  
Group Mobilization ◽  
The Invisible

Abstract “Secret societies”, “traditional hunters”, “charms” and “mystical weapons” are recurrent terms when analyzing some of the present armed conflicts in the Sub-Saharan region. However, though spiritual beliefs shape armed groups’ behaviour, and such beliefs are integrated into the modus operandi of some armed groups, the role of these beliefs in warfare is largely overlooked. Far from being something anecdotal or incidental, the invisible world plays a role in shaping armed groups’ behaviour and framing warfare dynamics. Spiritual beliefs might influence the respect afforded to international humanitarian law and international human rights law. Such beliefs may also serve various strategic functions, including for legitimation of the group, mobilization of support, control, cohesion, discipline, motivation and protection. Digging further into the matter and understanding how such beliefs impact the internal dynamics of armed groups and their external relations, including with the State, other armed groups and communities, is an essential part of understanding armed conflicts and their aftermath.

scholarly journals Greener insurgencies? Engaging non-State armed groups for the protection of the natural environment during non-international armed conflicts

2021 ◽  
pp. 1-27
Author(s):  
Thibaud de La Bourdonnaye
Keyword(s):  
Natural Environment ◽  
Environmental Law ◽  
Armed Conflicts ◽  
Policy Framework ◽  
International Humanitarian Law ◽  
Environmental Damage ◽  
International Human Rights Law ◽  
Humanitarian Law ◽  
Armed Groups ◽  
Unilateral Declaration

Abstract As belligerent parties, non-State armed groups (NSAGs) contribute to environmental damage in non-international armed conflicts. Drawing from the actual practice and doctrine of NSAGs, this article unpacks the legal and policy framework for engaging them on the protection of the environment. It analyzes the international humanitarian law rules protecting the environment binding on NSAGs. To improve environmental protection, a model of environmental responsibilities under international human rights law and international environmental law based on the NSAG's level of territorial control is suggested, as a matter of policy. This article then explores how to engage NSAGs on the legal and policy framework identified and proposes a model unilateral declaration for the protection of the natural environment.

Complex Battlespaces

2018 ◽  
Keyword(s):  
International Law ◽  
New Technologies ◽  
Urban Environments ◽  
Armed Conflicts ◽  
Unmanned Aerial Systems ◽  
International Human Rights Law ◽  
Humanitarian Law ◽  
Military Operations ◽  
Modern Warfare ◽  
Aerial Systems

The conduct of warfare is constantly shaped by forces beyond the battlefield. These forces create complexities in the battlespace for military operations. The ever-changing nature of how and where wars are fought creates challenges for the application of the unchanging body of international law that regulates armed conflicts. The term “complex” is often used to describe modern warfare, but what makes modern warfare complex? Is it the increasingly urbanized battlefield where wars are fought, which is cluttered with civilians and civilian objects? Is it the rise of State-like organized armed groups that leverage the governance vacuum created by failed or failing States? Is it the introduction of new technologies to military operations like autonomous weapons, cyber capabilities, and unmanned aerial systems? Or is it the application of multiple legal regimes to a single conflict? Collectively, these questions formed the basis for the Complex Battlespaces Workshop in which legal scholars and experts from the field of practice came together to discuss these complexities. During the workshop, there was a general consensus that the existing law was sufficient to regulate modern warfare. The challenge, however, arises in application of the law to new technologies, military operations in urban environments, and other issues related to applying international human rights law and international humanitarian law to non-international armed conflicts. This inaugural volume of the Lieber Book Series seeks to address many of the complexities that arise during the application of international law to modern warfare.

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.

III. ASSASSINATION AND TARGETED KILLING—THE KILLING OF OSAMA BIN LADEN

2011 ◽  
Vol 60 (3) ◽  
pp. 778-788 ◽  
Author(s):  
APV Rogers ◽  
Dominic McGoldrick
Keyword(s):  
Armed Conflicts ◽  
International Humanitarian Law ◽  
International Human Rights Law ◽  
Humanitarian Law ◽  
Human Rights Law ◽  
Applicable Law ◽  
Jus Ad Bellum ◽  
The Us ◽  
Osama Bin Laden ◽  
Domestic Law

Osama Bin Laden was killed on 2 May 2011 in the course of an operation by US special forces (Navy Seals) in Abbottabad, Pakistan.1 The US forces were flown by helicopter from neighbouring Afghanistan. The death of Bin Laden renewed questions about the legality of such operations during armed conflicts and during peacetime.2 The potentially applicable law includes international humanitarian law, international human rights law, jus ad bellum and the domestic law of the US and Pakistan.3

Prisoners Dilemma: Ascertaining and Augmenting the Multinational NIAC Detention Regime

2017 ◽  
Vol 20 (1) ◽  
pp. 436-458 ◽  
Author(s):  
Yateesh Begoore
Keyword(s):  
Armed Conflicts ◽  
International Humanitarian Law ◽  
International Human Rights Law ◽  
Humanitarian Law ◽  
Human Rights Law ◽  
Treatment Standards ◽  
International Human Rights ◽  
Geneva Conventions ◽  
Prisoners Dilemma ◽  
Comprehensive Framework

While International Humanitarian Law (IHL) contains a comprehensive framework of rules and procedural protections for detainees in international armed conflicts (IACS), there is a conspicuous absence of such rules and protections for detainees in the case of non-international armed conflicts (NIACS). In fact, as the recent Serdar Mohammad v. Ministry of Defence case pointed out, the rules pertaining to NIACS make no mention of detention authority at all, leading some scholars to conclude that International Human Rights Law (IHRL), and not IHL, governs NIAC detention. Contrarily, this paper contends that not only does IHL govern (as well as grant authority for) NIAC detentions, the regime’s shortcomings regarding procedural safe-guards and treatment standards may be remedied through the application of the Copenhagen Process Principles – as evolutive interpretation or interpretation based on subsequent agreement – to Common Art. 3 of the Geneva Conventions.

Non-State Armed Groups and the Power to Detain in Non-International Armed Conflict

2020 ◽  
Vol 53 (1) ◽  
pp. 3-33
Author(s):  
Joshua Joseph Niyo
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Armed Conflict ◽  
Case Law ◽  
Customary Law ◽  
International Humanitarian Law ◽  
International Human Rights Law ◽  
Humanitarian Law ◽  
Legal Basis ◽  
Armed Groups ◽  
Critical Feature

The restriction of personal liberty is a critical feature in all conflicts, whether they are of an international character or not. With the increased prevalence of non-international armed conflict and the drastic proliferation of non-state armed groups, it is critical to explore whether such groups can legally detain or intern persons during conflict. This article proposes that there exists a power and a legal basis for armed groups to intern persons for imperative security reasons while engaged in armed conflict. It is suggested that this authorisation exists in the frameworks of both international humanitarian law and international human rights law, as it does for states engaged in such conflicts. It is proposed that such power and legal basis are particularly strong for armed groups in control of territory, and can be gleaned from certain customary law claims, treaty law, as well as some case law on international humanitarian law and human rights. Certain case law of the European Court of Human Rights on detention by de facto non-state entities conceivably reflects a change in traditional thinking on ‘legal’ detention by armed groups.

Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman, or Degrading Treatment or Punishment

2014 ◽  
Author(s):  
Manfred Nowak
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Relevant Literature ◽  
Armed Conflicts ◽  
International Human Rights Law ◽  
Humanitarian Law ◽  
Human Rights Law ◽  
Personal Dignity ◽  
Convention Against Torture ◽  
Degrading Treatment ◽  
Domestic Affairs

International humanitarian law (IHL) was developed to ensure respect for the dignity and integrity of the human being. It aims to reduce human suffering in times of armed conflict by requiring combatants to act in a humane manner and to avoid cruelty. In relation to non-international armed conflicts, both IHL and international human rights law (IHRL) have been challenged with arguments of state sovereignty and a supposed prohibition on interference with domestic affairs. This chapter examines the three types of ill-treatment under both IHRL and IHL in light of relevant literature and jurisprudence: torture, cruel and inhuman treatment or punishment, and degrading treatment or punishment. It discusses the United Nations Convention against Torture and the Geneva Conventions of 1949, the obligations of states under human rights law, and outrages upon personal dignity.

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