Could Armed Groups be Held Accountable under International Law?
International law remains
unclear about its direct application to armed groups. Even international laws
that unequivocally apply to non-state actors fail to specifically mention armed
groups.
Increased violations of
international law by armed groups has led a few scholars to speculate the idea
of including armed groups in treaty-making.
According to Sophie
Rondeau, Legal Adviser at the Canadian Red Cross, “[i]nclusion of armed groups
in the development of legal instruments binding them could limit the
possibility of excuses offered by such groups to justify their disregard of
humanitarian law obligations.“
However, Vincent Bernard,
Editor-in-Chief of the International Review of the Red Cross, explains that
states in the international system have always viewed armed groups as enemies
to be destroyed by firepower, and therefore not welcome as state equivalents
that could be bound by international agreements.
There are many advantages
to a state-centric system of international law, but the most fundamental
advantage in relation to the use of children in armed conflicts by armed groups
is the element of permanence, in terms of the accountability mechanism inherent
in a state-centric system. States may not reject their international law
obligations merely as a result of a change in government, and unless a treaty
establishes differently, treaties are binding upon the parties in respect of
their entire territory. Therefore, to open treaty responsibilities to armed
groups will not only raise more issues concerning interpretation and
application of international law, it could also lead to divergent claims
concerning the object and purpose of the treaty. Most armed groups are not
permanent, and so would their commitments.
No matter the
justification for including armed groups in international law making, Olivier
Bangerter of the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) has stated
that “the idea that armed groups have an issue with IHL because they have not
contributed to its formulation and cannot ratify it seems wrong…” And if the
idea is to induce respect for and compliance with international law among armed
groups, then the solution is not to make them contracting parties when
international law is already assumed to be territorial in scope and application.
Read the rest here...
KATEHUN (pronounced Ka-te-hun)-is a Mende word for a symposium or community center where disputes are settled. Everyone is permitted to make his/her case before a presiding chief in an open forum.
On this forum, I write primarily for those who stand committed to the Rule of Law in Africa and to the value that our future is better determined by the government of the people, by the people, and in service for the people. To advance the African value of Ubuntu through International Law and the Principles of a United Nations, which propels us towards Life in Larger Freedom.
