Non-State Actors from the Perspective of the International Committee of the Red Cross

PARTICIPANTS IN THE INTERNATIONAL LEGAL SYSTEM - MULTIPLE PERSPECTIVES ON NON-STATE ACTORS IN INTERNATIONAL LAW, pp. 204-232, J. D’Aspremont, ed., London and New York: Routledge, Forthcoming

25 Pages Posted: 25 Feb 2011

Date Written: 2011

Abstract

It is clear that participation of armed groups in armed conflicts renders some ICRC missions particularly difficult to fulfil in practice, especially when the state against which those groups are fighting opposes ICRC contacts with them. This paper emphasises such difficulties in relation to the ICRC right of initiative and the ICRC assisting role in IHL dissemination. Such a conclusion does not however mean that the ICRC is not legally authorized to carry out these tasks for the benefit of armed groups, even against the consent of the state combating those groups. The latter and the former must indeed be considered as two parties to a conflict, having therefore the same duties but also the same rights. Moreover, it is argued, more particularly, with regards to the ICRC assisting role in IHL dissemination that, although states do not have any obligation to disseminate IHL to armed groups, those groups are themselves bound to disseminate IHL among their members, which necessarily implies that the ICRC has still (at least theoretically) a significant role to play in this respect even beyond the goodwill of the states.

Besides those specific problems, participation of armed groups in armed conflicts raises a more general and fundamental question, that is, the question of the applicability of IHL upon such groups. Are the latter obliged by IHL and, in the affirmative, on which legal basis? There is no doubt according to the ICRC that a positive answer must be given to the first question, which is actually in line with state practice and international case law. It is far more difficult to determine the ICRC position on the second question. As it is argued in the paper, some specific ICRC documents evidence that the ICRC seems favourable to a theory based on the direct applicability of IHL, while its attitude commonly adopted at the beginning of internal armed conflicts which consists of recalling to all the parties their duty to respect IHL principles suggests that it (also) favours a theory based on customary law. Although they are founded on two very different rationales and lead either to practical or legal problems, respectively, both these theories are the best candidates for explaining the binding nature of IHL upon all armed groups. The first adequately reflects the intention of states regarding the status of armed groups and their obligations while the second avoids any problem of compliance.

Keywords: International Committee of the Red Cross, non-state actors, armed groups, international humanitarian law, IHL dissemination

Suggested Citation

van Steenberghe, Raphaël, Non-State Actors from the Perspective of the International Committee of the Red Cross (2011). PARTICIPANTS IN THE INTERNATIONAL LEGAL SYSTEM - MULTIPLE PERSPECTIVES ON NON-STATE ACTORS IN INTERNATIONAL LAW, pp. 204-232, J. D’Aspremont, ed., London and New York: Routledge, Forthcoming, Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=1766422

Raphaël Van Steenberghe (Contact Author)

Catholic University of Louvain (UCL) ( email )

Place Montesquieu, 3
Louvain-la-Neuve, 1348
Belgium

Do you have negative results from your research you’d like to share?

Paper statistics

Downloads
213
Abstract Views
936
Rank
259,465
PlumX Metrics