Accountability of Armed Opposition Groups in International Law

Abstract

Who is accountable under international law for the acts committed by armed opposition groups? In today's world the majority of political conflicts involve non-state actors attempting to exert political influence (such as overthrowing a government or bringing about secession). Notwithstanding their impact on the course of events, however, we often know little about these groups, and even less about how to treat their actions legally. In this award-winning scholarship, Liesbeth Zegveld examines the need to legally identify the parties involved when internal conflicts arise, and the reality of their demands for rights. Her study draws upon international humanitarian law, human rights law and international criminal law to consider a fundamental question: who is accountable for the acts committed by non-state actors, or for the failure to prevent or repress these acts? This study will be of interest to academics, postgraduate students and professionals involved with armed conflict and international relations.

Undang-Undang kemanusiaan antarabangsa dan perang terhadap keganasan: Suatu tinjauan kritikal

“…7 Oktober 2001, Amerika memberitahu kepada Majlis Keselamatan untuk mempertahankan hak yang benar maka harus dipertingkatkan kerjasama yang tinggi (self-defence). Oleh itu, untuk menentang regim Al-Qaeda yang diterajui Taliban haruslah mengerahkan tentera supaya regim ini tumpas (Zegveld, 2002).…”

Assessing the Feasibility of a Business and Human Rights Treaty

“…156 Similarly, the responsibility of States to protect their citizens from the activities of non-State armed groups are said to arise only 'upon the State's own failure to act'. 157 Thus, these treaty obligations address non-State actors only indirectly, as a consequence of the express consent of the State in which they are domiciled. Yet, to call these obligations 'indirect' at all is problematic.…”

Re-Reading Vitoria: Re-Conceptualising the Responsibility of Rebel Movements

“…99 The overwhelming trend therein is to present the lack of a system of international rules providing for the responsibility of rebel movements as a self-evident gap in international law. 100 We can identify a number of assumptions upon which this gap's apparent self-evidence is constructed.…”