International law and armed non-state actors in Afghanistan

Abstract

An effective legal regime governing the actions of armed non-state actors in Afghanistan should encompass not only international humanitarian law but also international human rights law. While the applicability of Common Article 3 of the 1949 Geneva Conventions to the conflict is not controversial, how and to what extent Additional Protocol II applies is more difficult to assess, in particular in relation to the various armed actors operating in the country. The applicability of international human rights law to armed non-state actors – considered by the authors as important, particularly in Afghanistan – remains highly controversial. Nevertheless, its applicability to such actors exercising control over a population is slowly becoming more accepted. In addition, violations of peremptory norms of international law can also directly engage the legal responsibility of such groups.

United States-Nigerian Military Co-operation and Adherence to Rules of Engagement by the Nigerian Military during Internal Security Operations, 1999-2020

“…This was a demonstration of U.S. operations under certain rules in Afghanistan during armed conflicts in the country. On the other hand, rarely are civilians' rights respected, they are deliberately targeted during armed conflicts in violation of the international law (Bellal and Casey-Maslen, 2011). This scenario has become common in Africa.…”

International Legal Regulation of Counter-Terrorism in Peacetime and During the Armed Conflicts: a regional approach of the Commonwealth of Independent States

“…В этом контексте перед государствами стоит сложная задача -обеспечить баланс между эф-1 Под международным гуманитарным правом здесь понимается система международно-правовых принципов и норм, регулирующих отношения между государствами (сторонами) в период вооруженных конфликтов в целях ограничения применения воюющими жестоких методов и средств ведения войны, защиты ее жертв и устанавливающих ответственность за их нарушение. 2 Policinski E. The power of words: the dangerous rhetoric of the "terrorist". -Humanitarian Law and Policy Blog.…”

Meintur fyrirvari Íslands við 5. gr. Norður- Atlantshafssamningsins

“…Eftir leiðtogafundinn í Prag 2002 fjölguðu íslensk stjórnvöld friðargaesluliðum sínum úr 25 í 50 og var umfangsmesta verkefni íslensku friðargaeslunnar í Afganistan umsjón alþjóðaflugvallarins í Kabúl en við henni tók íslenska friðargaeslan 1. júní 2004 (NATO, "NATO assumes control…" 2004). ISAF var bundið af Genfarsamningunum, um vernd fórnarlamba vopnaðra átaka milli ríkja frá 1949 sem gilda í stríðsrekstri (Bellal, Giacca og Casey-Maslen 2001). Þetta á jafnvel við þótt að ISAF hafi ekki verið í hreinum "árásaraðgerðum" á sama hátt og herir Bandaríkjanna og Bretlands.…”