The Application Of International Humanitarian Law To Non-State Armed Groups
- IJLLR Journal
- Apr 22
- 2 min read
Mahrishi Bhardwaj, Vivekananda Institute of Professional Studies
ABSTRACT
The rise of Non-State Armed Groups (NSAGs) in contemporary armed conflicts presents a significant challenge to the application and enforcement of International Humanitarian Law (IHL). Traditionally, IHL has been designed to regulate the conduct of war between sovereign states. However, with the increasing prevalence of asymmetric warfare, internal armed conflicts, and transnational insurgencies, the role of NSAGs in modern conflicts has become more pronounced. The question of whether, how, and to what extent IHL applies to NSAGs remains a critical legal issue.
This paper examines the legal framework governing NSAGs under IHL, including the applicability of Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions, Additional Protocol II, and customary IHL rules. While Common Article 3 provides minimum humanitarian protections applicable to non-international armed conflicts (NIACs), its enforcement on NSAGs remains problematic due to their lack of formal recognition under international law. Similarly, Additional Protocol II offers more detailed provisions for conflicts involving NSAGs but applies only when certain conditions—such as control over territory—are met. The paper also explores the role of customary international law in bridging the gaps left by treaty law, ensuring that even NSAGs that are not party to treaties remain bound by fundamental humanitarian obligations.
One of the central challenges in applying IHL to NSAGs is compliance and enforcement. Unlike states, NSAGs do not have permanent institutions or governance structures capable of ensuring adherence to international legal norms. Additionally, states often resist extending legal recognition to NSAGs due to concerns about legitimizing insurgents, rebels, or terrorist groups. This lack of recognition further complicates the ability of international organizations like the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) and the United Nations (UN) to engage with NSAGs for humanitarian purposes. The paper also highlights the tension between state sovereignty and humanitarian imperatives, where governments may view humanitarian engagement with NSAGs as interference in their internal affairs.
