Armed Groups and Procedural Accountability: A Roadmap for Further Thought

Chapter
Part of the Yearbook of International Humanitarian Law book series (YIHL, volume 19)

Abstract

This chapter investigates the meaning of the term “accountability”, as it is used in policy discussions surrounding armed groups. It takes a detailed look at literature from public administration on the concept of procedural accountability and applies it to the various accountability mechanisms that evaluate the conduct of armed groups against international norms. In doing so, the chapter points out some of the shortcomings of some of these accountability mechanisms. It ends by examining some of the more innovative accountability models, such as the process created by Geneva Call and the ad hoc processes created by the UNAMA field office in Afghanistan vis-à-vis the Taliban.

Keywords

Accountability Armed groups Compliance International humanitarian law Human rights law 

References

Articles, Books and Other Documents

  1. Bangerter O (2011) Reasons why armed groups choose to respect international humanitarian law or not. International Review of the Red Cross 93(882):353–384Google Scholar
  2. Bangerter O (2012) Internal Control: Codes of Conduct within Insurgent Armed Groups, Small Arms Survey Occasional Paper No. 31. Small Arms Survey, Graduate Institute of International and Development Studies, GenevaGoogle Scholar
  3. Bangerter O (2015) Comment – Persuading armed groups to better respect international humanitarian law. In: Krieger H (ed) Inducing compliance with international humanitarian law. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 112–124Google Scholar
  4. Bellal A (2015) Establishing the direct responsibility of non-state armed groups for violations of international norms: Issues of attribution. In: Gal-Or N, Ryngaert C, Noortmann M (eds) Responsibilities of the non-state actor in armed conflict and the market place. Brill Nijhoff, Leiden, pp 304–321Google Scholar
  5. Bellal A, Casey-Maslen S (2011) Enhancing compliance with international law by armed non-state actors. Goettingen Journal of International Law 3(1):175–197Google Scholar
  6. Bílková V (2015) Establishing direct responsibility of armed opposition groups for violations of international humanitarian law. In: Gal-Or N, Ryngaert C, Noortmann M (eds) Responsibilities of the non-state actor in armed conflict and the market place. Brill Nijhoff, Leiden, pp 263–284Google Scholar
  7. Bongard P, Somer J (2011) Monitoring armed non-state actor compliance with humanitarian norms: A look at international mechanisms and the Geneva Call deed of commitment. International Review of the Red Cross 93(883):673–706Google Scholar
  8. Bovens M (2007) Analysing and assessing public accountability, a conceptual framework. European Law Journal 13(4):447–468Google Scholar
  9. Bovens M (2010) Two concepts of accountability: Accountability as a virtue and as a mechanism. West European Politics 33(5):946–967Google Scholar
  10. Brunée J (2005) International legal accountability through the lens of the law of state responsibility. Netherlands Yearbook of International Law 36:21–56Google Scholar
  11. Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW) (2013) General Recommendation No. 30 on women in conflict prevention, conflict and post-conflict situations. UN Doc. CEDAW/C/GC/30Google Scholar
  12. Crawford E (2014) From inter-state and symmetric to intra-state and asymmetric: Changing methods of warfare and the law of armed conflict in the 100 years since World War One. Yearbook of International Humanitarian Law 17:95–118Google Scholar
  13. Curtin D, Nollkaemper A (2005) Conceptualizing accountability in international and European law. Netherlands Yearbook of International Law 36:3–20Google Scholar
  14. Dubnick M (2005) Accountability and the promise of performance: in search of the mechanisms. Public Performance and Management Review 28(3):376–417Google Scholar
  15. Fortin K (2017) The accountability of armed groups under human rights law. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  16. Grant RW, Keohane RO (2005) Accountability and abuses of power in world politics. American Political Science Review 99(1):29–43Google Scholar
  17. Heffes E, Kotlik M (2014) Special agreements as a means of enhancing compliance with international humanitarian law in non-international armed conflicts: An inquiry into the governing legal regime. International Review of the Red Cross 96(895/896):1195–1224Google Scholar
  18. ICRC (2008) Increasing Respect for International Humanitarian Law in Non-International Armed Conflicts. ICRC, GenevaGoogle Scholar
  19. Kamminga M (1992) Inter-state accountability for violations of human rights. University of Pennsylvania Press, PhiladelphiaGoogle Scholar
  20. Kleffner J (2009) The collective accountability of organized armed groups for system crimes. In: Van der Wilt H, Nollkaemper A (eds) System Criminality in International Law. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 238–269Google Scholar
  21. Kleffner J (2011) The applicability of international humanitarian law to organized armed groups. International Committee of the Red Cross 93(882):443–461Google Scholar
  22. Moffett L (2015) Beyond attribution: Responsibility of armed non-state actors for reparations in Northern Ireland, Colombia and Uganda. In: Gal-Or N, Ryngaert C, Noortmann M (eds) Responsibilities of the non-state actor in armed conflict and the market place. Brill Nijhoff, Leiden, pp 323–344Google Scholar
  23. MONUSCO, OHCHR (2014) Report of the United Nations Joint Human Rights Office on Human Rights Violations Committed by the Mouvement du 23 Mars (M23) in North Kivu Province, April 2012–November 2013. http://www.ohchr.org/Documents/Countries/CD/UNJHROOctober2014_en.pdf. Accessed 19 May 2017
  24. Mulgan R (2000) “Accountability”: An ever-expanding concept? Public Administration 78(3):555–573Google Scholar
  25. Murray D (2016) Human rights obligations of non-state armed groups. Bloomsbury, Oxford/PortlandGoogle Scholar
  26. Pettersson T, Wallensteen P (2015) Armed conflicts 1946–2014. Journal of Peace Research 52(4):535–550Google Scholar
  27. Rached DH (2016) The concept(s) of accountability: Form in search of substance. Leiden Journal of International Law 29(2):317–342Google Scholar
  28. Rondeau S (2011) Participation of Armed Groups in the Development of the Law Applicable to Armed Conflicts. International Review of the Red Cross 92(883):649–672Google Scholar
  29. Ryngaert C (2008) Human rights obligations of armed groups. Revue Belge de Droit International 1(2):355–381Google Scholar
  30. Ryngaert C, Van de Meulebroucke A (2011) Enhancing and enforcing compliance with international humanitarian law by non-state armed groups: An inquiry into some mechanisms. Journal of Conflict and Security Law 16(3):443–472Google Scholar
  31. Sassòli M (2010) Taking armed groups seriously: Ways to improve their compliance with international humanitarian law. Journal of International Humanitarian Legal Studies 1(1):5–51Google Scholar
  32. Saul B (2017) Enhancing civilian protection by engaging non-state armed groups under international humanitarian law. Journal of Conflict & Security Law 22(1):39–66Google Scholar
  33. Schneckener U, Hofmann C (2015) The power of persuasion: The role of international non-governmental organisations. In: Krieger H (ed) Inducing compliance with international humanitarian law. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 79–111Google Scholar
  34. Sivakumaran S (2006) Binding armed opposition groups. International and Comparative Law Quarterly 55:369–394Google Scholar
  35. Sivakumaran S (2012) The law of non-international armed conflict. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  36. Sivakumaran S (2015) Implementing humanitarian norms through non-state armed groups. In: Krieger H (ed) Inducing Compliance with International Humanitarian Law. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 125–146Google Scholar
  37. UNAMA, OHCHR (2011a) Afghanistan, Midyear Report 2011, Protection of Civilians in Armed Conflict. https://unama.unmissions.org/sites/default/files/2011_midyear_poc.pdf. Accessed 19 May 2017
  38. UNAMA, OHCHR (2011b) Afghanistan, Final Report 2011, Protection of Civilians in Armed Conflict. https://unama.unmissions.org/sites/default/files/unama_poc_report_final_feb_2012.pdf. Accessed 19 May 2017
  39. UNAMA, OHCHR (2012a) Afghanistan, Midyear Report 2012, Protection of Civilians in Armed Conflict. https://unama.unmissions.org/sites/default/files/2012_mid-year_report.pdf. Accessed 19 May 2017
  40. UNAMA, OHCHR (2012b) Afghanistan, Final Report 2012, Protection of Civilians in Armed Conflict. https://unama.unmissions.org/sites/default/files/2012_annual_report_eng_0.pdf. Accessed 19 May 2017
  41. UNAMA, OHCHR (2013) Afghanistan, Final Report 2013, Protection of Civilians in Armed Conflict. https://unama.unmissions.org/sites/default/files/feb_8_2014_poc-report_2013-full-report-eng.pdf. Accessed 19 May 2017
  42. UNAMA, OHCHR (2014) Afghanistan, Final Report 2014, Protection of Civilians in Armed Conflict. https://unama.unmissions.org/sites/default/files/2014-annual-report-on-protection-of-civilians-final.pdf. Accessed 19 May 2017
  43. UNAMA, OHCHR (2015a) Afghanistan, Midyear Report 2015, Protection of Civilians in Armed Conflict. https://unama.unmissions.org/sites/default/files/unama_protection_of_civilians_armed_conflict_midyear_report_2015_final_august.pdf. Accessed 19 May 2017
  44. UNAMA, OHCHR (2015b) Afghanistan, Final Report 2015, Protection of Civilians in Armed Conflict. https://unama.unmissions.org/sites/default/files/poc_annual_report_2015_final_14_feb_2016.pdf. Accessed 19 May 2017
  45. UNAMA, OHCHR (2016a) Afghanistan, Midyear Report 2016, Protection of Civilians in Armed Conflict. https://unama.unmissions.org/sites/default/files/protection_of_civilians_in_armed_conflict_midyear_report_2016_final_rev.1-9sept.pdf. Accessed 19 May 2017
  46. UNAMA, OHCHR (2016b) Afghanistan, Final Report 2016, Protection of Civilians in Armed Conflict. https://unama.unmissions.org/sites/default/files/protection_of_civilians_in_armed_conflict_annual_report_2016_final280317.pdf. Accessed 19 May 2017
  47. UN General Assembly (2006) Resolution 60/251. Human Rights Council. UN Doc. A/RES/60/251Google Scholar
  48. UN General Assembly (2007) Report of the Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions. UN Doc. A/62/265Google Scholar
  49. UN General Assembly (2011) Human Rights Council: Report of the Independent International Commission of Inquiry on the Syrian Arab Republic. UN Doc. A/HRC/S-17/2/Add.1Google Scholar
  50. UN General Assembly (2012a) Human Rights Council: Report of the Independent International Commission of Inquiry on the Syrian Arab Republic. UN Doc. A/HRC/19/69Google Scholar
  51. UN General Assembly (2012b) Human Rights Council: Report of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights on the situation of human rights in Mali. UN Doc. A/HRC/22/33Google Scholar
  52. UN General Assembly (2016a) Human Rights Council: Resolution S-25/1. The deteriorating situation of human rights in the Syrian Arab Republic, and the recent situation in Aleppo. UN Doc. A/HRC/RES/S-25/1Google Scholar
  53. UN General Assembly (2016b) Human Rights Council: Resolution S-26/1. Situations of human rights in South Sudan. UN Doc. A/HRC/RES/S-26/1Google Scholar
  54. UN General Assembly (2016c) Human Rights Council: Report of the Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions on his Mission to Ukraine. UN Doc. A/HRC/32/39/Add.1Google Scholar
  55. UN General Assembly (2017a) Human Rights Council: Report of the Human Rights Council on its twenty-sixth special session (on the human rights situation in South Sudan). UN Doc. A/HRC/S-26/2Google Scholar
  56. UN General Assembly (2017b) Human Rights Council: Report of the Human Rights Council on its twenty-fifth special session (on the deteriorating situation in the Syrian Arab Republic). UN Doc. A/HRC/S-25/2Google Scholar
  57. UN Security Council (1983) Provisional Rules of Procedure of the Security Council. UN Doc. S/96/Rev.7Google Scholar
  58. UN Security Council (1993) Report of the Secretary-General pursuant to paragraph 2 of Security Council Resolution 808 (1993). UN Doc. S/25704Google Scholar
  59. UN Security Council (1994) Resolution 955 (1994). UN Doc. S/RES/955Google Scholar
  60. UN Security Council (2009) Report of the Secretary-General on the protection of civilians in armed conflict. UN Doc. S/2009/277Google Scholar
  61. UN Security Council (2014) Final Report of the International Commission of Inquiry on the Central African Republic. UN Doc. S/2014/928Google Scholar
  62. UN Security Council (2016a) Report of the Secretary-General on the protection of civilians in armed conflict. UN Doc. S/2016/447Google Scholar
  63. UN Security Council (2016b) Resolution 2295 (2016). UN Doc. S/RES/2295Google Scholar
  64. UN Security Council (2016c) Resolution 2293 (2016). UN Doc. S/RES/2293Google Scholar
  65. UN Security Council (2016d) Resolution 2274 (2016). UN Doc. S/RES/2274Google Scholar
  66. UN Security Council (2016e) Resolution 2301 (2016). UN Doc. S/RES/2301Google Scholar
  67. UN Security Council (2016f) Resolution 2299 (2016). UN Doc. S/RES/2299Google Scholar
  68. Verhoeven S (2015) International responsibility of armed opposition groups. In: Gal-Or N, Ryngaert C, Noortmann M (eds) Responsibilities of the non-state actor in armed conflict and the market place. Brill Nijhoff, Leiden, pp 285–303Google Scholar
  69. Zegveld L (2002) The accountability of armed opposition groups in international law. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar

Case Law

  1. ECtHR, Al-Skeini and Others v UK, Grand Chamber Judgment, 7 July 2011, Application No. 55721/07Google Scholar
  2. ICC, Prosecutor v Thomas Lubanga Dyilo, Judgment on the appeals against the “Decision establishing the principles and procedures to be applied to reparations” of 7 August 2012 with AMENDED order for reparations (Annex A) and public annexes 1 and 2, 3 March 2015, Case No. ICC-01/04-01/06-3129Google Scholar
  3. ICJ, Corfu Channel case, Judgment, 9 April 1949, [1949] ICJ Reports 4Google Scholar
  4. Nuremberg International Military Tribunal, United States of America, French Republic, United Kingdom and the USSR v Hess, Goring et al., Judgment, 1 October 1946Google Scholar

Treaties

  1. American Convention on Human Rights, opened for signature 22 November 1969, 1144 UNTS 123 (entered into force 18 July 1978)Google Scholar
  2. European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, opened for signature 4 November 1950, 213 UNTS 221 (entered into force 3 September 1953)Google Scholar
  3. International Covenant of Civil and Political Rights, opened for signature 16 December 1966, 999 UNTS 171 (entered into force 23 March 1976)Google Scholar
  4. Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, opened for signature 17 July 1998, 2187 UNTS 90 (entered into force 1 July 2002)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© T.M.C. Asser Press and the authors 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Utrecht Centre of Accountability and Liability Law, Netherlands Institute of Human RightsUtrecht UniversityUtrechtThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations