Most of today’s violent conflicts are non-international in character. Such armed conflicts involve clashes between a non-state armed group or groups and a state, or between several non-state armed groups.
As a result of the dominance of the state in present day understandings of international law and international relations, little attention has been paid to the attempts made by armed groups to regulate the behaviour of their members during armed conflict. This despite the fact that armed groups have adopted a series of mechanisms or instruments aimed precisely at regulating internal behaviour. Such mechanisms include codes of conduct, military manuals, regulations and directives. These instruments and their contents are not necessarily framed in terms that are consistent with international humanitarian law (IHL). They are framed through the lens of the motivations and experiences of armed groups, and very importantly, in their own words.
Recently, such instruments have received increasing attention from scholars and practitioners alike. This stems from a dawning recognition that studying non-state actor instruments, and attempting to understand their perspectives is valuable, especially when considering ways to improve the protection of civilian persons and objects during armed conflict.
This paper will firstly describe a recent attempt by Geneval Call to catalogue instruments by armed non-state actors. It will then discuss the various types of instruments available in the catalogue. Finally, focusing specifically on codes of conduct elaborated by non-state armed groups, the paper will attempt to analyze the implications that such documents may have for the protection of civilians and civilian objects in non-international armed conflicts. This will include a discussion of whether a greater sense of ownership of the rules of IHL fosters greater respect on the part of non-state armed groups.
(285 words)
