The Regulation of Armed Non-State Actors: Promoting the Application of the Laws of War to Conflicts Involving National Liberation Movements
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The regulation of armed non-state actors is a challenge to the state-centric international law paradigm. The vast majority of international legal instruments which impact the regulation of armed actors are open to ratification by states only. This leads to the unfortunate situation in which armed nonstate actors often fall outside the remit of international law and their use of force and, indeed, the use of force against them, is left unregulated, which can only be to the detriment of combatants and civilians alike. However, there is an emerging trend, led by the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) and non-governmental organizations (NGOs) such as Geneva Call, to accommodate non-state actors under the international humanitarian law (IHL) framework. This article seeks to investigate how non-state actors, specifically national liberation movements, are and could be regulated by IHL. It seeks to give an overview of the relevant legal provisions and illustrates the difficulties faced by national liberation movements if they do wish to accede to IHL instruments and apply IHL in their conflicts. As it is the aim of IHL to protect both combatants and civilians in armed conflicts, it is important that this body of law is practically applied and implemented in all conflict situations to the greatest extent possible. However, in the past, national liberation movements have encountered difficulties when seeking to apply IHL to their conflicts due to the nature of the legal framework and, indeed, the nature of international law itself. International law, the body of law that governs states in their relationships with one another, generally struggles to accommodate non-state actors. The international legal instruments dealing with the laws of war, namely the Geneva Conventions of 1949,1 the Hague Regulations of 1907,2 and more modern international conventions seeking to regulate weapons such as the Ottawa Treaty of 1997 banning landmines,3 were all drafted by states with the regulation of states in mind. These instruments almost exclusively limit ratification to states and do not allow for the accession of non-states. This means that non-state actors, including national liberation movements, face many difficulties when seeking to be bound by and apply IHL provisions in their conflicts, thus limiting the protection available to those fighting and caught up in these conflicts. However, non-state actors are active in various theatres of war and it is therefore vital that a realistic IHL framework that accommodates non-state actors be formulated.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.017 | 0.018 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.024 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.012 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.009 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".