The Regulation of Armed Non-State Actors: Promoting the Application of the \nLaws of War to Conflicts Involving National Liberation Movements
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The regulation of armed non-state actors is a challenge \nto the state-centric international law paradigm. The vast \nmajority of international legal instruments which impact \nthe regulation of armed actors are open to ratification by states \nonly. This leads to the unfortunate situation in which armed nonstate \nactors often fall outside the remit of international law and \ntheir use of force and, indeed, the use of force against them, is \nleft unregulated, which can only be to the detriment of combatants \nand civilians alike. However, there is an emerging trend, \nled by the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) \nand non-governmental organizations (NGOs) such as Geneva \nCall, to accommodate non-state actors under the international \nhumanitarian law (IHL) framework. \nThis article seeks to investigate how non-state actors, specifically \nnational liberation movements, are and could be regulated \nby IHL. It seeks to give an overview of the relevant legal provisions \nand illustrates the difficulties faced by national liberation \nmovements if they do wish to accede to IHL instruments and \napply IHL in their conflicts. As it is the aim of IHL to protect \nboth combatants and civilians in armed conflicts, it is important \nthat this body of law is practically applied and implemented in \nall conflict situations to the greatest extent possible. However, \nin the past, national liberation movements have encountered \ndifficulties when seeking to apply IHL to their conflicts due \nto the nature of the legal framework and, indeed, the nature of \ninternational law itself. \nInternational law, the body of law that governs states in their \nrelationships with one another, generally struggles to accommodate \nnon-state actors. The international legal instruments \ndealing with the laws of war, namely the Geneva Conventions \nof 1949,1 the Hague Regulations of 1907,2 and more modern \ninternational conventions seeking to regulate weapons such as \nthe Ottawa Treaty of 1997 banning landmines,3 were all drafted \nby states with the regulation of states in mind. These instruments \nalmost exclusively limit ratification to states and do not allow \nfor the accession of non-states. This means that non-state actors, \nincluding national liberation movements, face many difficulties \nwhen seeking to be bound by and apply IHL provisions in their \nconflicts, thus limiting the protection available to those fighting \nand caught up in these conflicts. However, non-state actors are \nactive in various theatres of war and it is therefore vital that a \nrealistic IHL framework that accommodates non-state actors be \nformulated.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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 teacher head, 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".