Law
How International Humanitarian Law Regulates Non-State Armed Groups
Quick fact
Despite not signing the Geneva Conventions, rebel groups are bound by them through Common Article 3 and customary international law, meaning they can be prosecuted for war crimes even though they never formally agreed to the rules.
Why this is interesting
We often assume laws are made by states for states—but when rebels or armed groups wage war, who makes the rules?
Read the full explanation
Understanding How International Humanitarian Law Regulates Non-State Armed Groups
Think of IHL as a set of rules for the game of war. When a conflict is between two countries (international armed conflict), the rules are detailed and apply to both sides. But when a conflict is within a country—government vs. rebels—the rules are simpler and outlined mainly in Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions and Additional Protocol II. These rules protect people not fighting, ban torture and cruel treatment, and require humane care for the wounded. Even though rebel groups did not sign these treaties, they are included because IHL aims to protect people, and it would be unfair if only governments had to follow the rules. How can this work? Through the concept that IHL obligations flow from the very nature of armed conflict, not just from signing a paper.
A deeper explanation
The mechanism by which IHL applies to non-state armed groups is twofold. First, Common Article 3 and Additional Protocol II explicitly state their provisions apply to 'each party to the conflict,' which includes non-state groups when they meet certain conditions (organized, under command, controlling territory). Second, customary international law—rules that are so widely accepted they bind everyone—covers most IHL principles, like distinction and proportionality, and applies to all parties in any conflict. Armed groups cannot dissolve this obligation by refusing to sign treaties because IHL's goal is humanitarian protection, not state consent. However, enforcement is tricky: groups are often tried in international tribunals or domestic courts, and non-legal pressure like UN monitoring or humanitarian organizations' negotiations can also encourage compliance. This legal framework matters because it clarifies that even non-state actors have obligations, which is vital for justice and deterrence in modern conflicts where such groups cause most civilian suffering.