Skip to content

News Roundup 15 February – 21 February

February 24, 2021

Violence in South Sudan engulfs country, 10 years after independence ‘children all have guns’

Victims to testify in Swiss war crimes trial of Liberian rebel commander

Probes on extrajudicial killings, ‘important step’ in fighting impunity in Colombia – UN rights office

Yemen: UN rights office calls for de-escalation in Marib Governorate

In Cameroon’s separatist war, children are the biggest losers

Why Ethiopia’s tensions are boiling over in Tigray

Amid a rebel offensive, a push for justice in Central African Republic

Children seen at risk of recruitment in Central African Republic fighting

‘Put Syrians first…finally’, UN rights investigators urge after deadly decade of conflict

 Climate change is fueling recruitment into armed groups

Sustainable Development Goal 16: can armed non-state actors act, or only obstruct?

February 23, 2021

Deborah Casalin is a PhD researcher in the Law and Development Research Group at the University of Antwerp Faculty of Law. She previously worked for several years in the humanitarian and development sectors, mainly on issues relating to IHL and human rights, and has previously published on armed group detention under IHL. This contribution draws on her recent chapter Legal Obligations of Non-state Armed Groups and Sustainable Development Goal 16, in Walter Leal Filho et al, Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions: Encyclopedia of the UN Sustainable Development Goals (Springer, 2021).


Are people living under armed group control merely beneficiaries of basic humanitarian protection? Or are they still rights-holders, who may make claims against entities with power over their lives – and even perhaps aspire to development, within the constraints of the situation? From the latter starting point, this post addresses the situation of people living under armed group control from the perspective of Sustainable Development Goal (SDG) 16 (Just, Peaceful and Inclusive Societies / Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions), a goal with clear relevance for people in armed conflict situations. For purposes of this goal, it would certainly be ideal to have no armed conflicts and no armed groups to participate in them. But readers of Armed Groups and International Law will be well-acquainted with this kind of conundrum: what can be done to improve the situation of civilians under prevailing circumstances, short of ending all conflicts and demobilizing all armed groups by the SDG deadline of 2030?

The aim of this post is to explore which targets within SDG 16 could still be promoted in favour of people living under the de facto control of armed groups, pending conflict resolution. Firstly, it maps some of the impacts of armed conflict on SDG 16 targets. Secondly, it examines which of these impacts can be addressed by armed groups. Thirdly, it outlines the legal bases for potentially engaging armed groups towards these goals. In concluding, it suggests how the SDGs might support promotion of the well-being of civilians living under armed group control.

Armed conflict and Sustainable Development Goal 16

Tens of thousands of people are killed in conflicts every year, amongst which record numbers of children, who may be vulnerable to abduction, sexual violence and forced recruitment. Birth registration is often impeded during conflict, which facilitates such serious abuses. Conflict also creates a conducive environment for diversion of arms, illicit financial flows and corruption, which are in turn connected to arms supply. Thus, armed conflict in itself negatively affects various Sustainable Development Goal 16 targets – in particular, the objectives of reducing violence and related deaths, exploitation of children, illicit arms flows and organized criminal activity; as well as the aim of ensuring legal identity for all. The activities of armed groups – which are part and parcel of the majority of contemporary armed conflicts – are (often rightly) considered to be especially harmful to these goals. Indeed, since armed groups already operate beyond the pale of domestic law, they may engage in illicit activities to sustain themselves, such as unlawful mining or logging, or trading in prohibited goods to procure arms illegally. Their operating methods in conflict may also rely on prohibited activities such as violence against civilians or recruitment of children.  However, armed groups in conflict situations are often already beyond the reach of state justice systems, and may have control over territory and resources, as well as the daily lives of civilians. It is in such situations that they have especially significant influence over the SDG targets mentioned.

Daily life under armed group control (c)Deborah Casalin

Sustainable Development Goal 16 without a state: what is still possible?

The SDGs are not a legal instrument outlining rights and obligations, but a set of objectives which are in principle for the benefit of all people, regardless of who governs them. As such, they do not have a clear addressee. However, the SDGs are an agenda which has been adopted by UN member states, and are therefore formulated from a state-centric perspective. SDG 16 is a clear example of this, as especially its “justice and strong institutions” aspects presuppose the presence of state authority, and relate to issues which are closely connected to the core functions of the State. This can be seen, for example, in the various targets which require action in accordance with national legislation or in international fora, or those relating to institution-building, governance or law enforcement.

Nevertheless, there are a few elements of SDG 16 that do not inherently require state authority to work towards their achievement. In conflict situations, besides having a negative impact on these targets, it may also be within the capacities of armed groups to contribute to their achievement. These targets include reduction of violence and violent deaths, protection of children, and ensuring legal identity for all. External actors already engage with armed groups towards certain aspects of these targets – and what is more, some armed groups have shown themselves willing and able to modify their operating methods so as to reduce civilian killings, halt the recruitment of child soldiers, and facilitate birth registration.

On what legal bases can armed groups be engaged towards achieving (parts of) SDG 16?

Above, we have seen that effective state authority is not a prerequisite for working towards important elements of at least three SDG 16 targets – i.e. reducing violence and related deaths, protecting children from violence and exploitation, and ensuring legal identity for all. These targets coincide to a large extent with armed groups’ established international humanitarian law (IHL) obligations. Therefore, there is room for external actors to work towards these targets through humanitarian engagement on the basis of Common Article 3, which aims at promoting compliance with these rules. For example, the reduction of violent deaths could be addressed via NSAGs’ obligation to respect the principle of distinction; the protection of children via prohibitions on recruitment and participation of children in hostilities, as well as obligations regarding family reunification and special protection; and ensuring legal identity via humanitarian access obligations, as birth registration may be integrated into broader humanitarian assistance activities.

Of course, it is increasingly recognized that non-state armed groups may have even further-reaching human rights obligations in situations where they control territory and the daily lives of populations, even in relation to issues that have little to do with the conflict. Therefore, depending on the context, armed groups may be required to do more than what is outlined above (e.g. protecting people living under their control from violence or exploitation by third parties). In terms of international law, nothing prevents local populations from claiming these rights vis-à-vis an armed group. However, the extent to which external actors can engage to support them might vary according to the context, as rights-based or developmental activities could be constrained by State or armed group interpretations of the boundaries of humanitarian access; the international law principle of non-interference in internal affairs; and/or international or domestic counter-terrorism regulations. Where these activities cannot be integrated into an expanded understanding of humanitarian engagement, it may be necessary to conduct them in terms of a bilateral agreement with the territorial State or under a UN mandate. However, while this may work for humanitarian-adjacent activities, it is still difficult to envisage state agreement to external engagement on the “justice and strong institutions” aspects of SDG 16 – even where armed groups have in practice taken charge of decision-making, public order and welfare, and institutions such as courts and prisons. Still, basic IHL protections for people in detention or undergoing trial (e.g. humane treatment, limiting use of the death penalty) may be promoted via classic humanitarian engagement.


While SDG 16 may seem completely incompatible with situations of armed conflict – and especially those involving armed groups with control over people and territory – a closer observation reveals a number of important aspects which can be worked on even in the absence of State authority. On some issues with far-reaching effects on basic rights and well-being – such as civilian killings, child protection and birth registration – IHL provides the bases and parameters for engagement, which has already proved successful in many situations. More may be demanded in terms of human rights where armed groups exercise control over territory, institutions, and civilian life, although external engagement may more easily run into international, state or armed group restrictions.

But if even human rights runs into difficulty in situations of armed group control, what can the SDGs bring to the table? There are possibilities from two different perspectives. Firstly, from the perspective of promoting civilian protection in a broad sense, the SDGs – as a set of broad objectives which are not framed as legal obligations – might in some contexts provide less contentious entry points for engagement than human rights. This may in turn facilitate setting the bar higher on civilian protection, especially on issues less closely connected to conflict. Secondly, from the perspective of SDG implementation, those involved in this process (including States) should be taken up on their commitment to leave no-one behind, including people living in conflict or under armed group control. In such contexts, partnerships for the goals should at least include those with access to and expertise in these areas – where possible, even going beyond international actors to support local organizations working for the rights and welfare of civilians.

News Roundup 8 February – 14 February

February 17, 2021

Colombia armed groups turn forcibly recruited children into ‘war machines’: government

British human rights lawyer elected chief prosecutor of the International Criminal Court

COVID fuelling risk of recruitment and use of children in conflict, UN and EU warn on International Day

Civilians in Kenya’s northeast targeted by both jihadists and the state

COVID sparks resurgence of ISIL terrorists, threatening international peace and security, Security Council hears

New ICC ruling ‘opens the door’ for justice in occupied Palestine – Independent UN expert

‘Deeply troubled’: US warns Houthis days after ‘terror’ delisting

Floods, fighting, famine: Inside South Sudan’s triple crisis

UN political affairs chief warns against ‘backsliding’ in Ukraine

U.N. envoy, Iran’s Zarif discuss how to end war in Yemen

News Roundup 1 February – 7 February

February 10, 2021

New Libya interim government agreed in U.N. talks

Power Politics Obstructs Protection of Civilians in — and After — the Nagorno-Karabakh Conflict

In Pictures: Old rivalries and new fighting in CAR

In Algerian mountains, army operation shows persistent militant threat

Myanmar coup threatens ceasefire, ethnic rebel leader says

Security Council calls for release of Aung San Suu Kyi, pledging ‘continued support’ for Myanmar’s democratic transition

Human rights: Widespread attacks in DR Congo may amount to crimes against humanity

UN independent experts call for ‘justice, accountability and reparation to victims’ in Sudan

‘Meaningful and inclusive’ dialogue essential to end upsurge in clashes across Central African Republic

End impunity for use of chemical weapons in Syria, UN disarmament chief urges Security Council

Dominic Ongwen and the Lord’s Resistance Army

News Roundup 25 January – 31 January

February 3, 2021
  1. What is behind the renewed violence in CAR?
  2. US Terrorist Designation for Houthis is Bad for Yemen Even Beyond Crippling Aid Efforts
  3. Central African Republic surrenders war crimes suspect to ICC
  4. Central African Republic: Rights expert welcomes transfer of war crimes suspect to ICC
  5. Central African Republic war crimes suspect appears at ICC
  6. The Libyan Arab Armed Forces: A Hybrid Armed Actor?
  7. Ethnic groups in central Mali sign ‘three peace agreements’
  8. Colombia Court Accuses Former Rebel Chiefs of War Atrocities
  9. ‘We can’t continue like this’: UN envoy’s grim assessment of Syria peace process
  10. Escalating hostilities in Yemen’s Hudaydah put thousands of civilians at risk

Legal Roundup September 2020 – January 2021

February 1, 2021

We are very pleased to present the legal roundup for September 2020 – January 2021, that contains publications on issues related armed groups and international law, non-international armed conflict and the relationship between IHL and IHRL. It was prepared by Andrea Farrés, and it was finalised with input from Ezequiel Heffes and Katharine Fortin.

If you have a 2020 publication which you think should be included in this roundup, please do not hesitate to contact the editors of the blog, Katharine Fortin and Ezequiel Heffes.

Please note that due to paywalls and your institution’s permissions, the given link may not always take you to the text of the article. The Armed Groups and International law blog has published legal roundups since 2012. For previous versions of the legal roundup, see here.

Armed Non-State Actors and International Law

Arai-Takahashi, Yutaka, Threshold in Flux – The Standard for Ascertaining the Requirement of Organization for Armed Groups under International Humanitarian Law, Journal of Conflict & Security Law, 2020, Volume 25, Issue 2, 1-37 [advance access, page numbers will change]

Bradley, Martha M., Classifying Non-International Armed Conflicts. The ‘Territorial Control’ Requirement Under Additional Protocol II in an Era of Complex Conflicts, Journal of International Humanitarian Legal Studies, 2020, Volume 11, Issue 2, 349-384.

Casalin, Deborah, Legal Obligations of Non-State Armed Groups and Sustainable Development Goal 16,  In: Leal Filho W., Azul A.M., Brandli L., Lange Salvia A., Özuyar P.G., Wall T. (eds) Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions. Encyclopedia of the UN Sustainable Development Goals. Springer, Cham, 2021

Derejko, Nathan, A Forever War? Rethinking the Temporal Scope of Non-International Armed Conflict, Journal of Conflict & Security Law, 2020, Volume 25, Issue 2,  1-30 [advance access, page numbers will change]

Lewis, Dustin A., The notion of “protracted armed conflict” in the Rome Statute and the termination of armed conflicts under international law: An analysis of select issues, International Review of the Red Cross, 2020, Volume 101, Number 912, 1091-1115.

Hamid, Linda, and Wouters, Jan (eds.), Rule of Law and Areas of Limited Statehood. Domestic and International Dimensions, Edward Elgar, 2021.

Heffes, Ezequiel, Generating compliance in conflict settings: how to engage armed non-State actors on International Law and live to tell the tale, The Military Law and the Law of War Review, 2020, Volume 58, Issue 2, 194-205.

Hrnjaz, Miloš & Simentić Popović, & Janja, Protracted Armed Violence as a Criterion for the Existence of Non-international Armed Conflict: International Humanitarian Law, International Criminal Law and Beyond, Journal of Conflict & Security Law, Vol. 25, no. 3, Winter 2020, 473-500.

Ínigo Alvarez, Laura, The Obligation to Provide Reparations by Armed Groups: A Norm under Customary International Law? Netherlands International Law Review, 2020, Volume 67, 427-452.

Jo, Hyeran, Alley, Joshua, K., Park, Yohan, Jordan, Soren, Signaling Restraint: International engagement and rebel groups commitment to international law, International Interactions, 2021, Vol 46.

Kalandarishvili-Mueller, Natia, Transforming a Prima Facie NIAC into an IAC: Finding the Answer in IHL, Israel Law Review, 2020, Volume 53, Issue 3, 334 – 354.

Khadhraoui, Hichem, Fragmentation of armed non-State actors in protracted armed conflicts: Some practical experiences on how to ensure compliance with humanitarian norms, International Review of the Red Cross, 2020, Volume 101, Number 912, 993–1000.

Khaitan, Balbul, Alternative to the Existing Rule of Attribution for Use of Force by Non-State Actors in an Armed Conflict, Journal of Conflict & Security Law, 2020, Volume 25, Issue 2, 1-38 [advance access, page numbers will change]

Mantilla, Giovanni, Law Making Under Pressure: International Humanitarian Law and Internal Armed Conflict, Cornell University Press, 2020.

Niyo, Joshua Joseph, The Rebel with the Magnifying Glass: Armed Non-State Actors, the Right to Life and the Requirement to Investigate in Armed Conflict, Yearbook of International Humanitarian Law, 2020, Volume 22, 63-106.

Nyamutata, Conrad, Young Terrorists or Child Soldiers? ISIS Children, International Law and Victimhood, Journal of Conflict & Security Law, 2020, Volume 25, Issue 2, 237-261.

Quintin, Anne, The Nature of International Humanitarian Law: A Permissive or Restrictive Regime, Edward Elgar, 2020.

Schmitt, Michael N., and Watts, Sean, Common Article 1 and the Duty to “Ensure Respect”, International Law Studies, 2020, Volume 96, 674-706.

Spadaro, Alessandra, Repatriation of Family Members of Foreign Fighters: Individual Right or State Prerogative? International & Comparative Law Quarterly, Vol 70, No. 1, Jan 2021, 251-265.

Non-International Armed Conflicts (General)

Ackermann, Tobias and Wuschka, Sebastian,  Investments in Conflict Zones: The Role of International Investment Law in Armed Conflicts, Disputed Territories, and ‘Frozen’ Conflicts, Nijhoff International Investment Law Series, Vol 15, 2020.

Dannenbaum, Tom, Encirclement, Deprivation and Humanity: Revising the San Remo Manual Provisions on Blockade, International Law Studies, 2021, Vol 97, 207-394.

Giraldo Muñoz, Marcela and Serralvo, Jose, International humanitarian law in Colombia: Going a step beyond, International Review of the Red Cross, 2020, Volume 101, Number 912, 1117-1147.

Greenman, Kathryn, Common Article 3 at 70: Reappraising revolution and civil war in international law, Melbourne Journal of International Law, Vol 21, No. 1, 2020, 1-27.

Haspeslagh, Sophie, The ‘linguistic ceasefire’: Negotiating in an Age of Prescription, Security Dialogue, 1-19.

Hrnjaz, Miloš, Popović Simentić, Janja, Protracted Armed Violence as a Criterion for the Existence of Non-international armed conflict: International Humanitarian Law, International Criminal Law and Beyond, Journal of Conflict & Security Law, Winter 2020, Volume 25, Issue 3, 473–500.

Longobardo, Marco, The Legality of Closure on Land and Safe Passage Between the Gaza Strip and the West Bank, Asian Journal of International Law, 2020,  1-39 [advance access, page numbers will change]

Longobardo, Marco, “Super-Robust” Peacekeeping Mandates in NIACs under International Law, Spanish Yearbook of International Law, 2020, Vol 24, 42-72.

Müller-Crepon, Carl, Hunziker, Philipp, Cederman, Lars-Erik, Roads to Rule, Roads to Rebel: Relational State Capacity and Conflict in Africa, Journal of Conflict Resolution, 2020, Volume 65, Issue 2-3, 563-590.

Oscelik, Asli, Entrenching Peace in Law: Do Peace Agreements Possess International Legal Status?, Melbourne Journal of International Law, Vol 21, No. 1, 2020, 1-40.

Roscini, Marco, Intervention in XIXth Century International Law and the Distinction between Rebellions, Insurrections and Civil Wars, 50 Israel Yearbook on Human Rights, 2020, 269-303.

Silvestri, Alessandro, The ‘Revolving Door’ of Direct Participation in Hostilities A Way Forward?, Journal of International Humanitarian Legal Studies, Volume 11, Issue 2, 410-446.

Sutton, Rebecca, The Humanitarian Civilian: How the Idea of Distinction Circulates Within and Beyond IHL, Oxford University Press, 2021.

Vik Bakken, Ingrid, Buhauf, Halvard, Civil War and Female Empowerment, Journal of Conflict Resolution, 2020, Volume 20, Issue 10, 1-28.

Rebel governance/ non-law

Doctor, Austin C., A Motion of No Confidence: Leadership and Rebel Fragmentation, Journal of Global Security Studies, Volume 5, Issue 4, 598–616.

Sawyer, Katherine & Andrews, Talbot, M. Rebel recruitment and retention in civil conflict, International Interactions, Vol 46, Issue 6, 2020, 872-892.

Van Baalen, Sebastian, Local Elites, civil resistance and the responsiveness of rebel governance in Cote d’Ivoire, Journal of Peace Research, 1-15.

Jus ad Bellum

Burra, Srinivas, Use of Force as Self Defence against Non-State Actors and TWAIL Considerations: A Critical Analysis of India’s State Practice, Asian Yearbook of International Law, Vol 24 (2018), 106-126.

Murray, Donette, Flawed and Unnecessary: the ‘Unwilling or Unable’ Doctrine Pertaining to States’ Use of Force in Self-Defence against Non-State Actors, Hague Yearbook of International Law (Vol. 30, 2017), 58-118.

Schmitt, Michael N., Autonomous Cyber Capabilities and the International Law of Sovereignty and Intervention, International Law Studies, 2020, Volume 96, 548-576.

International Criminal Law

Fisher, Kirsten J., The Problem with the Crime of Forced Migration as a Loophole to ICC Jurisdiction. The PTC’s Decision on Myanmar and the Risk to Vulnerable Populations, Journal of International Humanitarian Legal Studies, 2020, Volume 11, Issue 2, 385-409.

Jo, Hyeran, Simmons, Beth, Radtke, Mitchell, Conflict Actors and the International Criminal Court in Colombia, Journal of International Criminal Justice, 2020, 1-19.

Targeting and Detention

Kolb, Robert and Nakashima, Fumiko, The notion of “acts harmful to the enemy” under international humanitarian law, International Review of the Red Cross, 2020, Volume 101, Number 912, 1171–1199.

Statman, Daniel, Sulitzeanu-Kenan, Raanan, Mandel, Micha, Skerker, Michael, De Wijze, Steven, Unreliable Protection: An Experimental Study of Experts’ In Bello Proportionality Decisions, European Journal of International Law, 2020, Volume 31, Issue 2, 429–453.

Transitional Justice and Peacebuilding

Dahlum, Sirianne and Wig, Tore, Peace Above the Glass Ceiling: The Historical Relationship between Female Political Empowerment and Civil Conflict, International Studies Quarterly, December 2020, Volume 64, Issue 4, 879-893.

Danielsson, Anna, The Urbanity of Peacebuilding: Urban Environments as Objects and Sites of Peacebuilding Knowledge Production, Journal of Intervention and Statebuilding, 2020, Volume 14, Number 5, 654-670.

Kastner, Philipp and Roy Trudel, Elisabeth, Unsettling international law and peace-making: An encounter with queer theory, Leiden Journal of international law, 2020, Volume 33, Issue 4, 911 – 930.

Ketola, Hanna, Withdrawing from politics? Gender, agency and women ex-fighters in Nepal, Security Dialogue, 2020, Volume 51, Issue 6, 519–536.

Warnecke, Andrea, Can Intergovernmental Organizations Be Peacebuilders in Intra-State War?, Journal of Intervention and Statebuilding, 2020, Volume 14, Number 5, 596-614.

Zarpli, Omer, Shaking Hands with the Internal Enemy: Democracy and Civil Conflict Settlement, International Studies Quarterly, December 2020, Volume 64, Issue 4, 845-856.


Heffes, Ezequiel and Somer, Jonathan, Inviting non-state armed groups to the table: inclusive strategies towards a more fit for purpose international humanitarian law, Centre for the Study of Armed Groups

Klugman, J., Nagel, R., Redlich Revkin, M.,and Stern, O. M., Can the Women, Peace and Security Agenda and IHL Join Forces? Georgetown Institute for Women, Peace and Security

Metcalfe-Hough, Victoria, Advocating for humanity? Securing better protection of civilians affected by armed conflict, Overseas Development Institute

Paulussen, Christophe & Gillard Emmanuela-Chaira, Staying in an Area Controlled by a Terrorist Organisation: crime or operational necessity? ICCT Policy Brief

Guidelines on protection of natural environment in armed conflict, ICRC

Conduct of Hostilities by Armed Non-State Actors. Report from the 2020 Garance Talks. The Garance Series No. 3, Geneva Call

New Weapons, Proven Precedent. Elements of and Models for a Treaty on Killer Robots, Human Rights Watch

No Law, No Justice, No State for Victims. The Culture of Impunity in Post-Conflict Nepal, Human Rights Watch

You have No Right to Complain, Education, Social Restrictions and Justice in Taliban Held Afghanistan, Human Rights Watch

“Targeting Life in Idlib”. Syrian and Russian Strikes on Civilian Infrastructure, Human Rights Watch

“They Burn Through Everything”. The Human Cost of Incendiary Weapons and the Limits of International Law, Human Rights Watch

News Roundup 18 January – 24 January

January 27, 2021
  1. Old grudges and empty coffers: South Sudan’s precarious peace process
  2. Killings of Colombia ex-FARC fighters persist amid peace process
  3. The longshot bid to end rampant banditry in Nigeria’s northwest
  4. UN chief calls for protection of civilians as violence spikes in Sudan’s West Darfur
  5. In Central African Republic, disputed polls spark a rebel offensive
  6. Central African Republic declares state of emergency to combat rebels
  7. Violence in Sudan’s Darfur Region Dims Hopes of a Long-Sought Peace
  8. Living in the shadow of rebellion: India’s Gond tribe
  9. Mali in transition: UN peacekeeping chief takes stock of political and security developments
  10. UN says breakthrough achieved in Libya transition talks

News Roundup 11 January – 17 January

January 20, 2021
  1. Want global stability? Modify the U.S. approach to dealing with nonstate armed actors
  2. Ethiopia: A partial view of the humanitarian fallout emerges in Tigray
  3. Insecurity and bureaucracy hampering aid to Ethiopia’s Tigray region
  4. Serious repercussions likely to follow US plan to designate Yemen combatants terrorists, UN warns
  5. US ‘terror’ label on Yemen’s Houthis could hit peace talks, aid
  6. Colombia says ex-FARC reintegration must continue, despite setbacks
  7. The key trends to watch this year on nonstate armed actors
  8. US Consulate a turning point for disputed Western Sahara
  9. UN counter-terrorism chief urges continued vigilance against ‘real’ ongoing threat
  10. Rebels launch attacks on Central African Republic’s capital

News Roundup 4 January – 10 January

January 13, 2021
  1. Central African Republic: A disputed election and a strange rebel alliance
  2. Ethiopia Accuses Sudan of Killing Civilians in Border Row
  3. Responding to neglected crises in the Sahel
  4. Afghan rivals to resume talks as civilian killings sow suspicion
  5. France opens investigations into former DR Congo rebel leader after Paris arrest
  6. On the march for peace in Myanmar
  7. Callamard calls for ‘clear, explicit and unambiguous standards’ to protect civilian planes during conflicts
  8. Colombia’s illegal armed groups lost more than 5,000 members in 2020 -military commander
  9. Guterres ‘shocked’ at massacre of civilians in eastern DR Congo
  10. Security Council has critical role in addressing fragility and conflict: UN chief

Most Read Posts in 2020

January 11, 2021

Happy new year to our readers! We want to take this opportunity to wish you all a wonderful 2021 and thank you for reading the blog in 2020. Below is a list of the 5 posts that received the most views last year. We hope to have relevant discussions about armed groups and international law this year:

  1. Katharine Fortin, Podcasts recommendations – legal, non-legal and pure escape (April 2020)
  2. Tadesse Kebebew & Joshua Niyo, Instant Non-international Armed Conflict? Classifying the situation in Northern Ethiopia under IHL (December 2020)
  3. ICRC, The legal regime protecting persons living in territory under the control of non-State armed groups (May 2020)
  4. Elvina Pothelet, Life in rebel territory: is everything war? (May 2020)
  5. Annyssa Bellal, From cockroaches to rosebuds: changing the international community’s perception of non-State armed groups (May 2020)