AN ANALYSIS OF THE STATIST APPROACH OF IHL AND ITS EFFECT ON NON-STATE ACTORS IN NON-INTERNATIONAL ARMED CONFLICT.

ABSTRACT This research examines the limitations of International Humanitarian Law (IHL) in addressing the growing role of non-state armed groups (NSAGs) in today’s armed conflicts. While IHL was originally developed to regulate warfare between states, the reality of modern conflict has changed significantly. NSAGs now play a major role in many internal and transnational conflicts, yet they remain largely excluded from the formal legal framework. This exclusion creates a serious imbalance NSAGs are expected to follow rules they had no part in shaping, and enforcement becomes difficult when they are not formally recognized under international law. The study investigates how this state-centric or “statist” approach affects the effectiveness of IHL in practice. It finds that the reluctance of states to engage with NSAGs—often driven by fears of granting them political legitimacy—can actually worsen humanitarian outcomes. Civilians become more vulnerable, and opportunities to improve compliance with IHL are missed. The research also explores alternative approaches that allow for more practical engagement. These include soft law tools such as voluntary commitments, codes of conduct, and Deeds of Commitment, which offer NSAGs a way to commit to humanitarian norms without being treated as equal to states. Through a combination of legal analysis and real-world examples, the research argues for a more inclusive and realistic application of IHL. It recommends that the international community promote flexible, non-political forms of engagement with NSAGs, encourage education on IHL, and strengthen accountability mechanisms that apply equally to all parties in conflict. By adapting IHL to the realities of modern warfare, this research aims to contribute to the broader goal of improving civilian protection and ensuring that humanitarian principles are respected—regardless of who is fighting.