All armed groups capture or detain individuals in a variety of situations, but it is unclear what legal obligations, if any, non-state groups have when dealing with detainees. Bruce Oswald explores this question and the challenge of getting non-state groups to respect basic detention standards.

Summary

All armed groups capture or detain individuals in a variety of situations, but it is unclear what legal obligations non-state armed groups have when dealing with detainees. The international community should consider: (1) studying the extent to which armed non-state actors are able to adhere to extant international humanitarian law and international human rights law; (2) and develop generic detention principles and guidelines that are specifically relevant for non-state armed groups.

About This Brief

This Peace Brief, based on the author’s research on armed groups in Afghanistan, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, and other conflict zones, considers some issues relevant to the development of principles and guidelines governing the treatment of detainees taken by armed groups. Bruce ‘Ossie’ Oswald is an associate professor of law at Melbourne Law School and a Jennings Randolph senior fellow (2012-2013). Ossie’s interest in armed groups stems from his military service in places such as Rwanda, East Timor, Iraq, and Afghanistan. His academic research is focused on international humanitarian law, international human rights law, and post-conflict state-building. Ossie would like to thank Pamela Aall, Vivienne O’Connor and Beth Wellington for their very helpful comments on earlier drafts of this Brief. Ossie is also grateful to Maria Glenna for her research assistance.

Related Publications

Prospects for Crisis Management on the China-India Border

Prospects for Crisis Management on the China-India Border

Wednesday, September 16, 2020

By: Patricia M. Kim; Vikram J. Singh

After a deadly skirmish in June and shots fired in September, Sino-Indian tensions have escalated to a level not seen in decades. Both countries’ foreign ministers recently agreed to a five-point framework to manage the situation, showing both sides want tensions to plateau rather than deteriorate further. But the Line of Actual Control (LAC) will not easily go back to a well-managed bilateral irritant—right now, it’s a dangerous flashpoint and likely to stay that way. USIP’s Vikram Singh and Patricia Kim look at the recent discussions, what’s driving the escalation, how the conflict affects the region, and what history can tell us about how it might be resolved.

Type: Analysis and Commentary

Conflict Analysis & Prevention

One Year Since Their State Was Split Up, Kashmiris' Lives Remain in Limbo

One Year Since Their State Was Split Up, Kashmiris' Lives Remain in Limbo

Thursday, August 20, 2020

By: Ashish Kumar Sen

One year since Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s government stripped Jammu and Kashmir of its special status and downgraded its statehood to a centrally controlled union territory—an act it argued was intended to improve governance and attract investment to the region—residents’ lives remain upended by continued conflict and a high level of militarization.

Type: Analysis and Commentary

Conflict Analysis & Prevention

Toward a Kashmir Endgame? How India and Pakistan Could Negotiate a Lasting Solution

Toward a Kashmir Endgame? How India and Pakistan Could Negotiate a Lasting Solution

Wednesday, August 5, 2020

By: Happymon Jacob

Kashmir has once again emerged as a major flashpoint between South Asia’s nuclear-armed rivals, India and Pakistan. The Indian government’s August 2019 withdrawal of statehood status for the Muslim-majority Jammu and Kashmir region intensified disaffection among separatists and the Kashmiri public. This report explores the strategies India and Pakistan have adopted toward Kashmir in the year since August 2019, and examines a potential road map for resolving the Kashmir conflict.

Type: Special Report

Conflict Analysis & Prevention

View All Publications