Volume 4 : 1
New Actors in Global Governance and International Human Rights Law
Exploring Approaches to Accommodating Non-State Actors within Traditional International Law
A Unique Non-State Actor: the International Committee of the Red Cross
The Participation of Civil Society in Environmental Matters: the 1998 Aarhus Convention
Human Rights Obligations and Transnational Corporations: The Limits of Direct Corporate Responsibility
Human Rights Obligations and Accountability of Armed Opposition Groups: the Practice of the UN Security Council
Treat Them as They Deserve!? Three Approaches to Armed Opposition Groups under Current International Law
Non-State Actors in Areas of Limited Statehood as Addressees of Public International Law Norms on Governance
Non-State Actors in Exile: Benefits and Disadvantages of Legitimacy Claims
Workplace Equality in International Organisations: Why is It an Illusory Concept?
New Actors in Global Governance and International Human Rights Law
Exploring Approaches to Accommodating Non-State Actors within Traditional International Law
A Unique Non-State Actor: the International Committee of the Red Cross
The Participation of Civil Society in Environmental Matters: the 1998 Aarhus Convention
Human Rights Obligations and Transnational Corporations: The Limits of Direct Corporate Responsibility
Human Rights Obligations and Accountability of Armed Opposition Groups: the Practice of the UN Security Council
Treat Them as They Deserve!? Three Approaches to Armed Opposition Groups under Current International Law
Non-State Actors in Areas of Limited Statehood as Addressees of Public International Law Norms on Governance
Non-State Actors in Exile: Benefits and Disadvantages of Legitimacy Claims
Workplace Equality in International Organisations: Why is It an Illusory Concept?
Year
2010
Volume
4
Number
1
Page
111
Language
English
Court
Reference
V. BÍLKOVÁ, “Treat Them as They Deserve!? Three Approaches to Armed Opposition Groups under Current International Law ”, HRILD 2010, nr. 1, 111-126
Recapitulation
Armed opposition groups, likewise other non-state actors, confront international law with the challenge of their 'otherness'. This challenge has been so far met in three different ways, reflecting the diverging degree of participation and acceptability that various armed opposition groups (national liberation movements, insurgent groups in non-international armed conflicts, and criminal and terrorist groups) show. The approaches international law adopts towards these three categories of AOG differ considerably in the extent and content of rights bestowed upon the groups' members. This plurality is made possible by the flexibility of the international legal personality concept, which is not a matter of simple presence and absence but of degree. As such, it helps to ensure the dominance of the state over the 'other', but fails to meet the needs of the wider international community. While there is no easy solution to this problem, it is clear that any move forward has to include either a moderation of the goals the legal regime pursues or a reassessment of some of its premises and a more active incorporation of 'otherness'.