International law has long assumed that only states may use force. Peacemissions
from the UN, Nato and others act on mandates from states, while force by substatal
armed groups is governed and prohibited under domestic law.
The international regime on military force (MF) was completed after WWII
through the UN Charter and the Geneva Conventions. This regime regulated nonstate
actors (NSAs) only through a few brief rules of international humanitarian law (IHL).
Gradually, and controversially, NSAs have been brought into the MF regime.
During the 1970s and 1980s, the right of national liberation movements was
discussed, and after 9/11, it has been claimed that an NSA can even commit an
armed attack. Most rules of IHL are now deemed applicable also in noninternational
conflicts, binding even non-state armed groups. The regulation of
private military firms has also been a hot topic. Still, there has been no systematic
discussion about whether NSAs now are covered by all aspects of the MF
regime; the right to use force (right authority under just war doctrine) is still
essentially held to be a prerogative of states.
This project consists of two related parts:
(1) A description of existing relevant rules and current debate, to see if various
kinds of NSAs can arguably be covered by different parts of the current military
force regime.
(2) An analysis of whether a comprehensive regime governing military force by
NSAs is feasible, and what it might look like.