International humanitarian law, non-state armed groups and the International Committee of the Red Cross in Colombia

Abstract

This article analyses the experiences of the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) in Colombia, and has two main purposes: first, to elaborate on the relationship between international humanitarian law (IHL) and the practical work of the ICRC in internal armed conflict; and second, to use our enhanced understanding of that relationship to shed light on important questions regarding the nature and effectiveness of IHL with respect to non-State armed groups. It proceeds in three main parts. First, it provides background on the work of the ICRC to contextualise the subsequent analysis, establishing the importance of IHL in the work of the ICRC in general. Second, it shows that for the ICRC, IHL is a means to an end (namely protection) rather than an end in itself, and that it is not the only (or even necessarily the primary) means to that end. Third, it argues that the ICRC often finds that reference to IHL is counter-productive to achieving desired protection outcomes, and that this calls into question the adequacy and effectiveness of the IHL framework itself. Finally, it concludes by suggesting why the existing framework may be less than optimal for achieving its aims, and how future research could contribute to a more comprehensive assessment of the appropriateness and adequacy of existing IHL.

Extinction in transition: coca, coal, and the production of enmity in Colombia's post-peace accords environment

“…Colombia's longstanding war has been defined as 'armed conflict.' This definition is an attempt to situate the historicity of war within standard frameworks of war regulations, especially International Humanitarian Law (Valencia 1990;Human Rights Watch 1998;Bradley 2013). In that regard, violence is equated with armed conflict, and it is armed conflict as such that transitional justice institutions, discourses and practices consider most important.…”

From armed conflict to urban violence: transformations in the International Committee of the Red Cross, international humanitarianism, and the laws of war

“…ICRC neutrality is thus premised on the artificial distinction between international law and international politics – the ‘useful fiction’ mentioned in the introduction. ICRC delegates collect testimony from the victims of IHL violations and, providing certain conditions are met, present allegations of those violations to the alleged perpetrators, with the hope of persuading them to put an end to those violations (Bradley, 2013). They additionally provide combatants with training in IHL.…”

“…By offering alternatives to asylum, UNHCR arguably made it more difficult to insist on the obligations of states in international refugee law, ultimately eroding the principle of asylum that underpins that body of law. It also occurs when the ICRC avoids legal argumentation even in IHL contexts, settling for some improvement in the conduct of parties to conflict today rather than pushing for full acceptance and internalisation of the relevant laws (Bradley, 2013; Ratner, 2011). By failing to insist on the full application of IHL in all contexts, the ICRC arguably ends up undermining claims of the universality of the legal framework.…”

All Lives Are Equal but Some Lives Are More Equal than Others

“…Acceptance strategies also include dialogue with various interlocutors. The International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) seeks to secure access and build relationships with a range of state and non-state interlocutors with the express purpose of engaging in a dialogue on civilian protection (Bradley, 2013;2016: 162-8). By contrast, for many other agencies dialogue is used much more, if not exclusively, as part of an acceptance strategy to secure access for humanitarian staff and material aid (Bradley, 2016: 163;Collinson and Duffield, 2013: 18).…”