Protection of ICRC’s Mandates in Non-International Armed Conflict: A case of States vis-à-vis Non-States Armed Groups

Abstract

The International Committee of Red Cross (ICRC) focuses on giving effect the rules of International Humanitarian Law (IHL) and humanitarian principles generally. In its establishment, the ICRC was given promotive and protective mandates in both armed conflicts namely International Armed Conflicts (IAC) and Non-international Armed Conflicts (NIAC) however; mandates of ICRC in NIAC are much more limited compared to IAC. This means that, the rules of IHL governing NIAC do not provide explicitly the mandates of ICRC. Several states have developed anti-terrorism laws which aid them to fight against terrorism; these anti-terrorism laws developed by states refer NIAC as terrorism and thus, affect the mandates of ICRC during NIAC. States criminalize any organizations from providing any kind of assistance be it of humanitarian nature or not to the armed combatants during NIAC. These include armed combatants of the organized armed groups who are termed as the terrorists in case they are detained by the states armed forces. ICRC staff members have been facing difficulties in performing ICRC’s mandates over the civilians and combatants of the organized armed groups who are under urgent need of humanitarian assistance. States do not guarantee humanitarian activities by ICRC staff members to the so-called terrorists. As the result ICRC is facing accusations of being involved in terrorism. Therefore, in order to perform its mandates, ICRC needs legal access to interact by both State and Non-States Armed Groups (NSAG’s), for issuance of humanitarian assistance to the detained persons and protection of wounded and sick for their reliefs. The article carries with it a reformative agenda as far as mandates of ICRC in NIAC are concerned