This report analyses the approaches of civil society organizations such as the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) and Geneva Call in communicating international norms to non-state armed actors. It elaborates on the different methods as well as the basic conditions and factors that affect the success of their approaches in order to evaluate the strengths and limits of NGOs in constructively dealing with non-state armed actors.
Key findings:
- Transnational nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) have developed strategies to improve the diffusion of and general adherence to international norms among nonstate armed actors, with the goal of persuading armed actors to adapt their behaviour accordingly. The ICRC and Geneva Call approaches toward norm diffusion assume that nonstate armed actors are led by norms and values, which the organizations refer to in their statements and declarations. A fundamental reason for this assumption is that a number of nonstate armed actors value their public reputation, moral authority, and source of legitimacy, as well as the expectations that are put on them. Armed actors’ self-awareness can be the start of a debate about norms and regulations, which is part of both the ICRC and Geneva Call approaches. The mechanisms these organizations have developed aim at pressuring armed actors to justify their actions. On an argumentative level, this justification becomes more difficult for the actors the more they have committed to humanitarian norms. The ICRC offers trainings in international humanitarian law to armed actors that explain their responsibilities for protecting civilians in military operations. Geneva Call provides education on the effects of antipersonnel landmines and supports armed actors in their efforts to clear mined areas, destroy stockpiles, and provide victim assistance.
- The mechanisms NGOs adopt in dealing with non-state armed actors reveal limitations and problems but also offer new avenues for states and international organizations to engage with armed groups. It is more hazardous to employ these mechanisms with regard to nonstate armed actors, who often need to take serious precautions for their security. Additionally, the mechanisms appear particularly to affect a certain type of nonstate armed actor, namely those actors and leaders that follow a political program, see themselves as representatives of a distinct population, and are interested in providing governance in the territory controlled by them. These actors already anticipate a role in the state, either through revolution and regime change or separation. This profile suggests that NGOs can be far more effective working with classic rebel groups, clan chiefs, and militias than with terrorists, warlords, criminals, or mercenaries, who do not typically have such national-level political ambitions.
- With greater support from the international community, NGOs’ contributions could become more substantive and complement other ongoing efforts to change armed actors’ behaviour. External actors dealing with non-state armed actors need to be aware of the existing range of approaches used by different actors in the field, as well as their possibilities and limits. In any particular case, they need to know about the capabilities of all possible external actors, such as NGOs, to develop a joint effort or at least a complementing approach toward armed groups. The independent activities of NGOs in engaging non-state armed groups in a humanitarian dialogue may facilitate a change of behaviour, make such groups more approachable, and convey norms that other actors can build on, such as in future peace processes. In this respect, NGO activities may well work toward stabilization and peacebuilding even if they remain entirely independent of state efforts.
