E-raamat: Attribution of Non-State Actor Conduct During Armed Conflict

During armed conflict, it is common for armed groups and other non-State actors to act in a way that potentially violates international law, for example by causing harm to civilians. This volume in the Lieber Studies series provides a detailed analysis of when harmful conduct by non-State actors can be legally attributed to a State under international law. Using case studies from recent conflicts, this book clarifies when each of the six rules of attribution applies and also assesses the effectiveness of international law in ensuring State responsibility for such conduct, offering a clear and practical guide to a complex area of legal accountability in modern warfare.

Armed conflict today involves a plethora of non-State actors including armed groups, private military companies, and hackers operating in the cyber domain. Frequently, these non-State actors act in a way that violates international law, for example by harming civilians, and they commonly act with the benefit of some form of State support. This raises critical questions about State responsibility.

Attribution of Non-State Actor Conduct During Armed Conflict explores when and how international law attributes non-State actor conduct to a State, thereby triggering that State's international responsibility. Focusing on the six rules of attribution outlined in the International Law Commission's Articles on State Responsibility, the book provides a rigorous analysis of their practical application in the context of armed conflict. Using detailed case studies from the conflicts in Syria, Ukraine, and the Democratic Republic of the Congo, it examines each of the rules of attribution in turn, demonstrates when they would apply, and evaluates their effectiveness in holding States accountable for non-State actor conduct performed on their behalf.

Critically assessing the legal and practical limitations of existing frameworks, the book argues that the predominant interpretation of the rules of attribution leaves an accountability gap, which enables States to act via proxy in a manner they could not lawfully operate via their own State organs. Combining doctrinal clarity with real-world relevance, it investigates how the inadequacies in the regulation of States' support to non-State actors in conflict situations should be remedied.