Armed Non-State Actors and Forced Displacement: A Conference Report

The expert conference, co‐organised by the Internal Displacement Monitoring Centre (IDMC) and Geneva Call in Geneva, Switzerland, on 23 and 24 March 2011, explored different aspects of the complex interface between armed non-State Actors (ANSAs) and the protection of internally displaced people (IDPs). The conference was a unique opportunity for current and former ANSAs and members of civil society from areas undergoing internal displacement to express their views and perspectives, as well as a forum for representatives from humanitarian organisations and academics to share their experience and knowledge, and to present the findings of their academic and field research. The participants sought to both identify the current challenges relating to the protection of IDPs in situations involving ANSAs, and propose innovative ways to improve ANSAs’ commitments, not only to refrain from violating IDPs’ rights, but also to take steps to protect them.

Main findings

In many countries, IDPs are exposed to violence and to various violations of their rights, either by the State or by ANSAs. ANSAs have various obligations towards IDPs under international law, which can be found in the Geneva Conventions and their additional protocols, but also in the Rome Statute and the Kampala Convention, as well as the Guiding Principles on Internal Displacement (the “Guiding Principles”). However, the vast majority of violations committed by ANSAs against IDPs and other civilians are perpetrated with impunity, as national governments have lost the monopoly on the use of force and their judicial systems may function poorly. In addition, both leaders and other members of ANSAs lack knowledge of standards relevant to IDPs.

The conference recognised that while IDPs benefit from the same protection as other civilians, they have particular vulnerabilities and needs because of their displacement, and it is essential that all stakeholders take these into account. Therefore, even as general provisions of international humanitarian law or international human rights law may provide protection for IDPs, they may not be sufficient to address IDPs’ specific needs such as the protection against forcible return or the provision of identity documents, or the needs of specific groups of  IDPs, such as internally displaced women or children. In this respect, normative tools such as the Guiding Principles are of particular importance in seeking to achieve comprehensive protection of IDPs. The conference participants described and analysed how, and to what extent, ANSAs can either directly or indirectly cause displacement, violate IDPs’ rights or hamper the efforts of humanitarian actors to protect IDPs.

Through case studies focusing on the interaction between ANSAs and IDP communities in the Philippines, Sri Lanka and Colombia, participants identified three challenges for humanitarian agencies:

1. It is crucial for humanitarian agencies and donors to find a balance between quick response and a thorough and ongoing analysis of the domestic context and dynamics, including the historical relationship between displaced communities, State institutions and ANSAs. Knowledge of the local culture, traditions and values is essential to ensure timely and effective assistance.
2. Based on such contextual analysis, humanitarian agencies must adapt their assistance strategy to address the needs of IDPs but also to enhance the “self-protection” capacity of local communities, while ensuring the inclusion of local partners. 
3. Humanitarian organisations must also comply strictly with the principles of neutrality, impartiality and independence, to avoid being perceived as supporting one or other party to the conflict.

In many contexts in which local and international actors have provided assistance and protection, as the case study from the Philippines highlighted, internally displaced communities themselves have developed effective coping strategies and asserted their rights in the face of ANSAs. It was emphasised in the conference that while IDPs are subjected to violations, they can also have a proactive role in enhancing their own protection. Also, rather than always being the victims of violations, there have been instances where IDPs have put pressure on ANSAs to commit violations against other civilians.

Benefiting from the testimonies of current or former members of ANSAs, participants identified trends regarding ANSAs’ perspectives on IDP protection and assistance. A common challenge for ANSAs is to disseminate knowledge of international protection standards among their forces, and to enforce their application. There are various levels of interest in complying with international standards, both between groups and within each group. Also, mechanisms developed by ANSAs to deal with transgressions may not be in line with international standards. Current and former members of ANSAs also said that allegations brought up against ANSAs by various international organisations were not always substantiated, and participants discussed ways to remedy this.

The relationship between ANSAs and IDPs is often complex and can vary greatly between contexts. In this respect it was noted that in some instances IDPs might prefer to stay in, or return to, areas under the control or influence of ANSAs. The conference highlighted the fact that ANSAs can protect IDPs, where the State is unable or unwilling to do so. Several encouraging examples of steps by ANSAs in this direction included collaborating with humanitarian organisations in providing assistance, facilitating IDPs’ safe return or making commitments to respect protection standards.

The conference then analysed ANSAs’ motivations and commitments to respect the rights of IDPs. After having identified incentives to convince ANSAs to comply with protection standards, it is important to spread knowledge about relevant international norms and make sure they are well understood. It is then in the hands of the international community to design and implement efficient mechanisms to monitor and verify compliance.

Regarding specific groups of IDPs, there was a consensus over the need for further analysis and research to be dedicated to groups at risk, namely women and children, and for UN agencies and NGOs to engage more with ANSAs to better address the needs and vulnerabilities of these groups. Regarding compliance, monitoring and accountability, the same challenges were identified as for the violations of rights of the general population of IDPs. In addition, concerns were raised over the effectiveness of “naming and shaming” mechanisms, which may not always lead to the desired outcome.

From a donor perspective, the main concern regarding the interrelation between ANSAs and IDPs was to build up an adequate and careful contextual analysis, to strictly comply with the principle of impartiality, as well as to set their action into a broader legal framework including IHL, the Guiding Principles, and other relevant law. The representatives of the Norwegian government and of the European Union also discussed the risk of the “instrumentalisation” of humanitarian concerns when external actors intend to use the “humanitarian entry point” to engage in conflict resolution discussions. 

Finally, participants discussed how humanitarian organisations can carry out programmes where ANSAs operate. The presenters highlighted that while building dialogue with ANSAs should be an initial objective, seeking their compliance with international standards of protection can be a longer-term objective. The discussions raised the need to adapt assistance strategies and programmes to the evolving situation on the ground, and at each stage of the displacement cycle. For instance, advocacy for the respect of the rights of IDPs may, inter alia, seek to prevent displacement, to ensure humanitarian space and access to communities or to promote durable solutions for IDPs in line with the Guiding Principles. One particular challenge faced by humanitarian actors seeking to ensure the protection of IDPs in areas under the control or influence of ANSAs is the restrictions imposed by some governments on their contact with ANSAs. Counter-terrorism legislation was also discussed by the participants and identified as another major impediment to possible humanitarian engagement, or the perceived neutrality of humanitarian actors.