This edited volume examines asymmetric conflict dynamics through the politics of recognition vis-à-vis armed non-state actors. It explores a diverse range of case studies and considers the risks and opportunities that (non-)recognition may involve for transforming armed conflicts.

This volume deals with the threat to democracy and the rule of law posed by organised violence in Latin America.

During armed conflict, non-State armed groups deprive individuals of their liberty. While this is not a new phenomenon, its pervasiveness is reflected by recent examples in Colombia, Libya, Syria, Ukraine, Mali and the Democratic Republic of the Congo. Yet, examining these activities goes beyond its mere acknowledgment. It involves questions concerning their legality and the non-State armed groups' motivations when depriving individuals of their liberty. Drawing on his personal experiences while working for various humanitarian organizations, Ezequiel Heffes aims at elucidating how international law can be used as a protective tool in relation to individuals placed in detention by non-State armed groups. Based on case studies of selected groups and a normative and doctrinal analysis, he proposes minimum humanitarian principles applicable to those situations. By addressing a contemporary issue that touches upon a number of legal regimes, this study makes a valuable contribution to the law applicable in armed conflict.

The central question of this pioneer work on the responsibility of non-state actors (NSAs) and the consequences thereof, is: To whom are such actors, in particular armed opposition groups and business corporations, accountable for their actions in armed conflict and in peace times? Does responsibility in international law apply to these NSAs qua groups? While much has been written about NSAs’ rights and participation in the global theatre as well as the responsibility of the state and international organisations for wrongful acts by NSAs, scant attention has been paid to questions of NSA organizational responsibility, in spite of their potential to wreak international havoc. This volume offers innovative insights into this unexplored territory by analyzing responsibility questions from both theoretical and empirical perspectives.

This volume investigates the nature and changing roles of the non-state armed groups in the Middle East with a special focus on Kurdish, Shia and Islamic State groups. To understand the nature of transformation in the Middle Eastern geopolitical space, it provides new empirical and analytical insights into the impact of three prominent actors, namely ISIS, YPG and Shia Militias. With its distinctive detailed and multi-faceted analyses, it offers new findings on the changing contours of sovereignty, geopolitics and ideology, particularly after the Arab Uprisings. Overall this volume contributes to the study of violent geopolitics, critical security studies and international relations particularly by exploring the ideologies and strategies of the new non-state armed actors.

To bridge the widening gap between the theory and practice of the law, Modern Warfare brings together both scholars and practitioners who offer unique, and often divergent, perspectives on four key challenges to the law's legitimacy: how to ensure compliance among non-state armed groups; the proliferation of private military and security companies and their use by humanitarian organizations; tensions between the idea of humanitarian space and counterinsurgency doctrines; and the phenomenon of urban violence. The contributors do not simply consider settled legal standards - they widen the scope to include first principles, related bodies of law, humanitarian policy, and the latest studies on the prevention and mitigation of violence."--Pub. desc.

Influential armed groups continue to confound policymakers, diplomats, and analysts decades after their transformational arrival on the scene in the Middle East and North Africa. The most effective of these militias can most usefully be understood as hybrid actors, which simultaneously work through, with, and against the state. This joint report from The Century Foundation identifies the factors that make some hybrid actors persistent and successful, as measured by longevity, influence, and ability to project power militarily as well as politically. It finds that three factors correlate most closely with impact: constituent loyalty, resilient state relationships, and coherent ideology. The authors of this report examined cases in Lebanon, Syria, and Iraq, drawing on years of fieldwork, to distinguish hybrid actors, classic nonstate proxies, and aspirants to statehood--all of which merit different analytical and policy treatment. The report demonstrates the ways that groups can shift along a spectrum as they adapt to changing conditions.