Klostermann: Durchsetzung humanitären Völkerrechts durch und gegenüber nicht-staatlichen Akteuren

Regina Klostermann has published Durchsetzung humanitären Völkerrechts durch und gegenüber nicht-staatlichen Akteuren: Nichtregierungsorganisationen im Spannungsfeld notwendiger Zusammenarbeit mit bewaffneten nicht-staatlichen Gruppen und staatlichen Sicherheitsinteressen (Duncker & Humblot 2021). Here's the abstract:

NGOs, die bei der Durchsetzung humanitären Völkerrechts tätig sind und humanitäre Hilfe leisten, arbeiten in einem Spannungsfeld: Ihre Arbeit ist dringend notwendig, um das Leiden der Zivilbevölkerung in einem bewaffneten Konflikt zu lindern und die Konfliktparteien zur Einhaltung des Rechts zu bewegen. Eine interdisziplinäre Betrachtung verdeutlicht, dass NGOs durchaus geeignet sind, die Durchsetzung des humanitären Völkerrechts auch gegenüber nicht-staatlichen bewaffneten Gruppen zu fördern. Verschiedene NGOs wie beispielsweise Geneva Call nutzen dabei innovative Instrumente, die umfassend untersucht werden. Gleichzeitig hindern zunehmend internationale und nationalstaatliche Regeln, insbesondere im Bereich der Terrorismusbekämpfung, die Zusammenarbeit der NGOs mit bewaffneten nicht-staatlichen Gruppen. Die Autorin zeigt auf, dass es auch auf dieser Ebene neue Mechanismen braucht, die die Arbeit der humanitären Organisationen insgesamt und die Einhaltung humanitärer Prinzipien sichern.

Bagheri: International Law and the War with Islamic State: Challenges for Jus ad Bellum and Jus in Bello

Saeed Bagheri (Univ. of Reading) has published International Law and the War with Islamic State: Challenges for Jus ad Bellum and Jus in Bello (Hart Publishing 2021). Here's the abstract:

Armed non-state actors (ANSAs) often have economic aims that international law needs to respond to. This book looks at the aim of Islamic State to create an effective government, with an economically independent regime, which focused on key oilfields in Syria and Iraq. Having addressed Islamic State's quest for energy resources in Iraq and Syria, the book explores the lawfulness of the war with Islamic State from a variety of legal aspects. It has been attempted to make inroads into the most controversial aspects of contradictions in the application of jus ad bellum and jus in bello, particularly when discussing the use of extraterritorial armed force against ANSAs, and the obligation to protect civilian objects, including the natural environment.

The question is whether the targeting of energy resources should be regarded as a violation of the laws of armed conflict, even though the war with Islamic State being classified as a non-international armed conflict. Ambitious in scope, the study argues that legal theory and state practice are still problematic as to how and under what conditions states can justify resorting to military force in foreign territory, and to what extent they can target natural resources as being part of state property. Furthermore, it goes on to examine the differences between international and non-international armed conflicts, to establish whether there is any difference in the targeting of energy resources as part of the war-sustaining capabilities of either party.

Through an examination of the Islamic State case, the book offers a comprehensive study to close the gaps in jus in bello by contextualising the questions of civilian protection, victimisation and state responsibility by evaluating the US's war-sustaining theory as a justification for the destruction of a territorial state's natural resources that are occupied by ANSAs.

Pappa: Non-State Actors' Rights in Maritime Delimitation: Lessons from Land

Marianthi Pappa (Univ. of Nottingham - Law) has published Non-State Actors' Rights in Maritime Delimitation: Lessons from Land (Cambridge Univ. Press 2021). Here's the abstract:

Most of the world's maritime boundary disputes involve privately held rights - relating to such matters as fishing, petroleum exploration and scientific research - that states have unilaterally granted to non-state actors in areas of overlapping national claims. An international lawyer would typically investigate the legality of a state's decision to create such rights without notifying or consulting its neighbour, and the legal consequences this action would have for the interests of the states concerned. Departing from this approach, Dr Marianthi Pappa examines such situations from the perspective of the non-state actors: what will happen to private rights in a disputed maritime area if it changes hands from state A to state B due to a subsequent delimitation treaty or judgment? Does the legal framework of maritime delimitation protect those rights effectively against a potential reallocation? To address these questions, the book considers the place that private rights have in land boundary-making.

Megiddo: International Law as a Ground for Action

Tamar Megiddo (Univ. of Haifa - Law) has posted International Law as a Ground for Action. Here's the abstract:

This paper begins with the observation that, when deciding on a course of action for themselves and their states, individuals sometimes take international law into account, and it sometimes serves for them a reason or a ground for action. It consequently asks why international law would serve as a reason or a ground for action, and whether there is anything international law could do to further encourage people’s consideration of it. The paper proposes a theoretical model which aims to account for those instances in which international law seems to exert a “compliance pull” on individual people. The model suggests there are two types of allegiance to a legal system: a person’s disposition to comply with legal rules, and a person’s fidelity to the system. A legal system's adherence to principles of legality is important for the generation and maintenance of both.

Borlini: The Security Council and Non-State Domestic Actors: Changes in Non-Forcible Measures between International Lawmaking and Peacebuilding

Leonardo S. Borlini (Bocconi Univ. - Law) has posted The Security Council and Non-State Domestic Actors: Changes in Non-Forcible Measures between International Lawmaking and Peacebuilding (Virginia Journal of International Law, forthcoming). Here's the abstract:

Elaborating on a newly compiled dataset of all Security Council resolutions passed under Chapter VII in the thirty years from 1990 to 2019, this Article is the first attempt to survey aggregated Council practice with a view to analyzing the ways in which the Council’s non-forcible measures have been transformed as a consequence of the growth in importance of non-state actors in international relations. The data demonstrate that the Council has increasingly adopted resolutions that apply and draw in individuals and other non-governmental actors more than what previous studies merely suggest. Related is the second, and more significant, finding of the Article: in light of the aggregate practice analyzed, the Article argues that, by expanding the preventative use of its powers under Chapter VII of the UN Charter, the SC has inserted itself into a new interface between international lawmaking and peacebuilding. It has operated in the context of both conflict prevention and actions on generalized threats, adopting non-forcible measures that not only address the immediate objective of crisis management, but also increasingly engage in mapping out future regulation and structure of governance. Though the further expansion of these developments remains uncertain, the Article also contends that their normative implications are already significant. To mention the most salient: the establishment of direct international duties on armed groups and individuals by the Council; its growing influence on the external articulations of statehood and the internal dynamics of transitions towards peace; the mediated imposition on associations and corporations established under private law of prophylactic obligations; the creation, via its quasi-legislative resolutions, of a completely regulated international sphere where terrorists and proliferators are starved of means and chances to perpetrate attacks.

Herro: Demanding Their Rights? Collective Identity and the Tactics of Older Persons’ Organisations at the UN

Annie Herro (Univ. of New South Wales - School of Social Sciences) has posted Demanding Their Rights? Collective Identity and the Tactics of Older Persons’ Organisations at the UN (Global Society, forthcoming). Here's the abstract:

Recent scholarship in International Relations focuses on the tactics of international non-government organisations and transnational advocacy networks, with scholars mostly explaining the diverse and dynamic tactics of organisations working on similar issues. Based on multiple qualitative data sources, this article explores why the members of a transnational advocacy network, comprising organisations of, and representing, older persons, that are calling for a UN Convention on the Rights of Older Persons adopt tactics that are static, uniform and surprisingly softly-softly, despite their modest gains since the issue was put on the UN’s agenda nine years ago. The article demonstrates many of the existing explanations for tactical choices, but it extends what we know by importing the concept of collective identity from social movement studies. It argues that the older persons’ network has a weak collective identity that is conservative in nature, which influences the tactics deployed at the UN.

Finke: (Un-)bedingte Gleichheit nichtstaatlicher Gewaltakteure im Völkerrecht

Jonas Finke has published (Un-)bedingte Gleichheit nichtstaatlicher Gewaltakteure im Völkerrecht (Nomos 2020). Here's the abstract:

Statt sich auf die Untersuchung eines Akteurs im völkerrechtlichen Gefüge zu beschränken, nimmt das Buch die Regulierung aller maßgeblichen nichtstaatlichen Gewaltakteure in den Blick. Mit diesem vergleichenden Ansatz geht es der Frage nach, ob die völkerrechtliche Behandlung von Terroristen, Piraten, Privaten Sicherheitsunternehmen und Bürgerkriegsparteien kohärent ist: Behandelt etwa das humanitäre Völkerrecht Bürgerkriegsparteien und Private Sicherheitsunternehmen gleich? Spielt es für die Anwendung des staatlichen Selbstverteidigungsrechts eine Rolle, ob der Angreifer ein Terrorist ist? Gibt es Gründe für die besondere völkerrechtliche Kriminalisierung von Piraterie? Die Untersuchung mündet in der Feststellung, dass eine Gleichbehandlung dort geboten ist, wo es um die Regelung militärischer Auseinandersetzungen mit nichtstaatlichen Akteuren geht. Dort jedoch, wo das Völkerrecht auf die völlige Zurückdrängung eines Akteurs ausgelegt ist, sind Differenzierungen gerechtfertigt.

Heffes: International Human Rights Law and Non-State Armed Groups: The (De)Construction of an International Legal Discourse

Ezequiel Heffes has posted International Human Rights Law and Non-State Armed Groups: The (De)Construction of an International Legal Discourse (in Research Handbook on Human Rights and Humanitarian Law: Further Reflections and Perspectives, Robert Kolb, Gloria Gaggioli & Pavle Kilibarda eds., forthcoming). Here's the abstract:

This chapter explores the way in which the discourse related to the application of international human rights law (IHRL) to non-State armed groups (NSAGs) is being constructed by numerous scholars and institutions. Although it is undisputed that NSAGs have an impact on the civilian population in the various conflict settings to which they are party, the actual reasons why this discourse is being articulated and who is undertaking this task remain insufficiently explored. As international law does not exist in an intellectual vacuum, an examination of these issues may serve to better comprehend the purpose and goals of IHRL in armed conflict as understood by scholars and institutions, together with certain legal interactions that often remain unseen.

Heffes, Kotlik, & Ventura: International Humanitarian Law and Non-State Actors: Debates, Law and Practice

Ezequiel Heffes (Geneva Call), Marcos D. Kotlik (Univ. of Buenos Aires - Law), & Manuel J. Ventura (International Residual Mechanism for Criminal Tribunals) have published International Humanitarian Law and Non-State Actors: Debates, Law and Practice (Asser Press 2020). The table of contents is here. Here's the abstract:

This book challenges the traditional approach to international law by concentrating on international humanitarian law and placing the focus beyond States: it reflects on current legal, policy and practical issues that concern non-State actors in and around situations of armed conflict. With the emergence of the nation-State, international law was almost entirely focused on inter-State relations, thus excluding - for the most part - non-State entities. In the modern era, such a focus needs to be adjusted, in order to encompass the various types of functions and interactions that those entities perform throughout numerous international decision-making processes.

Heffes: Non-State Actors Engaging Non-State Actors: The Experience of Geneva Call in NIACs

Ezequiel Heffes has posted Non-State Actors Engaging Non-State Actors: The Experience of Geneva Call in NIACs (in International Humanitarian Law and Non-State Actors: Debates, Law and Practice, Ezequiel Heffes, Marcos D. Kotlik & Manuel J. Ventura eds., forthcoming). Here's the abstract:

Despite the existence of humanitarian rules binding upon armed non-state actors (ANSAs) in armed conflict, ensuring their respect still remains an important challenge. When dealing with ANSAs, this can be linked to several factors, such as their lack of knowledge of the law, the absence of an incentive to abide by the applicable rules, their fragmented structure, their lack of a centralized command authority and a lack of capacity to implement international humanitarian law (IHL). Certain humanitarian organizations have attempted to tackle these difficulties by recognizing that engaging with ANSAs is essential in order to enhance the protection of civilians in conflict situations. This chapter aims at presenting the methodology employed by Geneva Call, an international non-governmental organization, when trying to persuade ANSAs to respect humanitarian norms. The following pages will provide an overview of this process, describing Geneva Call’s approach and discussing some of its achievements and challenges, in particular in the context of its child protection program.

Bellal & Heffes: ‘Yes, I Do’: Binding Armed Non-State Actors to IHL and Human Rights Norms Through Their Consent

Annyssa Bellal (Geneva Academy of International Humanitarian Law and Human Rights) & Ezequiel Heffes have posted ‘Yes, I Do’: Binding Armed Non-State Actors to IHL and Human Rights Norms Through Their Consent (Human Rights & International Legal Discourse Vol. 12, no. 1, pp.120-36, 2018). Here's the abstract:

In the last few decades, the role and status of armed non-state actors (ANSA) have become essential topics of analysis and discussion in order to better understand current international humanitarian law (IHL) and international human rights law (IHRL) dynamics. Although contemporary public international law still seems to be predominantly State-oriented, it is undeniable that a variety of these non-state entities have played quite important roles, giving rise to many discussions and complex debates. One relevant issue is related to the reasons why they are bound by international law. A classical approach to the traditional theory of sources of international law relies on the consent given by States to be bound by an international rule. When dealing with ANSAs, however, the reasons why they are obligated by both IHL and IHRL lie beyond merely accepting the existence of their obligations. While some views take into account their consent, others are based on their relationship with territorial States and the rules previously accepted by States’ authorities. Implementing one or the other is not merely an intellectual exercise, and which alternative is taken will certainly have a direct impact on the effectiveness of international law as perceived by ANSAs.

Summers & Gough: Non-State Actors and International Obligations: Creation, Evolution and Enforcement

James Summers (Univ. of Lancaster – Law) & Alex Gough (Univ. of Lancaster – Law) have published Non-State Actors and International Obligations: Creation, Evolution and Enforcement (Brill | Nijhoff 2018). Contents include:

• James Summers, Introduction
• Klara Polackova Van der Ploeg, Treaty Obligations of Collective Non-State Entities: The Case of the Deep Seabed Regime
• Michael Mulligan, The East India Company: Non-State Actor as Treaty-Maker
• Agata Kleczkowska, Armed Non- State Actors and Customary International Law
• Eva Kassoti, Ad Hoc Commitments by Non-State Armed Actors: The Continuing Relevance of State Consent
• Valentina Vadi, Exploring the Borderlands: The Role of Private Actors in International Cultural Law
• Federica Cittadino, Shaping the Convention on Biological Diversity: The Rising Importance of Indigenous Peoples within the Nagoya Protocol on Access and Benefit-Sharing
• Ekaterina Yahyaoui Krivenko, Exploring the Future of Individuals as Subjects of International Law: The Example of the Canadian Private Sponsorship of Refugees Programme
• Javier García Olmedo, Redefining the Position of the Investor in the International Legal Order and the Nature of Investment Treaty Rights: A Closer Look at the Relationship between Diplomatic Protection and Investor-State Arbitration
• Simone F. van den Driest, Tracing the Human Rights Obligations of UN Peacekeeping Operations
• Gintarė Pažereckaitė, An Elephant in the Room: the Scrutiny of the United Nations in the Practice of the European Court of Human Rights
• Ioana Cismas and Sarah Macrory, The Business and Human Rights Regime under International Law: Remedy without Law?
• Natalia Cwicinskaja, International Human Rights Law and Territorial Non-State Actors: Cases of the Council of Europe Region
• Emily Choo, The Impact of Non-State Actors’ Intervention in Investor-State Arbitration: A Further Study
• Tomas Vail, The Brčko Arbitration: A Process for Lasting Peace between Non-State Actors
• Adamantia Rachovitsa, International Law and the Global Public Interest: ICANN’s Independent Objector as a Mechanism of Responsive Global Governance
• Katharine Fortin, The Relevance of Article 9 of the Articles on State Responsibility for the Internationally Wrongful Acts of Armed Groups
• Tatyana Eatwell, State Responsibility, ‘Successful’ Insurrectional Movements and Governments of National Reconciliation
• Paloma Blázquez Rodríguez, Does an Armed Group have an Obligation to Provide Reparations to Its Victims? Construing an Obligation to Provide Reparations for Violations of International Humanitarian Law
• Anna Marie Brennan, Prosecuting Members of Transnational Terrorist Groups under Article 25 of the Rome Statute: A Network Theory Approach to Accountability
• Jeffrey Davis, NGO s in Terrorism Cases: Diffusing Norms of International Human Rights Law

Megiddo: The U.S. Approach to International Law: A View from Below

Tamar Megiddo (Hebrew Univ. of Jerusalem - Law) has posted The U.S. Approach to International Law: A View from Below. Here's the abstract:

Despite its central contribution to the construction of the global legal order, the United States has long been perceived to exclude itself from its reach. Its exceptionalist image has been reinforced by statements of political leaders, federal law provisions and court decisions. This article argues, however, that in order to appropriately assess a state’s approach to international law, one must consider not only the position of its formal government, but also the interpretation, application, and challenge of international law by sub-state actors.

Studying a U.S. policy-making process initiated pursuant to a World Trade Organization ruling, the article surveys interventions by government officials, consumers, producers and civil society organizations. It shows, contrary to the exceptionalist image, that U.S. actors of all stripes invoked and relied on international law extensively, thereby carving a space for it as a non-negligible consideration in the process. The article thus submits that accounting for non-state stakeholders is imperative in evaluating the regard for international law in a state and possibly also the domestic impact of international law.

Dau: Die völkerrechtliche Zulässigkeit von Selbstverteidigung gegen nicht-staatliche Akteure

Corinna Dau has published Die völkerrechtliche Zulässigkeit von Selbstverteidigung gegen nicht-staatliche Akteure (Nomos 2018). Here's the abstract:

Die Arbeit widmet sich einem Problem, das die Völkerrechtswissenschaft seit längerem beschäftigt und das im Zuge des Kampfes der Staatengemeinschaft gegen den sog. Islamischen Staat weiterhin an Aktualität und Bedeutung gewonnen hat. Finanziell teils beträchtlich ausgestattete, technologisch hochgerüstete und straff organisiert auftretende nicht-staatliche Akteure verüben Anschläge in Dimensionen, wie ursprünglich nur von staatlicher Seite bekannt. Die Grundlagen des klassischen Völkerrechts berührend, befasst sich die Studie mit der Frage, ob und unter welchen Voraussetzungen ein Staat gegenüber privaten Akteuren das in Art. 51 UN-Charta verankerte Selbstverteidigungsrecht ausüben kann und welchen Grenzen es insoweit unterliegt. Die Autorin geht diesem Thema durch Normanalyse und Auswertung von Staatenpraxis umfassend nach, greift hierfür bisherige völkerrechtswissenschaftliche Überlegungen auf und erörtert Sinn und Risiken von Anpassungen der rechtlichen Vorgaben.

This thesis critically analyses the highly topical and controversial issue of a state's recourse to the right of self-defence, according to Article 51 of the UN Charter, in cases of attacks by non-state actors, a problem that has gained further relevance in the fight against the so-called Islamic State. Indeed, non-state actors - who are often financially strong, technologically well-equipped and highly organised - attack states in ways that previously only nation states were capable of. Here, the author critically evaluates this topic through norm interpretation, analysis of relevant state practices and previous academic thinking to illustrate how this seminal topic has impacted on the foundations of public international law.

Rodenhäuser: Organizing Rebellion: Non-State Armed Groups under International Humanitarian Law, Human Rights Law, and International Criminal Law

Tilman Rodenhäuser (International Committee of the Red Cross) has published Organizing Rebellion: Non-State Armed Groups under International Humanitarian Law, Human Rights Law, and International Criminal Law (Oxford Univ. Press 2018). Here's the abstract:

he number of non-state actors, in the past not accountable for committing international crimes or violating human rights, is proliferating rapidly. Their ways of operating evolve, with some groups being increasingly fragmented and others organizing transnationally or in cyber space. As non-state armed groups are involved in the vast majority of todays armed conflicts and crisis situations, a new and increasingly important question has to be raised as to whether, and at what point, these groups are bound by international law and thereby accountable for their acts.

Conference: 7th Annual Cambridge International Law Journal Conference

On April 3-4, 2018, the Cambridge International Law Journal will host its 7th Annual Conference. The theme is: "Non-State Actors and International Law." The program is here.

Meguro: Customary International Law and Non-State Actors: Between Anthropomorphism and Artificial Unity

Maiko Meguro (Univ. of Amsterdam - Amsterdam Center for International Law) has posted Customary International Law and Non-State Actors: Between Anthropomorphism and Artificial Unity (in Non-State Actors and the Formation of Customary International Law, Iain Scobbie & Sufyan Droubi eds., forthcoming). Here's the abstract:

This chapter seeks to shed light on the role of non-state actors in custom-making processes. It does so by repudiating the dominant understanding of opinio juris and practice within the two-element variant of the doctrine of customary law that has informed practice and scholarship since the 1920s. It shows that dominant approaches to opinio juris and practice are indifferent to the role of non-state actors by virtue of constructions that are highly questionable. Section 1 sketches the dominant understanding of two elements of customary international law. Section 2 discusses the limitations of the dominant understanding of opinio juris by showing the extent to which the anthropomorphic concept of opinio juris fails to perform the functions assigned to it. In section 3, the attention turns to practice which contains a greater variety of approaches. This section particularly emphasizes the role of domestic non-state actors in the creation of international norms that shapes State practice, and increasing role of international organizations to strengthen the grips of the domestic actors in creating international customary norms through the member states. This chapter ends with a few concluding remarks about the general implications of the approach promoted here for the doctrine of customary law as a whole.

Chesterman: How 'Public' is Public International Law?

Simon Chesterman (National Univ. of Singapore - Law) has posted How 'Public' is Public International Law? Towards a Typology of NGOs and Civil Society Actors. Here's the abstract:

How “public” is public international law? Despite its natural law origins, international law has long privileged the role of the state. Today, NGOs and civil society actors play an increasingly important role — offering a voice for the disenfranchised through their advocacy, and a helping hand for the disadvantaged through their operations. Calls for accountability of these actors are understandable, but often founder on their diversity. This paper therefore develops a typology of such actors, based on their activities and their drivers. That typology better reflects the reasons for and circumstances in which accountability is appropriate. In addition, it suggests a possible evolution in the international order where the status of an actor (state, intergovernmental organization, NGO, etc) is less important than its function.

d'Aspremont: Non-State Actors and the Formation of International Customary Law

Jean d'Aspremont (Univ. of Manchester - Law; Sciences Po - Law) has posted Non-State Actors and the Formation of International Customary Law: Unlearning Some Common Tropes (in Non-State Actors and the Formation of Customary International Law, Iain Scobbie & Sufyan Droubi eds., forthcoming). Here's the abstract:

This paper returns to the last decade of scholarly reflections on the question of non-state actors and customary international law and revisits some of the specific argumentative constructions and presuppositions that have informed — and continue to inform — discourses on the contribution of non-state actors and international law. This paper is specifically premised on the idea that international legal thought and practice on non-state actors and customary international law have remained chained by certain modes of reasoning and category of thoughts which have been precluding any renewal of scholarly reflection on the matter. It is submitted in this paper that, in order to make a chance of novelty and creative thinking, any new wave of scholarly reflections on the contribution of non-state actors to custom-forming processes must reinvent the very categories around which international legal discourses are currently articulated. It is argued here that three tropes have been mechanically repeated in previous rounds of scholarly debates on non-state actors and customary law and must be confronted for scholarly reflections to have any potential to generate new insights.

These constructions can be summarised as follows:

• The idea that the two-element variant of the doctrine of customary international law originates in article 38 of the Statute of the Permanent Court of International Justice (hereafter the PCIJ);
• The continuous attachment of international lawyers — including the ILC — to the distinction between practice and opinio juris; and
• The understanding of the concept of non-state actors as a plain and innocent descriptive category.

Carrillo-Santarelli: Direct International Human Rights Obligations of non-State Actors

Nicolás Carrillo-Santarelli (Universidad de La Sabana - Law) has published Direct International Human Rights Obligations of non-State Actors: A Legal and Ethical Necessity (Wolf Legal Publishers 2017). Here's the abstract:

In this book, addressing the reality that non-state actors do violate human rights in practice, which cannot be overlooked, Prof. Nicolás Carrillo-Santarelli argues that the foundations and main principles of international human rights law call for the regulation of direct nonstate obligations and responsibilities, given the potential failure of domestic actions and the limits of voluntary strategies. In part I, the author presents his ideas on why non-state abuses should be regarded as human rights violations and wrongful acts. In this sense, Chapter 1 explores why the protection of human dignity, being non-conditional, cannot depend on the presence of a State abuser. Chapter 2 explores the idea that every conduct contrary to human rights has legal relevance and requires a correlative appropriate legal response. Chapter 3 reinforces the previous ideas in light of the peremptory principle of non-discrimination; with Chapter 4 providing suggestions on when direct international action should take place. Part II, afterwards, studies why direct protection from non-state violations is possible and what legal mechanisms and institutions permit to make it effective. In Chapter 5, the author argues that the notion of international legal personality is not an obstacle since regarding addressees as subjects highlights the possibility of there being direct non-state international duties, which would not weaken existing human rights protections. Chapter 6 presents the argument that there are already implied human rights obligations of non-state actors, and that complementary obligations should be created. Chapter 7 explores the idea that non-state responsibility can coexist with that of other participants in violations, and that non-state responsibility is often a precondition of full reparations. The fi nal Chapter turns to the examination of the mechanisms that can be used to respond to or prevent non-state violations of human rights law. The book is based on the idea that the protagonists of human rights law are individuals, who deserve protection from all abusers, be them States, armed groups, international organizations, or other actors.