Make Armed Groups Accountable to Their Violence

Some of the most serious human rights violations today are not committed by States, but by non-state armed groups (Policzer). Some years ago, and to some extent still, there is a belief that since only states protect rights, only states can violate human rights. As a result, even gross violations by non-state groups were defined as merely “criminal” violence that fell within the domestic jurisdiction of sovereign states (Policzer).

Recent attempts to broaden the scope of Human Rights to include non-state actors have had some success, but serious gaps still exist (Policzer). The problem lies in the lack of adequate tools developed to deal with rights violations by Non-state actors. It is far easier to make states accountable for their behavior than non-state groups (Policzer). United Nations and other political and economic agreements, treaties, and institutions provide special rights and responsibilities to monitor and exert diplomatic and economic pressure on states. The reasons why Non-State actors escape the full wreath of the Human Rights lobby are due to the following reasons.

1. Non-state groups do not have formal political status; they are not susceptible to the same political pressures as governments. Many non-state groups are fighting for political recognition; any formal dealing with them is likely to be diplomatically controversial (Policzer).
2. Non-state groups do not receive government loans; they are also not susceptible to the same financial pressures as governments. Non-state groups are not susceptible to IMF or World Bank conditionality policies (Policzer).
3. Many non-state groups do not seek the same international or domestic legitimacy as states or governments, “naming and shaming” – arguably the most common instrument of the human rights community against states – is also unlikely to have the same effect on non-state actors (Policzer).

A system of punishment for errant armed groups blatantly violating Human Rights does exist outside of the normal procedure. For armed groups like LTTE, which has to maintain a bureaucratic coercion organization within its quasi-state, fundraising is of utmost importance for war and administrative purposes. Incidentally, many of these funds are raised in countries that are the backyards of International Human Rights groups.

The challenge for the international community is to understand the internal dynamics within the LTTE enough in order to punish that organization, and force it to conform to Human Rights Laws, while it does the same through Arbour and others on the Sri Lankan Government. The International Community must demonstrate an equal handedness in its approach or face significant media backlashes.

This is taking place now in North America and Europe. In Canada for example, the tides turned against the Tigers after a media backlash against the Canadian Government following the visit by a Canadian Minister to an LTTE fundraising event. Similar backlashes have occurred in the United States and France. The International Community would have to make a concerted effort to study the Internal and External environments of Non-State groups violating Human Rights, before passing judgments against the state-actor alone.