Explore the vast range of titles available.

This collection studies the contribution of non-state actors to international obligations. Chapters by academics and practitioners address the role that these actors play in the sources of obligations, their implementation, human rights aspects, dispute settlement, responsibility and legal accountability.

This book explores the ways in which non-state actors (NSAs) in South Asia are involved in securitizing non-traditional security challenges in the region at the sub-state level. South Asia is the epicentre of some of the most significant international security challenges today. Yet, the complexities of the region’s security dynamics remain under-researched. While traditional security issues, such as inter-state war, border disputes and the threat of nuclear devastation in South Asia, remain high on the agendas of policy-makers and academics both within and beyond the region, scant attention has been paid to non-traditional or ‘new’ security challenges. Drawing on various case studies, this work offers an innovative analysis of how NSAs in South Asia are shaping security discourses in the region and tackling security challenges at the sub-state level. Through its critique of securitization theory, the book calls for a new approach to studying security practices in South Asia – one which considers NSAs as legitimate security actors. This book will be of much interest to students of security studies, Asian security, Asian politics, critical security studies, and IR in general. 1. Introduction: South Asia, Non-State Actors and Securitization Theory 2. Understanding Security in South Asia: An Overview 3. Securitizing Misgovernance in Bangladesh: The Daily Star, New Age and The Bangladesh Today 4. Tackling Human Trafficking in Nepal: Shakti Samuha and Maiti Nepal 5. Shaping India’s National Action Plan on Climate Change: The Energy and Resources Institute (TERI) and the Centre for Science and Environment (CSE) 6. Conclusion: NSAs, Securitization Theory and Security Practices in South Asia Monika Barthwal-Datta is a research fellow at the Centre for International Security Studies, University of Sydney.

This paper examines the classification of the intensity of the Boko Haram conflict, a protracted insurgency in Nigeria and its neighbouring countries. The paper delves into the concepts of low intensity conflict (LIC), high intensity conflict (HIC), and moderate intensity conflict (MIC), as defined by the International Humanitarian Law (IHL), and explores the rationale behind these classifications. Through comprehensive research, analysis of expert perspectives, and examination of the conflict's historical context and evolving nature, this research presents a balanced assessment of the Boko Haram conflict's intensity. Using secondary sources, such as peer-reviewed academic articles, reports from international organisations, and expert analyses, the paper considers various criteria, including the scale of violence, types of tactics employed, territorial control, civilian impact, and the involvement of state and non-state actors. The findings reveal that the Boko Haram conflict exhibits characteristics of both a low-intensity and a moderate to high-intensity conflict, depending on the specific timeframe and contextual factors considered. The research adopts Escalation theory to understand conflict intensity classification, acknowledging the complexities and limitations associated with categorising conflicts. It highlights the need for ongoing research, analysis, and monitoring of the Boko Haram conflict to inform effective strategies and responses. The outcomes of this study contribute to a deeper understanding of the Boko Haram conflict and its intensity, facilitating more informed policy-making, conflict management, and peacebuilding efforts. By recognising the multifaceted nature of the conflict and the diverse perspectives surrounding its classification, this research contributes to the broader field of conflict studies and informs approaches to addressing similar conflicts worldwide.

Despite the existence of a comprehensive international legal framework protecting children in armed conflict, ensuring its respect by armed non-State actors (ANSAs) still remains an important challenge. This can be linked to several circumstances, such as their lack of knowledge of the law, the absence of an incentive to abide by the applicable rules, their fragmented structure and their lack of capacity to implement the applicable framework. Certain practical cases, however, show that ANSAs' behaviours may vary throughout armed conflicts. While certain groups have, at a given moment, breached some of their international obligations, others have shown some degree of commitment to respecting children's safeguards. When addressing the prohibition of recruiting and using children in hostilities, the reasons behind these variations have remained insufficiently explored. This article reviews some of the lessons learned from Geneva Call's experience when engaging ANSAs towards their compliance with child protection norms.

This paper introduces the Non-State Actors in Armed Conflict Dataset (NSA), which contains detailed information on the state—rebel group dyads included in the Uppsala Conflict Data Project Dyadic Dataset. Existing quantitative studies generally focus on characteristics of countries and conflicts to examine the duration, severity, outcome and recurrence of civil wars, in ways that often ignore the actors in civil wars. The NSA data provides additional information on the organizations involved in conflict dynamics. We describe the structure of the NSA data and the variables included, provide descriptive statistics of the indicators, and discuss areas for future research on non-state actors to enhance our understanding of conflict processes.

International Relations literature (re)produces principally “realist” depictions of relations between the Horn of Africa and the Persian Gulf. It portrays states as monolithic actors and the Persian Gulf countries as superior according to a state-centric conception of power and fails to recognize the agency of various African state and non-state actors and understand power in their external relations. This article discusses caveats of the key concepts of the realist approach and argues that it provides an inadequate analytical frame when applied to the Horn of Africa-Persian Gulf relations. The article calls for a broader approach that enables a better understanding of multiple actors that engage in international relations, enabling a more accurate analysis that helps to improve both theory and practice.

In Detention of Non-State Actors engaged in Hostilities: The Future Law Rose and Oswald explore the armed forces' international legal obligations for management of detainees who are insurgents, saboteurs or terrorists in asymmetrical armed conflicts.

Non-state actors represent equal partners, viable competitors, and/or serious enemies in the current international system. Their specific position depends on how their behaviour in the system is perceived by states, international organizations, and civil society. The behaviour itself can be positive or negative. However, a closer look at the field of non-state actors will show that it is not easy to identify who the good and bad guys among them are. This is due to the fact that we are not living in a black-and-white world, or a blackand-white international system. For this reason, this study has the ambition to present a new approach to identifying bad guys, i.e., negative non-state actors in the international system.

ASEAN has declared its intention to create a security community in Southeast Asia that is people-orientated. This book evaluates ASEAN's progress, and in doing so examines three matters of concern. The book firstly looks at the importance of constitutive norms to the workings of security communities, by identifying ASEAN's constitutive norms and the extent to which they act as a help of hindrance in establishing a security community. It then moves on to how ASEAN has interpreted people-orientated as empowering civil society organisations to be community stakeholders. The book discusses the uncertainty between how ASEAN envisages their role, and the role they themselves expect to have. Civil society actors are seeking to influence what sort of community evolves and their ability to interact with the state elite is evaluated to determine what interpretation of people-oriented is likely to emerge. Thirdly, in order to make progress ASEAN has sought to achieve cooperation among its member states in functional areas. The book examines this interest in functional cooperation through case studies on human rights, HIV/AIDS and disaster management. By discussing the notion of ASEAN being people-orientated, and how it engages with 'the people', the book provides important insights into what type of community ASEAN in building, as well as furthering our understanding on security communities more broadly.

The growing literature explaining why repressive regimes ratify human rights treaties fails to explain why some regimes take the additional step to delegate authority to their people to file international legal complaints while others do not. I examine individual petition mechanisms in the United Nations which allow individuals to file complaints to an overseeing treaty body. I argue that repressive regimes face international incentives to signal their commitment to the European Union, a global power with a strong and continued interest in the global human rights regime. Repressive regimes, however, only ratify agreements when they perceive low domestic costs with little institutional constraints on the executive. In support of my theory, I find that repressive regimes are more likely to ratify the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights’ Optional Protocol allowing individual petitions when they are trade dependent on the EU while facing lesser institutional constraints, both legislative and judicial. The results are similar to explaining treaty ratification, but the interaction is substantively larger for OP ratification among repressive countries, highlighting the increased costs repressive leaders face to allowing individual petitions. Individual standing in the overseeing body of the ICCPR is one example of non-state actor access in international institutions, which is an important component of understanding institutional design and compliance.