Non-state armed groups and international humanitarian law-making – the challenge of legitimacy: A reply to Cindy Wittke and Hyeran Jo

This comment engages with legitimacy challenges with which the imposition of international humanitarian law on non-state armed groups is confronted. It argues that Wittke focuses on the imposition of particular (ceasefire) agreements and obligations on both states and non-state actors through international executive action (UNSC intervention), while Jo concentrates on the imposition of general obligations of international humanitarian law on non-state armed groups through conventions addressed to both states and non-state actors. Both contributions raise legitimacy concerns and both accredit non-state armed groups with certain obligations under general international law. The comment critically appraises alternative methods of legitimacy-enhancement that are based on procedural and substantive justice. It argues that securing non-state actor consent is desirable from a legitimacy and eventually effectiveness perspective, but that a failure to secure such consent should not be an argument to cast doubt on the binding character of international humanitarian law for non-state armed groups.