Attributability of the Conduct of Non-State Actors - Term Paper Example

 «Attributability of the Conduct of Non-State Actors» Abstract: Non-state actors are powerful entities that affect the global affairs heavily. Contrary to the common interpretation of them as only violent, there are NSAs that are also active in fighting terrorism; an example is the United Nations. Media is a strong NSA that affects opinions of masses and provide channel for terrorists to communicate with world. NSAs manipulate situations dramatically from the backstage, like the multinational oil corporations. They can all thus be held attributable for the different aspects of terrorism issues in their respective, specific arenas. Attributability of the Conduct of Non-State Actors- The Issue of Terrorism The term ‘Non-state actors’ can be explained as a broad category of performers in the world of politics that are driven by their respective interests and ideologies, can influence the global affairs and cannot be attributed as a part of any sovereign state.(Highbeam Research, 2002). Non-state actors (NSA) include International Government Organizations (IGOs) like the United Nations (UN) and North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), as well as the Non-Governmental Organizations such as nationalist, militant groups like the Afghan Taliban and multinational corporations (Arizona, n.d). The international media has also grown to become a powerful NSA, with its extensive influence on the public through analysis regarding the world affairs and performance of state leaders. The Cotonou Agreement that took place between the European Union and the developing (ACP) countries, describes non-state actors as part of the civil society and the private sector (Development and Relations with African, Caribbean and Pacific States, 2010). The NSAWG defines them as "organizations with less than full international recognition as a government who employ a military strategy." (Non- State Actors and Their Significance, c.2002) As such, the common interpretation that the term refers solely to violent and terrorist groups is negated, and one can infer that NSAs have a vital contribution not only in promoting terrorism, but also in alleviating it. Terrorism, on the other hand is a complex phenomenon to define. This is due to the different beliefs of States on what criminal behaviour is and what is not. An act may be perceived as a terrorist act by one State based on their regulations, while it may be classified as a fight for freedom by another State (Flemme, 2004: 38). NSAs in Kashmir fighting and resisting Indian invasion are termed as terrorists in India, where as people in Kashmir and Pakistan revere them for taking a stand for their independence and integrity (Gorman, 2009). A commonly accepted interpretation is given by Primoratz, who explains it as “the deliberate use of violence, or threat of its use, against innocent people, with the aim of intimidating some other people into a course of action they otherwise would not take” (Primoratz, 24). It intimidates individuals, societies and governments and compels them to yield to the terrorists’ objectives that can be political, ideological or religious (Terrorism Research n.d). International laws exist that oblige states to protect human rights of individuals and punish culprits accordingly. These are known as guarantee and protection obligations1. However at times states are held directly responsible for an act despite being conducted by non-state actors. This may happen when the NSA is a mere instrument with complete backing from the state2, when the NSA has been permitted to practice public functions under that privilege3, and when the NSA is under state’s control. States might be motivated by specific political goals to do this, or they may have suffered terrorist attack by another country, and consequently may go out of their way in retaliation and breach all international laws during the fight (Flemme, 2004: 40), thus incurring state responsibility on internationally wrongful acts. This, according to article 2 of ILC’s draft on state responsibility, must be attributed to the state and must involve a breach in international obligation to be regarded as internationally wrongful. These elements were also ascribed to Iran’s Diplomatic and Consulate Case where the International Court of Justice first attributed the act as imputable to the Iranian State, and then established that it was a breach of international law. Conduct can be attributed to the state in case of both actions and omissions of measures. In this case, the hostage takers were students, i.e. non-state organs, but the responsibility lay with the state because of the “inaction” of the authorities and their failure to act appropriately in face of crisis. This omission and action therefore, made this conduct a state responsibility (Crawford, 2002). In order to attribute an act as state responsibility however, a causal relation must be established between the injury and an official act, as NSAs now play greater international roles that are independent of states that function conventionally. Consequently, these rules on attribution limited responsibility of the states greatly, as they were deemed private acts, and hence, privately responsible (Crooke & Bodansky, 2002). As is obvious from the above discussion, state’s power over the NSA may be more limited than it seems, as rights may be violated despite state’s attempt to tackle it fairly. National laws for example may not be able to protect the victim if the NSA is more powerful than even the state or may escape to another country which does not have any extradition deal with the state, in which case attributibility lies with NSA only and state does not deserve to be accused. This has been practically observed in many cases like that of the Mastromatteo vs. Italy case ruled by European Court of Human Rights4, when the state could not protect a man’s life, but was not considered responsible by international law because it had applied all means to prevent such acts with due diligence. Most of the wars fought in the latter half of the twentieth century involve stateless, non-state and anti-state actors that are outside the control of governments recognized by the UN. These actors range from rebel groups, irregular armed groups and de facto territorial government bodies to drug cartels. The Sri Lankan Government, for instance, faces constant opposition from Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE), which is a non-state insurgence group that is struggling for an independent homeland for the ethnic Tamil minority in the country. This has resulted in a loss of 9,500 lives since 1996 only (MAIC, c.2004). The Nicaraguan Counter rebels had formed a de facto regime in the country against the government, with help of heavy military and financial assistance from the US government. Case was filed against the US by Nicaraguan Authority in the International Court of Justice in 1986. Decision was taken against the US and the court ordered it to "cease and to refrain" from the "unlawful use of force" against the other country. According to the draft article 8 of ILC, “The conduct of a person or group of persons shall be considered an act of a State under international law if the person or group of persons is in fact acting on the instructions of, or under the direction or control of that State in carrying out the conduct”. This was therefore regarded as a state responsibility rather than that of the NSA rebels. The Non-state Actor Working Group (NSAWG) estimates that there are about 190 terrorist non-state actors that have been recognized so far (Non- State Actors and Their Significance, c.2002). The forum that currently plays a central role in making legislations and ensuring their implementation for the promotion of peace in the world is also an NSA; The United Nations regards terrorism as a threat to international peace and security, and deems it contrary to its principles and purpose. Recognized by all countries and its laws abided, the UN not only has multilateral conventions for member states to combat terrorism, but has also established laws on how to deal with violent NSAs. The intensity of the NSA terrorist activities was which meant that they were probably being backed by sympathetic states. This led UN to devise means of inhibiting the relation between the NSAs and their backers. In December 1999, the UN adapted a resolution that bound all member states to suppress all means of financing and assistance to these non-state terrorist groups. Consequences of violation could be penalty through economic sanctions and diplomatic efforts. UN sanctioned Iraq in December of 1979 because of its potential involvement in aiding numerous terrorist groups including Al Qaeda and Palestinian Liberation Front (PLF). Libya was also subjected to sanctions in 1992, due to its perceived support of nearly 50 international terrorist organizations and 40 other radical governments in Africa, Asia, Europe, and America (Gorman, 2009). These restrictions were regulated by the UN and resulted in successful withdrawal of the states’ support to the violent NSAs. The seemingly commercial Multinational Corporations (MNCs) can also play a dominant role in global affairs. History records a classic example of how a mere British trade company in India rose to take control of the nation- through the use of force. The Honourable East India Company (HEIC) entered India in 1612 as traders of cotton, silk, dye, saltpetre and tea. With the Mughal Empire’s help and the autonomy given by British monarchy, HEIC’s status in India was enhanced. HEIC now had the rights to autonomous territorial acquisitions, to form alliances, command troops and to practice civil and criminal authority over the areas acquired (Landow, 2010). It even raised its navy and minted its own currency to be used for trade by Indian population (Wild, 2000). The company officers enjoyed sprawling profits and obtained power over military and political grounds that enabled them to defeat the French and Dutch forces that were competing for trade power in India. HEIC also continued to counter resistance from local rulers through military actions. They invaded many strong states and gradually took over the entire Southern, Eastern and Western Indian regions (Holmes, 2005). This was an indirect form of terrorism; wherein the Indian peasants were practically paralyzed economically and politically. The law of Permanent Settlement was passed by Lord Cornwallis, which was an agreement between the HEIC and Bengali landlords to collect fixed revenues from land. Since the tax demand was high, the land owners were soon burdened with loans. Landlords and British official focused on the plantation of cash crops like dye and cotton rather than rice and wheat, leading to severe famines in the regions. According to Abbe Raynal, who wrote on the Bengal famine of 1770- 1971, the chief agent of the East India Company and the Council of Calcutta were ‘kept locked up in their magazine a part of the harvest, and carried on the most odious and the most criminal of all monopolies.’ The HEIC’s manipulation of its currency’s value led to a decline in local living standards (Mukherjee, 2005). This kind of influence by a non-state actor soon transformed the Indian Mughal Empire to Brtish Raj in 1858- through white collar terrorism. It is this conduct that is responsible for the riots that led to Indian Mutiny of 1857, which ended in a deadly massacre and humiliation of Indians at hands of the British. Multinational corporations continue to dominate the world affairs even today. A fact widely accepted by now is that the war in Iraq was launched to acquire the country’s oil reserves- second largest in the world- and not due to terror threats. Haliburton Oil Company was awarded contract in Iraq that was estimated to be worth $900 million by Wall Street Journal. These immensely lucrative corporations are run by influential elites like former vice-president, Dick Cheney and former president, George Bush, who have been pursuing their non-state motives through state measures. UK’s Sunday Herald Times claimed that Mr. Bush had decided to invade Iraq in April 2001, which was before the September 11 attack. His cabinet had agreed that “Iraq remains a destabilising influence to the flow of oil to international markets from the Middle East” and this makes US military intervention necessary to prevent any risks in future (The Debate, c. 2003). While the United States may refer to the war as war against terrorism, the fact remains that it has killed millions of innocent Iraqi civilians to achieve its security, and most possibly hidden economic objectives that are greatly driven by oil giants of the world’s non-state corporate sector. Unlike most mercenary NSAs that are working against the global interests and creating terror, Xe Worldwide, formerly known as Blackwater, is an American based private military company with several subsidiaries and business division. It provides services not only to multinational giants like Monsanto, Walt Disney Company, Chevron and Barclays but also serves governments and US military worldwide. The US government, Kingdom of Jordon, Netherlands police as well as the Canadian military rely on it for intelligence, training and military assistance. Even the US military bases like Fort Bragg, which houses the privileged Joint Special Operations Command (JSOC) and Fort Huachuca, where interrogators are trained, are among its noteworthy clients. Intelligence agency as strong as the CIA hires Blackwater to carry out covert operations in the US and abroad (The Nation, 2007). Its conduct is however questionable, as the company faces serious allegations of murdering individuals that are involved in investigating it. It has also been charged for smuggling weapons into Iraq. A former employee claims that Princes companies "encouraged and rewarded the destruction of Iraqi life." (The Nation, 2009) The Wikileaks war logs recently released provide ample evidence of the rogue acts of Blackwater and other similar security companies that include accounts of unreasoned shootings of innocent civilians (Guardian News, 2010). The company nonetheless continues to work under its network of 30 subsidiaries to seize contacts worth millions of dollars from the American government, owing to the criticism that it faces. Given the immense military and intelligence authority that Blackwater exercises over the superpower itself, and the extent of latter’s dependence on it, the vilification of this non-state actor is out of question. In August 2007, a settlement of $42 million was reached between the company and the Department of State for violating countless US export control regulations (The Nation, 2007). Michael Laskoff writes, “Blackwater is used to being a non-state actor that answers to no one (The Huffington Post, 2009).” Article 1 of the ILC’s drafts state that “every internationally wrongful act of a state entails the international responsibility of that state.” To the date, the US has not taken an action against them, thereby committing a breach under article 2. Amanda Tarzwell writes that the unlawful conduct of such private security companies in Iraq is attributable to America, where they are headquartered, and hence summons US responsibility to Iraq (Huffington Post, 2010). Another non state player that has emerged recently in the terrorism crisis is the international media, which shapes the strategies of both states and non-states on the critical issue. Terrorist NSAs exploit the media to spread fear among the public, communicate their demands to the world and threaten governments of severe consequences if their demands are not met. This is done not only through audio video messages, but also through the coverage and attention given to terrorist acts in the mainstream talk shows. This automatically inculcates fear in people. Martha Crenshaw (cited in Perisin and Cvrtila, 2009) rightly concluded that “the most fundamental goal of terrorism is to be awarded and receive attention.” The intention of the media however, is to cover all the sensational developments that increase its ratings and attract viewership, along with practicing their and the publics’ right of freedom to speech. Whatever the reason, the media should realize the social responsibility of its actions as well as the spin-offs that fall in favour of the violent NSAs, and modify its conduct accordingly to prevent public apprehension. Some restriction and censorship policies must be self-imposed by the NSA to prevent terrorists from achieving the motives. States and governments, hence, are not the only players in triggering and countering terrorism in the world. They are parts of a larger mesh that includes diverse and significant non-state actors. While some of these are the cause of it, for instance the insurgent groups, others count it as a responsibility to expunge this global crisis from the roots, like the UN, which holds great authority over its member states. Some NSAs motivate terrorist actions indirectly, like the oil corporations, while some for example, media provides the strongest communication between the terrorists and rest of the world .This communication can be detrimental if not conducted responsibly. Non-state actors are therefore equally important and responsible in every concern including terrorism as the states, as they fill the complex gaps needed to lubricate the world affairs. List of References BBC News (2003) Oil firms 'discuss Iraqi stake' [online] available from [24 October 2010] Bernard S. C., The Initial British Impact on India: A case study of the Benares region, The Journal of Asian Studies. 19,(4). Bodansky, D. & Crook, J. (2002) Symposium: The ILC’s State Responsibility Articles The American Journal of International Law [online] 97, (773) available from [28 October 2010] Brownlie, Ian (1983), System of the Law of Nations State: Responsibility Part I, New York: Oxford University Press. Cameron, Iain, “Human Rights and Terrorism” in Peace and Security: Current Challenges in International Law edited by Amnéus, Diana and Svanberg-Torpman, Katinka, Studentlitteratur, 2004, Lund, Sweden Crawford, J. & Olleson, S (2003) The Nature and Forms of International Responsibility in International Law. 1st ed., New York: Oxford University Press Inc. Crawford, J., Simon, O., and Peel, J. (2001) Responsibility of Internationally Wrongful Acts. EJIL. 12 (5) 963-991. Cvrtila, V., Peresin, A., (2009) ‘The Transformation of Terrorism and New Strategies’ Politička misao, [online] 46, (5) 121-139 available from [20 October 2010] European Commission (2010) The Cotonou Agreement [online] available from [23 October 2010] “East India Company" (1911). Encyclopedia Britannica, 11th ed. 8, p.835 UK Parliament (1971) East Pakistan: India Pakistan Relations and the United Nation. [Online] Available from [28 November 2008] Foreign Policy (2010) This Week at War: Is Mexico’s Drug War Doomed? [online] available from [October 2010] Flemme, M. (2004) Due Diligence in International Law Unpublished Masters Thesis: Unliversity of Lund. Gorman, F. (2009) Non-State Actors, Terrorism and the United Nations: A Critical Analysis through three Case Studies Examining the United Nations’ Effectiveness in Addressing the Threat Imposed by Violent Non-State Actors. Thesis submitted to: Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University. Highbeam Research (2002) Dictionary definition: Non-state actors [online] Available from [21 October 2010] History Guy (n.d.) Iran-US Hostage Crisis:1979-1981 [online] Available from Holmes, R. (2005). Sahib: the British soldier in India, 1750-1914. London: HarperCollins. Loveman, E (c. 2004). Non-State Actors in Sri Lanka [online] available from [22 October 2010] Lysén, G., (1997) State Responsibility and International Liability of States for Lawful Acts: A Discussion of Principles, Sweden: Iustus Förlag AB. Margaret Busé (c.2002) Non- State Actors and Their Significance. [Online] Available from [21 October 2010] Mukherjee, A. (2005) Colonial India and Imperial Britain (Part 1) [online] available from [24 October 2010] Primoratz, I., (2004) What Is Terrorism? Terrorism the Philosophical New York: Palgrave Macmillan. “Press Briefing from the United Nations regarding the Implementing the United Nations Global Counter-Terrorism Strategy.” [Online] Available from . Guardian News (2010) Iraq war logs: military privatization run amok. [online] Available from [28 October 2010] Scahill, J. (2007) Blackwater's Black Ops [online] available from [ 23 October 2010] Scahill, J. (2009) Blackwater Founder Implicated in Murder [online] available from [24 October 2010] Sen, B., (1988) A diplomat’s handbook of international law and practice, 3rd ed., Netherlands: Martinus Nijhoff Publishers. Shaw, M., (1997) International Law, 4th ed., The United Kingdom: Cambridge University Press. Terrorist Groups: An Overview. (n.d.) South Asia Terrorism Portal. [Online] Available from [28 October 2008] Terrorism Research (n.d.) What is Terrorism? [Online] available from [2 October 2010] The Debate (c.2003) War on Iraq [online] available from [24 October 2010] The Huffington Post (2009). There is No Z in Blackwater. [online] available from [24 October 2010] UN Action to Counter Terrorism. Welcome to the UN. [online] Available from . [4 Dec. 2008] Read More