individual was fighting on behalf of the The right to life includes not only a opposition group thus had not died in prohibition on illegal killings by state crossfire while community members claim authorities, but also entails state obligation the victim was not a combatant. to adequately protect this right and punish its violation by non-state actors. In The situations in which civilians are situations of widespread killings, or intentionally targeted for strategic reasons traditions which tend towards regular such as gaining military advantage in violence against a particular portion of the conflicts are quite common as well as population, such as LGBT groups, situations in which killings performed in according to the obligation to ensure right order to demonstrate power or as the to life, states can be held responsible for counterinsurgency policy that are later-on failure to adequately address systemic announced as in the crossfire of the “caught causes, for instance, through efforts to civilians are trapped conflict”. Too often protect vulnerable populations and to between state and rebel forces, or between improve education; addressing impunity, or warring rebel factions, in a struggle to avoid correcting perceived inadequacies in law being threatened or killed by one or more enforcement and the justice system which sides as in the cases of Afghanistan, lead to vigilantism. Colombia and the Democratic Republic of the Congo. The Category of Non-State Actors is not readily susceptible of a clear definition, Reports of the UN agents have also which increases the complexity of the addressed the importance of human term. In recent years the term “non-state security sector reform, military which was long used primarily to actors”, recruitment and vetting of military describe groups whose purposes are personnel for war crimes, humanitarian law essentially benign such as training, killings by private security organizations, religious contractors, and the need for transparency groups and corporations, has increasingly and accountability mechanisms relating to come to be associated with groups whose right-to-life violations during armed agendas include harming innocent conflicts and occupations. civilians. II. Situations When the Indirect In 2004 four general categories of Involvement of State Actors is the Case: actors were identified by the UN Killings by Non-State Actors Special Rapporteur Philip Alston:
individual was fighting on behalf of the opposition group thus had not died in crossfire while community members claim the victim was not a combatant. The situations in which civilians are intentionally targeted for strategic reasons such as gaining military advantage in conflicts are quite common as well as situations in which killings performed in order to demonstrate power or as the counterinsurgency policy that are later-on announced as “caught in the crossfire of the conflict”. Too often civilians are trapped between state and rebel forces, or between warring rebel factions, in a struggle to avoid being threatened or killed by one or more sides as in the cases of Afghanistan, Colombia and the Democratic Republic of the Congo. Reports of the UN agents have also addressed the importance of human security sector reform, military recruitment and vetting of military personnel for war crimes, humanitarian law training, killings by private security contractors, and the need for transparency and accountability mechanisms relating to right-to-life violations during armed conflicts and occupations. II. Situations When the Indirect Involvement of State Actors is the Case: Killings by Non-State Actors The right to life includes not only a prohibition on illegal killings by state authorities, but also entails state obligation to adequately protect this right and punish its violation by non-state actors. In situations of widespread killings, or traditions which tend towards regular violence against a particular portion of the population, such as LGBT groups, according to the obligation to ensure right to life, states can be held responsible for failure to adequately address systemic causes, for instance, through efforts to protect vulnerable populations and to improve education; addressing impunity, or correcting perceived inadequacies in law enforcement and the justice system which lead to vigilantism. The Category of Non-State Actors is not readily susceptible of a clear definition, which increases the complexity of the term. In recent years the term “non-state actors”, which was long used primarily to describe groups whose purposes are essentially benign such as organizations, religious groups and corporations, has increasingly come to be associated with groups whose agendas include harming innocent civilians. In 2004 four general categories of actors were identified by the UN Special Rapporteur Philip Alston:
GA3.%20SOCHUM.docx