The research article “Prohibiting the Use of Force by Non-State Actors: Time to Move to International Regulation“ authored by Dr. Mohammad Ghazi Janabi, Lecturer in International Law at the University of Glasgow School of Law, was published in 2024 in Atâtôt: Revista Interdisciplinar de Direitos Humanos (Vol. 5, No. 1).
Janabi is a scholar of public international law whose research spans human rights, international humanitarian law, international criminal law, international peace and security, and the evolving role of non-state actors. Atâtôt is a peer-reviewed, open-access, interdisciplinary human rights journal published by Goiás State University in Brazil, covering international law, constitutional issues, democracy, and social movements.
The paper addresses a critical question driven by the changing nature of armed conflict: If a non-state actor can deploy military-scale force, cross international borders, exercise effective territorial control, and impact civilian security across multiple states, should its regulation remain solely a matter of domestic state law?
The author argues that traditional rules governing the prohibition on the use of force, primarily developed to regulate inter-state relations, face a reality where armed groups, terrorist organizations, and private military companies generate severe transnational impacts. In the paper’s abstract, entities such as ISIS, Boko Haram, and the Wagner Group are highlighted to illustrate this expansion in non-state capacity and influence.
The analysis draws a clear distinction between generic violence and the “use of force” under international law, focusing on conduct that crosses defined thresholds of intensity and organization. It examines when military actions by non-state actors constitute a threat to international peace and security, an armed attack, or actions producing effects equivalent to aggression and occupation. While ISIS serves as a prominent case study, the paper uses it as a broader framework to test existing legal rules against non-state actors capable of territorial control and large-scale armed operations.
A key finding is that the behavior of non-state armed groups has already entered the realm of international regulation in practice. The UN Security Council has repeatedly designated the actions of armed groups and terrorist organizations as threats to international peace and security, imposing obligations regarding the cessation of hostilities, adherence to peace agreements, human rights, and international humanitarian law.
Thus, the gap between the traditional state-centric model of the use of force and the reality of armed groups is not absolute; international law has increasingly—if incrementally—responded to the transnational impact of these entities.
Ultimately, the paper presents a vital legal proposition: the unlawful use of force should not remain outside international regulation simply because the perpetrator is a non-state actor. While acknowledging that Article 2(4) of the UN Charter explicitly targets states, Janabi argues that the distinct agency of non-state groups, the cross-border consequences of their acts, the potential to classify their strikes as armed attacks, and their duty to respect fundamental human rights warrant a formalized international framework.
For observers monitoring non-state factions, this research offers profound analytical value. Beyond assessing individual crimes, it raises a foundational question: Should the systematic, large-scale use of force by non-state actors be subject to international legal regulation and accountability?
This inquiry directly links to cases involving child soldier recruitment, enforced disappearances, violence against women, torture, and extrajudicial killings. It elevates the analysis from isolated criminal acts to the overarching command structures, operational capacity, and governance methods of armed factions.
Without assuming automatic liability for every armed group, the study highlights a crucial gap: Should an entity capable of launching and sustaining armed violence across borders escape international oversight simply because it lacks statehood? The author’s answer is a clear negative—making this research an essential framework for the Iranian Kurdistan Human Rights Watch (IKHRW) in reassessing non-state accountability and human rights enforcement.
