Abstract:
The Islamic law of war and International Humanitarian Law (IHL), both aim at preserving the human dignity of combatants and non-combatants by defining the parameters for the belligerent parties in the conduct of war. Armed non-state actors (ANSAs) involved in conflict in recent years, however, negate this very principle of avoiding unnecessary suffering by targeting civilians and the most vulnerable segments of society. Rational choice of employing violence over non-combatants in pursuit of their objectives by armed non-state actors weakens legal position of IHL that demands to be applied equally to all sides in every armed conflict. Social constructivism’s framework is used to analyse how identities of actors involved in the conflict are constructed through their interaction. This study aims at highlighting an alternative discourse other than realism to avoid state centric approach towards international law. This is based on whether inequality between armed non-state actors and state’s armed forces is encouraged or prevented through articles of IHL. In order to comprehend complexities of the stated problem, 23 interviews were conducted from people that had theoretical or practical knowledge about the subject. Experts of international law and scholar of Islamic law were consulted for theoretical understanding, where as members of Pakistan Army and former militants/ effectees of conflict were given equal weightage to know practical realities of the conflict. Recognition of combatant status for members of armed group and devising a deed of commitment to engage some armed non state actor are key findings of this study. Applicability of these conclusions on contemporary conflicts may result in considerable reduction in violence witnessed around the world.
