The issue of enforced disappearances has increasingly implicated non-State actors across the globe—those involved in human trafficking, armed conflicts, and migration related violence. Notably, governments have used non-State proxies to enact disappearances, effectively obscuring their own responsibility. This phenomenon blurs the distinctions between mere criminal acts and significant human rights violations, complicating the understanding of enforced disappearances.
Enforced disappearances uniquely violate human rights because individuals are not simply missing; rather, they are intentionally made to disappear. Traditionally, international human rights laws stipulate that enforced disappearances require some involvement from the State. However, the increasing influence and actions of non-State actors in human rights abuses warrant deeper examination.
This article aims to investigate conditions under which non-State actors can facilitate enforced disappearances, initially focusing on their actions as extensions of State authority. Following this, it transitions to the independent operations of these entities, examining the implications of their control over territories when public authorities are absent.
Article 2 of the International Convention for the Protection of All Persons from Enforced Disappearance (ICPED) traditionally associates enforced disappearances with State involvement. Although non-State actors are generally excluded from this definition to maintain accountability, they may still perpetrate disappearances if acting with State endorsement. The controversy lies in defining the level of State involvement necessary for a disappearance to be deemed an enforced disappearance.
Concerning non-State actors operating independently, abductions would usually classify as criminal acts, not enforced disappearances. States are obliged to investigate such acts under Article 3 ICPED, yet significant issues arise when State authority over territories lapses, particularly during armed conflicts. Such was observed during ISIS’s control in Iraq and Syria, where vast numbers of individuals went missing amidst a backdrop of chaos.
The Working Group on Enforced and Involuntary Disappearances (WGEID) expanded its remit in 2019 to include disappearances by non-State actors acting in a governmental capacity. This adaptation aims to balance the responsibility of States in human rights abuses with recognising non-State actors’ roles. The emerging perspective posits that under certain conditions, non-State entities may bear human rights obligations, particularly during armed conflicts where they exert control similar to that of a state.
However, the Committee on Enforced Disappearances maintains a cautious stance, categorising such instances as ‘tantamount to’ enforced disappearances without conferring full responsibilities to non-State actors. This could undermine the significance of victims’ experiences and impede access to justice and reparations. The challenge remains who ultimately holds accountability—the absent State or the ruling non-State entity, especially given the limitations of human rights mechanisms.
In conclusion, enforced disappearances linked to non-State actors with effective territorial control should be classified under Article 2 ICPED as full enforced disappearances. Recognising these actors as responsible under international human rights law promotes accountability and safeguards for individuals facing violations. It underscores the imperative need for unified legal approaches encompassing various entities capable of committing serious human rights infringements across diverse contexts, enhancing protections in conflict settings.
This article explores the role of non-State actors in enforced disappearances, highlighting their involvement as proxies for State entities and independently during armed conflicts. It reviews the legal implications under international human rights law and the evolving understanding of responsibilities tied to non-State actors. By considering their impact and governance in conflict areas, the piece advocates for expanded legal accountability and recognition of non-State actors’ obligations.
In the realm of international law, the crossover between non-State actors and enforced disappearances presents complex challenges. It is essential to recognise that disappearances linked to non-State entities, particularly in the absence of a sovereign State, could indeed be classified as enforced disappearances. This approach enriches human rights protections and compels accountability from all entities capable of criminal acts, subsequently fortifying the rule of law against grave human rights violations.
Original Source: opiniojuris.org
