60 pages, The Applicability Of The International Humanitarian Law On Armed Conflict Anglophone Conflict.

CHAPTER ONE

Background To The Study

nternational Humanitarian Law on Armed Conflict and the Anglophone Conflict

International Humanitarian Law On Armed Conflict Anglophone Conflict . International Humanitarian Law (IHL) refers to a set of legal rules that seek to limit the effects of armed conflict on people and property. It is rooted in the principles of humanity and the protection of human dignity, aiming to safeguard those not participating in hostilities, such as civilians, and to restrict the means and methods of warfare (Henckaerts & Doswald-Beck, 2005).

The primary instruments of International Humanitarian Law are the Geneva Conventions of 1949 and their Additional Protocols of 1977, which provide the legal framework for the protection of victims of armed conflict. These treaties represent the core of IHL, alongside customary law, which further binds nations and non-state actors to the humanitarian principles of the law.

The concept of armed conflict, as defined by the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC), can be either international or non-international, with each classification bearing different implications under IHL. An international armed conflict occurs between two or more states, while a non-international armed conflict takes place between state forces and non-state armed groups within the territory of a state. The rules governing these conflicts differ significantly.

Non-international armed conflicts, such as the Anglophone conflict in Cameroon, are predominantly governed by Article 3 common to the four Geneva Conventions and Additional Protocol II (Cassese, 2008). The Anglophone conflict, which has engulfed the Northwest and Southwest regions of Cameroon since 2016, represents one of the more severe internal crises in recent African history, raising questions about the applicability of International Humanitarian Law on armed conflict in this context.

Applicability of International Humanitarian Law on Armed Conflict in the Anglophone Conflict

The Anglophone conflict in Cameroon originated from longstanding grievances of marginalization among the English-speaking population, which comprises about 20% of the country’s population. The escalation into a full-blown armed conflict began when Anglophone protests against perceived political and economic disenfranchisement were met with violent repression by the state. Over time, the conflict has led to the emergence of armed separatist groups fighting for the independence of the English-speaking regions from the Francophone-dominated government. This non-international armed conflict has resulted in widespread human rights abuses, including extrajudicial killings, torture, forced displacement, and destruction of civilian property (Amnesty International, 2018).

The applicability of International Humanitarian Law on armed conflict in this scenario is vital as it seeks to protect civilians and ensure humane treatment of all persons who are not directly participating in hostilities. Under IHL, both state and non-state actors are obliged to comply with the principles of distinction, proportionality, and necessity. The principle of distinction requires combatants to distinguish between military objectives and civilians, targeting only those involved in combat (Jalo, 2015). The principle of proportionality prohibits attacks that may cause excessive civilian harm in relation to the anticipated military advantage, while the principle of necessity allows only those measures required to achieve legitimate military objectives.

However, applying these principles to the Anglophone conflict is fraught with challenges. One of the main difficulties lies in the asymmetry between the parties involved. The state possesses well-equipped military forces, while the separatists operate as fragmented armed groups without a central command structure. This has resulted in a breakdown of the chain of responsibility, where violations of IHL, such as indiscriminate attacks on civilians and humanitarian personnel, often go unpunished. Additionally, the government has labeled separatist fighters as terrorists, raising legal questions about their status under IHL. While the Geneva Conventions mandate the humane treatment of all combatants, regardless of their designation, the state’s counter-terrorism narrative complicates the legal application of IHL to these actors (Rosen, 2016).

Moreover, IHL requires all parties in a conflict to allow humanitarian access to civilians affected by the conflict. In the Anglophone regions, this has been another point of contention, as both the government and separatist forces have been accused of blocking aid organizations from reaching people in need. Humanitarian agencies, including the United Nations and the International Committee of the Red Cross, have often reported difficulties in gaining access to the conflict zones to provide assistance to displaced populations (HRW, 2020). This denial of humanitarian access constitutes a breach of IHL, which guarantees that civilians have the right to receive medical care, food, and shelter, even in times of armed conflict.

The situation in the Anglophone conflict also raises critical issues regarding the prosecution of war crimes. International Humanitarian Law on armed conflict emphasizes individual accountability for war crimes, which include attacks on civilians, sexual violence, and the targeting of humanitarian workers. Despite the prevalence of such violations in the Anglophone regions, there has been little progress in holding perpetrators accountable. The lack of a robust judicial mechanism to address war crimes in Cameroon exacerbates the situation, leading to a culture of impunity (Nylund, 2020). The absence of effective legal recourse for victims of the conflict underscores the challenges of enforcing IHL in non-international armed conflicts.

Additionally, the role of non-state actors in the Anglophone conflict, particularly armed separatist groups, raises important questions about the obligations of these actors under IHL. While IHL binds both state and non-state actors, its enforcement mechanisms are largely state-centric, making it difficult to hold non-state actors accountable. The separatist groups, operating in a fragmented manner, often lack the institutional capacity to comply with the complex rules of IHL. This has led to widespread violations, including the use of child soldiers, the destruction of civilian infrastructure, and the abduction of civilians for ransom (Buchanan, 2019).

In conclusion, the applicability of International Humanitarian Law on armed conflict in the context of the Anglophone conflict is of paramount importance, but it is fraught with practical challenges. While IHL provides a legal framework for the protection of civilians and the conduct of hostilities, its implementation in the Anglophone regions is hindered by the asymmetry of the conflict, the absence of clear accountability mechanisms, and the lack of access for humanitarian actors. Addressing these challenges requires a concerted effort from the international community, including stronger enforcement of IHL and greater support for accountability mechanisms to address the violations committed by both state and non-state actors.

Problem Statement

The ongoing Anglophone conflict in Cameroon has highlighted significant gaps in the applicability of International Humanitarian Law on armed conflict. Despite the clear legal framework provided by the Geneva Conventions and customary international law, the situation on the ground demonstrates a failure to adhere to these norms. Civilians continue to bear the brunt of the conflict, with widespread reports of extrajudicial killings, forced disappearances, and the destruction of civilian property.

The violation of the core principles of distinction and proportionality, as enshrined in IHL, has resulted in severe humanitarian consequences. The state’s counter-terrorism measures, which label separatist fighters as terrorists, further complicate the legal application of IHL, as it blurs the lines between combatants and civilians, leading to indiscriminate violence.

One of the major challenges in enforcing International Humanitarian Law on armed conflict in the Anglophone conflict is the fragmentation of separatist forces, which hinders the accountability of non-state actors. The absence of a centralized command structure among these groups has made it difficult to hold individuals accountable for war crimes, such as attacks on civilians and the use of child soldiers.

This lack of accountability has perpetuated a cycle of impunity, where violations of IHL go unpunished, further exacerbating the conflict. Additionally, the government’s counter-terrorism narrative has been used to justify restrictions on humanitarian access, preventing aid agencies from reaching those in need. This denial of humanitarian access not only contravenes IHL but also worsens the humanitarian crisis in the Anglophone regions.

Furthermore, the international community’s response to the Anglophone conflict has been inadequate in addressing the violations of International Humanitarian Law. While various human rights organizations have documented the abuses committed by both the state and separatist forces, there has been little concrete action to ensure accountability.

The absence of a strong judicial mechanism to prosecute war crimes has left victims without legal recourse, undermining the core objectives of IHL. Without stronger international pressure and a commitment to enforcing IHL, the conflict is likely to continue unabated, with devastating consequences for civilians in the affected regions. Therefore, the study seeks to address these gaps by critically examining the applicability of International Humanitarian Law on armed conflict in the context of the Anglophone conflict and proposing solutions to enhance compliance with humanitarian norms.

XAF 5,000 – Purchase Checkout Added to cart