Insurgency And Counter-Insurgency: Human Rights Concern

Insurgency and counterinsurgency have emerged as a major challenge for many states. It affects the national security and endangers civil liberties of the people. There are many factors which are responsible for Insurgency like political ideology, social thinking and economic distress which are characterized by violence, assault and other methods to create unrest among the civilians affecting their basic human rights. In result, the state responds in counterinsurgency which can be a blend of military action with legal and administrative actions. But the actions of the state also come under scanner which create serious issues like torture, forced detention, excessive force, suspension of basic human rights. This article analysis the consequence of the violent actions of insurgency and counterinsurgency on human rights of the civilians. The analysis point ways to achieve lasting peace through counter insurgency actions focused on human rights, improved accountability system and ways to curb insurgency from the roots. Ultimately, the paper emphasizes that safeguarding human rights is not only a legal obligation but also a strategic necessity for lasting stability and legitimacy in conflict-affected regions.

The problem of insurgency has always been become a stable factor of political stability, national security, and democratic governance of the world. In a general sense, insurgency can be defined as an organised effort to dethrone an already constituted government by means of subversion, guerrilla warfare and armed resistance. In its turn, counterinsurgency (COIN) can be defined as a broad set of military, political, economical, and psychological actions that the State took to put such movement to a halt and build a new order. Despite the fact that insurgency and counterinsurgency are aimed at forming the socio-political environment, the approaches used usually raise serious human rights issues. The intricate interaction of the State power and armed resistance factions, as well as, of protection, damaged civilian groups of people, forms an environment where the practice of violation may become the rule, disregarded, or even even justified by the discourse of national security.

Insurgency and its Human Rights Connotations

In most cases insurgency stems out of ancient grievances about political discrimination or ethnic discrimination, poverty, underdevelopment or ideological opposition. The pre-insurgency stages of insurgency mobilization in most situations indicatively reveal the lack of peaceful means of dissent channel, thus the adoption of violent means. Nevertheless, insurgent organizations are often involved in actions, which fall directly against the human rights standards. They are targeted killing, kidnapping, forced recruitment, extortion, property destruction and attacks on government infrastructure.

The main casualties of insurgency are civilians because of the premeditated approach to the employment of fear as an instrument of undermining State authority. Other common activities have included recruitment of child soldiers, sexual violence and summary executions by many insurgent groups. The indiscriminate firing of improvised explosive device (IEDs), landmines, and suicide attacks also puts the civilian communities at the crossfire. Where insurgents have administered a de facto government, they might have created parallel forms of rule and law that are usually based on force and lack a procedural guarantee. These types of practices do not only destroy the rule of law but also the basic freedoms of expression, movement, and personal security.

Even when these violations occur, insurgent groups usually justify their activities as being a necessary fight against regimes of oppression. This is a story that makes the issue of human rights tricky because it crosses the boundaries of political struggle and lawlessness. However, the international humanitarian law (IHL) explicitly outlaws the activity of the acts against civilians or non-combatant despite the actor. Hence, insurgent groups are held accountable despite the fact that they are not considered as legitimate fighters according to the international law.

Counterinsurgency: What the State Responds to and how it reacts against the human right movement

Counterinsurgent operations are not only complicated by the fact that they are a mixture of military power and civilian rule, but also intelligence and surveillance, socio-economic reforms. Nevertheless, the desire of the States to counter the insurgents threats incurs heavy-handed approaches which trigger massive human rights issues. Custodial torture, extrajudicial executions, arbitrary arrest and disappearance, militarisation of civilian areas, movement control, and blanket surveillance are the most frequent alleged violations witnessed in counterinsurgency areas.

Application of Special Laws and Emergency Power

Counterinsurgency operations in most countries are based on special laws that empower security institutions to a greater degree. Legislations like anti-terrorism laws, special powers act of the armed forces, or emergency ordinances frequently empower arrests without early warnings, lengthy arrest without trial, or immunity of the armed personnel. Although these laws are defensible as being required to fight against unconventional warfare, it has the effect of undermining accountability mechanisms, as well as making abuse environments more suitable.

Guantanamo is among the most controversial aspects of counterinsurgency laws. Suspects can be detained without necessarily being informed that they have been charged or entitled to access to lawyers and prompt access to judicial hearings. Such actions go against the very low principles of due process and free trial. In worst-case scenarios, persons vanish once they are arrested without the family getting organised.

Civilian Harm and Militarisation

Counterinsurgency effort usually has a bias towards military objectives and does not focus on civilian protection. The use of mass cordon-and-search operations, air-bombing, and high-power artillery on the civilian population subject non-combatants to unequal damage. Routine, curfews and seizing of schools or state buildings by the security forces interfere with everyday life and limit socio-economic life. Female, children, and the marginalised communities become more vulnerable with sexual violence and exploitation being one of them.

In many conflict regions, extrajudicial killings which are commonly promoted as encounters are common. These assassinations are meant to circumvent the law in the name of national security. Accountability is made elusive when security organs work on behalf of the law or institutional leniency. Investigative processes can be poor, politicised or inefficient and this can contribute more to the distrust of the people

Balancing The Security and Rights Dilemma.

Counterinsurgency is based on the notions of conquest of the hearts and minds of the local people. However, excessive use of force on civilians makes them feel alienated and will unwillingly reinforce the narrative of insurgency. Where the State is seen as impunity driven in the violation of rights, when insurgents are able to tap into population anger they can easily add to their argumentation and increase their ranks. Therefore, crimes against human rights are counterinsurgency setbacks because such activities unfold the dynamics of violence and resistance.

The main paradox is how to strike the right balance between the duty of the State to offer security and at the same time the need to preserve the constitutional rights and humanitarian standards. Successful counterinsurgency cannot be executed only due to military proficiency, but also through the regaining of confidence of the people, which cannot be attained, unless justice, transparency and human dignity are guaranteed.

Human rights and Humanitarian Law Standards

International legal systems are crucial in the direction of the State and non-State actors engaged in conflicts. Key instruments include:

1. Additional Protocols and Geneva Conventions.

The Convention against Torture (CAT) is a world-wide treaty aimed at eradicating torture as a method and re-education adopted by every member country upon ratification of the Convention.

These documents outlaw torture, unjustified detention, execution by summary, collective punishment as well as directing civilians. Derogations of some rights even during period of emergency should be stringent, proportionate and not discriminatory. Notably, there are certain rights that are non-derogable, e.g. some are the right to life, human dignity, and non-torture.

Nevertheless, the implementation of these norms becomes difficult in the conflict settings. Insurgency is usually found in remote and economically backward areas, or other politically marginalised areas, where there is a low level of judicial control. States can excuse breach of human rights standards because they are threatened by insurgents, which is perceived to be an existential threat. On the other hand, insurgent groups either may not agree with the international norms or they may simply not be capable of adopting it.

2. Humanitarian Implications on the civilian population.

Civilians fall on the frontline in any insurgency-prone areas no matter who is the perpetrator of the violation. Lawlessness and disorder causes displacement, interference of livelihood, psychological trauma and the loss of access to education and healthcare. Violence, when it is prolonged, destroys social construction and ignites inter-community conflicts.

The impact of the conflict on the children residing in conflict zones is among the most devastating. They can be forcefully enlisted, denied education or be subjected to violence which consequently has an impact on their emotional and mental growth. Women become sexual targets, exploited and discriminated not only by insurgency forces. Transition of elderly persons and the disabled individuals present distinct problems in receiving humanitarian assistance and security.

These are not collateral human impacts but a basic breach of the international obligation regarding humanitarian aspects. Any counterinsurgency approach should consist of protecting civilians.

3. Judiciary, Civil Society and Media role.

Courts can have an important role in the protection of rights through reviewing the legality of the counterinsurgency legislation, the decision of the instances of their violation, and responsibility. However, the courts might undergo political pressure, limitations to evidence, or emergency law limitations.

The civil society organisations such as human rights groups, non-governmental organisations and community networks work as watchdogs that record the abuses and represent the victims. They help to maintain transparency and promote reforms, but they are prone to become the victims of intimidation or even the legal constraints themselves.

Media reporting defines how people perceive conflict. Accountable journalism is able to focus light on abuse, misinformation, as well as humanitarian requirements. On the other hand self-centered or prejudiced news can fuel up tensions, boost stereotypes or even justify rough State reactions.

Insurgency and counterinsurgency are a two-facet aspect of a complicated game of power, identity and legitimacy. The two provide fertile grounds on human rights violations, which in most cases make civilian population victims of political and ideological engagement. As much as States have the sovereign power to crush rebellion such action should be in accordance with the scope of constitutionalism, international law of human rights and humanitarian ethics. High or illegal counterinsurgency practices not only deny the basic freedoms but also compromise the long-term peace and stability since they enhance resentment and mistrust.

At the time when conflicts tend to be more asymmetric, the right-based approach has not become an obstacle but rather a necessity. They guarantee legitimacy, human dignity and provision of the bases of sustainable peace. A victory in a military battle is not considered sufficient to combat a form of insurgency; instead, it must be a holistic, human, and democratic viewpoint on insurgency based on justice, accountability, and respect of human rights.

Author is Law Student at Maharaja Sayajirao University, Baroda. Views Are Personal.