7 September 2020
Our Rule of Law in Armed Conflict (RULAC) online portal provides a detailed analysis and legal classification of the various non-international armed conflicts (NIACs) that are taking place in Sudan between the Government of Sudan and a number of armed groups in Darfur province and Kordofan and Blue Nile states.
In this interview, our Research Fellow Dr Chiara Redaelli explains why the recent peace agreement does not put an end to these conflicts.
Sudan has been affected by non-international armed conflicts (NIACs) for decades. Following the overthrow of President al-Bashir, the Transitional Military Council (TMC) and the Forces for Freedom and Change (FFC) agreed on a Draft Constitutional Declaration, which requires the conclusion of a peace agreement to put an end to the conflicts in Darfur, Kordofan, and Blue Nile states. Accordingly, on 31 August 2020, after months of negotiations, the transitional government of Sudan signed a peace agreement with the Sudan Revolutionary Front (SRF), an umbrella organization that was founded in 2011 by the four major armed groups operating in Sudan, namely the Sudan People’s Liberation Movement/Army–North (SPLM-North), the Sudan Liberation Movement/Army–Abdel Wahid (SLM/A–AW), the Sudan Liberation Movement/Army–Minni Minnawi (SLM/A–MM), and the Justice and Equality Movement (JEM). Nevertheless, not all armed groups member of the SFR have accepted the deal. Specifically, the SLM/A–AW and the SPLM/North Hilu refused to sign it.
RULAC has identified the existence of separate NIACs between Sudan and a number of armed groups, in particular, the Justice and Equality Movement (JEM) and the Sudan Liberation Movement/Army–Abdel Wahid in Darfur, and at least two factions of the Sudan People’s Liberation Movement/Army–North (SPLM/A–North).
To determine the end of a NIAC, the conclusion of a peace agreement is not enough in itself. Indeed, armed confrontations can continue beyond the signing of the agreement and international humanitarian law (IHL) continues to apply to these instances of violence. Therefore, although the deal between Sudan and the SRF is landmark and hopefully will determine the end of hostilities, it is too early to conclude that the NIACs are over. Indeed, it is worth recalling that previous peace agreements did not lead to an end of the armed conflicts. This was the case with the Darfur Peace Agreement, adopted in May 2006, the Eastern Sudan Peace Agreement, concluded later the same year, and the peace treaty signed by Sudan and the major armed groups operating in Darfur in 2010.
According to the agreement, the opposition groups committed to dismantle their forces and to integrate their fighters into the Sudanese army. Furthermore, the deal covers aspects related to security, transitional justice, power-sharing, as well as the return of displaced people to their homes.
The criteria to determine the end of a NIAC are not specified in the Geneva Conventions. Article 2 of the Additional Protocol II clarifies that IHL ceases to apply ‘at the end of an armed conflict.’ However, it does not define what does that mean in practice.
RULAC agrees with the approach adopted by the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC). Namely, a NIAC is over when one of the parties ceases to exist or when armed confrontations have ended for a considerable amount of time and are unlikely to resume. On the other hand, as mentioned above the mere existence of a peace agreement, an armistice or a ceasefire is not enough to conclude that the NIAC is over. Similarly, a temporary lull in the hostilities does not automatically determine the end of a NIAC.
Our Rule of Law in Armed Conflict (RULAC) online portal provides a detailed analysis of this conflict, including information about parties, classification and applicable international law.
In this interview, Tatjana Milovanović, currently enrolled in our MAS in Transitional Justice, Human Rights and the Rule of Law, tells us about the programme.
UN Photo/Loey Felipe
This online IHL Talk aims at shining light on substantial and/or procedural challenges to the effective and principled promotion of international law at the UN Security Council, including from a State’s perspective.
This online shhort course will explore the interlinkages between displacement and transitional justice from the angle of public international law.
This short course, which can be followed in Geneva or online, discusses the protection offered by international humanitarian law (IHL) in non-international armed conflicts (NIACs) and addresses some problems and controversies specific to IHL of NIACs, including the difficulty to ensure the respect of IHL by armed non-state actors.
UN Photo/Stuart Price
This project aims at mapping various existing accountability mechanisms, in the context of military interventions, through the lens of the requirements of a transitional justice process in order to identify possibilities and gaps.
Resulting from traditional legal research and informal interviews with experts, the project aims at examining how – if at all possible – IHL could be more systematically, appropriately and correctly dealt with by the human rights mechanisms emanating from the Charter of the United Nations, as well from universal and regional treaties.