Özet:

States are still the fundamental entities of the international law system. As a result of the rise of non-international armed conflicts, however, armed non-state actors started to play an increasing role within the international system and they seriously violate the international humanitarian law and the international human rights law, to which they should be subject and respect for the protection of civilians. Nevertheless, the questions of why these norms should be binding for armed non-state actors and what the legal basis for this are highly disputed in the international law since they are not a party to the norms of human rights and humanitarian law. Although armed non-state actors are one of the most important subjects within the sphere of international humanitarian law, the issue of responsibility for their violations of international humanitarian law has not been adequately regulated within the international law. Of the present indirect responsibility models, the mechanism of the individual criminal responsibility is insufficient. The other indirect responsibility model that is the mechanism of the making states accountable for the violations of human rights and humanitarian law by armed non-state actors is inefficient because states may evade their responsibility through hiding behind the doctrines of effective control, overall control and approval. On the other hand, adaptation of a new accountability model which facilitates the conditions of attribution for making states responsible does not seem possible. The direct responsibility of armed non-state actors has gained importance due to their recent evolution. However, this recommended model of direct responsibility has a series of dilemmas from political and legal aspects of the subject. Hence, direct responsibility model continues to remain as one of the grey areas of the international law.

Anahtar Kelimeler: