Gives me great pleasure today to introduce an event who's come away in Geneva, especially for for us.
It's a great pleasure because I may use an NGO personality of one of the charismatic people in
the NGO community is fine with an NGO with a very specific mission and made great successes.
Geneva Cool started several years ago and it really did fill a gap and set out to fill the gap,
which is about to talk about and a very courageous and inspired way to try and engage armed groups about humanitarian norms.
And of course, this is in the context of a profoundly statist approach to international humanitarian law.
And those of you who know the Geneva Conventions will make common Article three common to each convention,
which in a very general way tries to call on all parties to cooperate, to abide by the Geneva Conventions.
And that's really the gap in which Geneva call picked up this particular mandate and went out of to reach out to armed groups to try to,
if you like, put flesh on the very small skeleton and that part of international.
So it's a great pleasure to have you here. Thank you for coming.
And of course, that process got more difficult after 911 in 2001, when a lot of armed groups,
what we were calling armed groups, were relabelled as terrorist groups.
And very often any kind of interaction with them was and still is for some of them heavily prescribed.
So Geneva calls mission. The mandate became more complicated still.
But for us, it's a great pleasure to have you with us because it is our focus on ethics,
law and norms brings us to the heart of Geneva, Paul's work and mission.
So thank you very much for coming in as we look forward to. Thank you.
And thank you for giving me this opportunity to be here today and to explain our work.
I have to say immediately, I am not a lawyer and I am not an English native speaker.
So you have to be and you have to understand that sometimes I will make some some mistakes.
So the proposal was to present the work of Geneva called some challenge and difficulties and then to have question.
But if you have really a burning question, don't hesitate.
I can reply during the presentation and I also brought several pictures.
So it's the presentation will be less boring.
So let's start with a quote of a former member of the Colombian guerrilla.
And he said, Every one of us went to war on the premise of fighting for humanity, but in the process, we have ended up destroying it.
And I think this is something important for us to do to understand the groups.
And I will come back to to to this quote, leader.
And what Mr. Guillen is essentially referring to is the separation of use and venom from use in the law.
And this distinction may be very clear for most of you, if not all of you,
but it is certainly far less so for a young man or woman joining an armed group in order to fight against real or perceived injustice,
against persecution on religious or ethnic grounds, against incessant poverty, resource scarcity, or a combination thereof.
From the standpoint of such fighters, armed groups, does the separation of youth that Belen from Youth in Bello seem quite so natural?
If you want to enhance the protection of civilians from the effects from the effects of the armed conflict,
you must ask ourselves whether we are doing a good job.
Enough of just understanding there and incentive to respect humanitarian norms,
the challenge they face in trying to do so and then to find a solution to address that.
And this is what generico does or is trying to do.
And let me explain a little bit. Our concept Geneva Call is a Swiss based, neutral, impartial humanitarian organisation.
So you see a real Swiss project, neutral compassion, humanitarian,
dedicating to engaging on non-state actors for better compliance with humanitarian norms.
Geneva calls Team-mates objectives is to improve the protection of civilians from
the effects of armed conflict through such compliance by armed groups in practice.
Geneva call not only engage with traditional rebel groups, militia or insurgents,
but also with the National Liberation Movement in non or partially internationally recognised states like Abkhazia, Nagorno-Karabakh, Somaliland.
As long as they cannot sign into a treaty to enter into international treaties, we engage them.
As some of you may know,
the initial focus in Geneva was on the ban of anti-personnel mines when the Doha convention banning anti-personnel mines was signed,
Geneva calls started because it was realised that anti-personnel mines would not be eradicated unless armed groups also renounce their use.
They are to be the main use of anti-personnel mines.
They do their own weapons, their own interpersonal mind.
Here you have an example of then with peace of medicines and fertilisers,
or here with explosives and batteries and wave accusing initially on the landmine burned.
Geneva Court has recently expanded its activities to the prohibition of sexual violence and discrimination against women.
And the prohibition of the use of children in armed conflict as well as their
protection in Geneva is also envisage envisages e.g. initiating a new theme question.
On the question of IDPs, it is general is also increasingly responding to armed groups demands to help build their
knowledge and enforcement capacities in international humanitarian law through training courses.
So many organisations have regular contact, contact with armed groups and negotiate humanitarian agreements every day on access,
for instance, to be able to deliver humanitarian assistance in the field.
These are usually specific short agreements.
And Geneva actually has a different approach based on norms and on the longer term.
The work of ginning up coal can be corrected, characterised by four main process.
The first one is the establishment of a sustained and constructive dialogue
aimed at sensitising armed groups on international standards and their respect.
It could be in the field or in the headquarters of the of the armed groups.
Here you have even, you know, the seats into too neat camouflage.
How do you call this unit? You see, even the seats are like in military time.
This is a long and fashion project process. The decision to engage one group rather than another one is taken on the basis of values criteria.
I can come back on these criteria later, but never whether the group is listed or not.
As a terrorist organisation, we like or we don't like these groups and they are part of the problem and they will be part of the solution.
The second the second process in Geneva call after having established contact is the sign of two of what we call the deed of commitment in Geneva.
It's a mechanism whereby armed groups have the opportunity,
but they cannot sign international treaties to take the engagement through a formal document to respect different humanity in animals.
Today, Geneva Merkel has developed three such instruments the deed of commitment building anti-personnel mines,
the deed of commitment protecting children from the effects of armed conflict,
and the deed of commitment prohibiting sexual violence and gender discrimination.
And as I said, we are thinking of launching perhaps a new one on the question of the deeds of commitment,
mutual international standards, and are signed by the armed groups.
But not only.
They are also countersigned by Geneva Accords and by the government of the Republic and Canton of Geneva, which serve as custodians of these deeds.
The signing ceremony usually takes place in the Alabama dorm in Geneva, where Mr. Mr. Wickham was signed, the first Geneva Convention.
We can see here the signing ceremony with an armed group with the government of Geneva.
Under the deeds of commitment, armed groups have to respect different obligation mirroring.
As I said before, the corresponding convention or treaty.
This specific obligation formed the first part of the deed of commitment of each deed of commitment,
and then each of the deeds have similar has similar articles which mention important points
to allow and cooperate in monitoring and verification of their commitment by Geneva Court.
They have to agree with monitoring and verification mission if necessary.
They have another obligation.
They have to issue orders and directives to their commanders and fighters for the implementation and enforcement of the common commitments,
including measures for dissemination as well as disciplinary sanction in case of non-compliance.
Meaning they have to think about sanction if the combatants do not respect their obligations.
The third obligation is to treat this commitment as one step or part of a broader commitment in principle to the ideal of humanitarian norms,
meaning they cannot sign the deed of commitment and the date two days later to place a bond in a market,
for instance, and two, to start to do an indiscriminate attacks.
So we have to consider this as part of a broader commitment to the ideal of humanity.
And finally, they have to also to recognise that the deed of commitment will not affect
their legal statutes pursuant to the relevant clause in Common Article three,
which was just mention of the Geneva Convention, meaning they understand that in signing these leaders commitment,
it will not give them any recognition or any legitimacy to the third process of the building confers confidence and negotiating and then
signing the deed of commitment is a support to by Geneva call to the armed non-state actors for the implementation of the deeds of commitment,
obligation and to do monitoring compliance of the engagement, including, as I said,
field verification mission, because the signing of this engagement is far from the end of the process.
On the contrary. Jenny Macklin tries hard to contribute to the implementation of their obligation and monitors compliance.
Supporting implementation firmly takes the form of organise organising training workshops to the commanders, to the combatants in the field.
But it could be also facilitating a system for some concrete steps,
fines and helping them to destroy their stockpiles or to take measures to protect the children.
The second aspect is, is the monitoring first in support to implementation, then as a monitoring.
And this activity is not only carried out by Geneva call, but also by local partners and other organisations and their armed non-state actors.
Hence also to do self reporting, armed groups have to move from the beginning that they will be held accountable and finally feel very fumigation.
Mission can be organised in case of serious. Allegation of criminal complaint, which was in fact not.
We faced only three case of non-compliance or allegation of non-compliance.
So we do field mission verification mission in the field.
We interview the regular armed forces, the armed groups, witnesses.
So we really view an important verification.
And Geneva call dedicates a lot of effort on that process because finally all the credibility of Geneva call needs on this capacity.
To be sure, the engagement taken by the armed groups are respected.
If you have only a nice signing ceremony in a piece of paper somewhere in a room in Geneva,
it will not change the behaviour of the armed groups and you have really to contribute to the implementation and to verify.
And the fourth aspect we work with for male combatants in many situation.
You have an important part of the armed groups.
You have female combatants and in many situations one can work specifically with
these women on humanitarian norms and encourage them then to advocate in the groups.
We work also with this female combatants about skin negotiation treatment between them because it's important to have women involved in peace talks,
in peace negotiation, to have women around the table.
When you have this negotiation and they have requested us very often to train them on negotiation,
you cannot spend 20 years in the bush and then to be able to negotiate around the table and having,
you know, people representing government in front of you.
So what are the achievements to date? Geneva has engaged with about 70 armed groups in different parts of the world.
You have here the different region.
And as of today, 42 have signed the deed of commitment banning anti-personnel mines in Africa, in Middle East, Europe.
Not all these group are still active. Some of them disappeared and some of them are today your government.
So 42 have signed,
but that doesn't mean that 42 are still active and these groups have complied with their pledge and most of them have destroyed their stock price.
More than 20,000 mines and thousands of you unexploded ordnance had to be destroyed.
In this case, also, we attend the the kind of activities to be sure it is done, we verify the number of mines destroyed.
So we really monitor also each step of the implementation, saying your troops have also cooperated in mine action.
Are the groups still reluctant, for instance, to sign the deed of commitment?
Have taken concrete steps to reduce the impact on this weapon of this weapon on civilian the civilian population.
This is what we call a step by step approach. We face some groups saying we will not ban anti-personnel mines when we need this kind of weapon.
We have only Kalashnikov and anti-personnel mine. So armed forces, they haven't equipped our tank and so we will not burn anti-personnel mines.
So in this case, we work on what we call step by step approach, trying first to reduce the impact on civilians.
You have an example here, a Colombian guerrilla who said we will not volunteer an element.
So we have started to work with them how to reduce the impact so somehow they could sign in the trees.
So at least the population knows where they are.
Danger is area. So it's still not good because they are still using mines, but at least the impact on the population can be a little bit.
So this is on on the question of anti-personnel mines.
Seven groups have signed the deed of commitment protecting children from the effects of armed conflict,
and five group have signed the deed of commitment prohibiting sexual violence in armed conflict and gender discrimination.
This Deed of commitment was launched only last year at the beginning of its activities.
Geneva was named the U.N. for all of the humanitarian world.
You know, kind of strange device flying after seven, 13 years.
It has been recognised that this deed of commitment processes is sexist and very well respected.
It demonstrated that through a pragmatic approach based on dialogue and persuasion,
can be effective in increasing compliance by armed non-state actors with at least some humanitarian norms.
And finally, the kind of collateral damage damage.
So Geneva calls mission is exclusively humanitarian.
It has been noted that in some cases the engagement with armed groups may invasion of our call has contributed to confidence or peacebuilding.
I give you an example. We have worked several years with the Tuareg rebellion in Niger, and the rebellion has decided to lay down the weapon.
But no new peace agreement was signed.
And the problem with mine field is very important in the north of Niger and also creates problems for humanitarian assistance.
So we decided to propose the armed forces and the for the rebels to have a workshop during
today to discuss how the question of demining could be addressed by by the sponsors.
So on this picture, you can see this is the first time they are all together in the same room.
It's difficult to invite people around the table to speak about peace, which is peace.
It's very difficult. But when you invite them to speak on something very concrete, like demining operation, for instance, it can work.
So they spend two days together and with Geneva call, they shared maps where they had led and then mines, anti-personnel and interesting mines.
And finally, we could convince the armed forces to train rebels who are ready to become demining.
So now they work together on demining operation. So it's kind of confidence building activities which can lead to other negotiation.
So as I said before, our has also increasingly responded to armed groups demands to help field their
knowledge on and enforcement capacities in international humanitarian law.
Many of them have highlighted a number of difficulties in the communication of note to their ranks.
Such difficulties are not confined to dissemination of the deed of commitment alone,
but relate to humanitarian law dissemination in general and non-state actors controlling huge territories.
You have sometimes really like the former Sudan People's Liberation Army, the territory under the control of the BLM is as big as France.
So it's really they can control huge territory when they have military type of command centres which may operate out of several countries.
Report The Israeli armed groups report that it is difficult to get new policies out to their political and military leaders.
In after discussion with Geneva call and having raised this challenge,
some of them propose concrete solution that might help them to address and Geneva
call has been decided to dedicate also a lot of efforts to reply to these demands.
The first demand. They express the needs to develop simple,
culturally appropriate educational skills that might be easily understood in local languages that would enable
all fighters to assimilate and apply the norms they have decided to adhere or other humanitarian norms.
So we printed very small booklets.
All you have sometimes fighters, totally uneducated, unable to read.
So we had to new to to find new ways to disseminate this news.
For, that's for for you. H.A. Generico has also developed specific material for the training of armed non-state actors.
It was a specific program funded by EKU and has conducted actual training already for several armed groups in the field.
And this is done in complementarity with ICAC or other other groups.
For instance, we did it with the fishes in the South Philippine.
Some training on it and how to treat one of the combat arrows.
And we did also in the field to train fighters with small booklets of medicine.
And in order to overcome challenge to dissemination,
I'm non-state actors should request training session not only for the military commanders, but also for their political union.
We discovered it's very important to have the military wing and the political wing train all these norms.
The sort of aspect or the sales thing the the have requested us is to commence and
to give recommendation on the basis of their already existing codes of conduct.
Most of these groups do they have codes of conduct, but they don't know if these codes correspond to principles of humanitarian norms.
How can they improve their own code and how if they don't have.
How can they start with with some rules for this is, for instance, what we did in the in the Philippines.
They adopted what they call a generalised order number three, and they have requested us, we help them to draft this, this general order.
And then we the requested us to train to do a training of trainers, to be sure.
Then the commanders will be able to disseminate to the people in the field.
So the challenge, as you can imagine, such work does not exist without facing some challenge and even sometimes serious ones.
So the first one I would like to mention is, as we see certain states, some non-state actors are reluctant to abide by international standards.
Either they reject action in general by ideology or they reject some specific norms.
And in this case, as I mentioned before, we try we don't give up.
We don't say, okay, you are not ready to, to, to improve your behaviour.
So we try to work on a step by step approach and starting from the rules.
For instance, here it was on the protection of children, so they had still children with them.
So we said in case of attack, at least don't use them in the in the hostilities and build a cave or bunker so they can go there and be protected.
So this is the kind of things which is not 100% perfect, but to please the children are trained to go there in case of attack.
The next challenge that General has been facing is how to deal with armed
groups that have reached common structures or have split into several factions,
as in Syria is a concrete example now.
It is a very complex situation because you don't have a leader with a chain of command,
you have hundreds of different groups and so-called commanders.
And the official leader of the Free Syrian Army, in fact, armies outside of Turkey and inside the combat.
And we see they told us, you know, these are the combatants of the five stars hotel spending their time in in dine, in cable and in Geneva.
So that the when you have these kind of groups with several faction, it's much more difficult to engage them.
And in this case, we have really to to to invent totally new approach in Syria for instance to train commanders we have done this a little bit,
but we never knew then if this under the control of the orders of this commander, you will have three fighters or 50.
So we have decided also to start with TV spots in Syria with basic norms on humanity and a third.
The third challenge is the lack of technical capacity for the implementation of the obligation.
Like I said before, struck by this question, you can just imagine.
And then external support is needed. But it's not always easy to raise the money to bring a specialised organisation to do the work.
And in such a situation, a delay can bring in new problems like it was in Somaliland, for instance.
I know it was in Somalia, for instance. General was trying to raise money to help an armed group to destroy 3000 3500 personnel.
Months since no donor was fund and time went on.
These e-payments have been stolen by some groups.
So we have really to to find a way to raise money when it's urgent.
But it's difficult because we have also to be cautious because this kind of support could be considered as military support.
So this is not easy. The force challenge.
In a few cases, Geneva has faced difficulties in getting access to armed groups for security reason,
as you can imagine, but also for political reasons. In some situation, the government has restricted or even prohibited access to the groups.
And at this point, I would like to mention, because it's important in Geneva calls work is always done in total transparency,
meaning we always inform the concerned government that we will start to engage the armed groups in defensive.
In some countries you have several. We don't explain when, where, with whom, but we say we will start to engage with this group active in you tend to.
Finally, the fifth challenge is the war on terror.
When listed as terrorists, some groups often become more radical and extremists and their internal hardliners are reinforced.
This kind of radical behaviour will for sure have consequences on the war on civilians.
But the consequences can also reach the humanitarian community.
Some counter-terrorism measures have initiated a process of criminally criminal, like criminalisation of humanitarian workers.
The decision of the Supreme Court in U.S. case is clearly the criminalisation of humanitarian workers and humanitarian actors.
Actors are afraid of being sanctioned or prosecuted. Civilians are left behind without any support.
So this is now becoming a very big challenge.
Every colleague in Geneva I call could be arrested in the US and spend 15 years in jail.
Just because we released child soldiers or destroyed anti-personnel mines.
You have just here a summary of the challenge that I just just mentioned.
So what are the the why what are the motivation of the armed groups?
There may be different factors that influence the decision of a group to commit to humanitarian office.
And a few years ago, Geneva conducted a research into the involvement of armed non-state actors.
And this time it was in the landmine problem,
both in its negative aspect for use and landmines and positive aspects of contribution to promote action.
And the report argues for a holistic views of armed non-state actors considering both their capacity as spoilers in the conflict,
as well as the potential to contribute to the solution of human human security problem.
The results of this research show that, generally speaking,
the factors influencing non-state actors openness to engagement with humanitarian norms
can be divided into political will and willingness on one side and ability to implement.
So the political willingness on a few points.
First, the question of participation ownership.
Many armed non-state actors do not recognise international treaties signed by the states.
They are fighting sky views. They do not want to recognise the treaty signed by the Government when they are fighting against this government.
And as with states, it will be more difficult for non-state actors to deny the legitimacy of a norm they have themselves decided to adhere to,
since it's important to give them responsibility.
Second point the reciprocity to correct behaviour by opponents increase their will to take on and respect them commitments.
The third one political conflict situation and improve situation between the armed non-state
actor and the opponent and increase the will to take on and respect humanitarian norms.
And the opposite the deterioration of the situation or the due duration like we could read on the first slide,
the cruelty of the rebellion of the guerrilla, Colombian guerrilla of the war can have the opposite consequence.
The repetition, striving to actively improve, improve its internal and external reputation, humanitarian and development,
development and consideration expected short and long term beneficial impact on civilians in
the territory of potential incentives to take in respect commitments expected peacebuilding,
peace gains, greater probability of dialogue, dialogue with the states.
You could see, for instance, in Colombia, the FA has decided to give up with the hostage taking and some months ago, some months later,
peace talks have started with the Norwegian government and with the agreement of the Colombian
government because until now the goal in the Colombian government never agreed on the new peace talks.
And finally, the use of violence against civilians when non-state actors use means or have aims that contradict humanitarian norms.
We can understand that such factors can clearly be an hindrance to negotiation and reconstruction in the future.
They understand that finally, peace will never be built on atrocities.
And then the other factor, the ability, the three, the chain of command.
As I said before, this is a challenge for general court, but it is also a challenge for the group.
Secondly, the territorial control, the control of territory increase the non-state actors ability to respect or implement commitments.
And finally, there exists the capacity in internal of capacity,
expertise or resource increase the ability of their on a monthly basis to respect and implement compliance.
And all the work of Geneva call understanding the motivation forces that encourage
armed non-state actors to respect humanitarian norms as well as of the chain.
So we did this research, but as it is important, we started to do what we call our meeting of signatories to the deed of commitment,
you know, that states have of the states parties meeting of its wide convention.
So we started to have our own non-state actors parties meeting.
And the second we organised two or we did the second one took place in Geneva.
On this picture you have 44 senior political and military representatives from 28 armed groups coming from all over the world.
So this was in Geneva and we are lucky because in Geneva we don't have in Switzerland
we don't have list of terrorists and the authorities allow or provide visa.
So this representative of armed groups can come to Geneva.
And it was it was funny because we used to meet them in the middle of the mountains or in the bush, in the military, to us dressed.
And they were very well dressed here. So two third of them were signing up to resort to Geneva call and others were invited as observers.
And I'm this representative from around the world met to exchange views, especially on two points.
First, the challenge they faced in implementing the Geneva call did of commitment,
all in trying to respect humanitarian norms and how to address them.
Sometimes they can exchange how they have faced this challenge.
And the second discussion of important part of the discussion where on existing norms relating
to the protection of two groups of particularly vulnerable and specifically protected people,
women and children. So this representative were very well prepared.
And finally, they have worked on on recommendation.
And I would like to underline two of these recommendations.
They, again, clearly expressed their willingness to enhance their CAS versity to respect humanity,
announce by receiving training and technical support by expert organisation.
This is clearly something which is needed and always requested.
And the second recommendation I would like to mention is generally speaking on non-state actors
field prejudice by differential differential treatments towards states and non-state actors.
The mechanism to enforce humanitarian norms and sometimes even in the norms themselves.
And I will just develop a little bit this second common because it's it's interesting.
On the differential treatment. The equality of belligerent is a fundamental underpinning of traditional humanitarian law between states.
However, its transition to the law of non international armed conflict has not necessarily been smooth.
This is because under international law, non-state actors do not have the same legal status or capacities as these,
even though they are deemed to be bound by humanitarian law, regardless of whether the substance of the law applies equally.
Disparities of status arise in many cases.
non-State actors feel that international mechanisms or processes are biased
as they are developed and controlled by states or interstate organisations.
And they consider that this tool, this instrument, the Geneva Accords,
need of commitment is important because it will the deeds of commitment belong to armed non-state actors and not to the UN.
And they consider that under the UN system, UN non-state actors are usually only tuning into these in Geneva call experience.
I would like to added at this point that the key to success after more than 30 years in this field,
the key to success is in the world self appropriation or ownership.
It is essential not to promote impulse,
but to generate enough interest so that the armed non-state actors will take their own decision to add in respect humanitarian.
And even if the signing ceremony takes place in Geneva sometime there is another ceremony in the field.
So really the combatants can be part of this national kind of celebration,
saying now we have decided to respect these norms or several norms and to respect this norms.
In the same vein, I want to emphasise the importance of avoiding only the don't don't do it, but also to insist on the do.
This is a key aspect for I'm non-state actors to understand.
We are not only on the prohibition page but also waiting from them for constructive measures.
They have to understand they have responsibilities.
Then, in all three Geneva calls division of commitment, there is a mix of prohibition as well as positive and constructive obligation,
and they have to provide education to that to the children in areas under their control.
On the question of differential treatment, they have mentioned in some case on non-state actors implicates also the substantive law itself.
For instance, they object to the differing differentiation between states and armed groups in the Optional Protocol on children and armed conflict,
as well as objecting to is an equal standards on age and scope of prohibition.
I wish I will show you how it can be first complex for armed groups to understand
the law and how the norms are not the same for states or for armed groups.
So you have here different treaties, convention only on children and the Age to be forced to take part in hostilities.
So you can see that this is really difficult for them to understand and why, for instance, it is 16 four states that achieve in the optional protocol.
Children can be part of armed forces already at 16, but for other armed groups in states,
you can see how it is complex and why they have the feeling some time this is not really equal.
This is the kind of same thing table but different.
The and the underlying that the UN listing process forests and on violation of
recruitment and use obligation makes due process including the right to be heard.
For instance, you have the monitoring process in the U.N. on the use of children to the states,
are consulted on the reports that the non-state actors, the armed groups are never consulted.
So again, they want to express their view and to explain the situation.
And as a final point on differential quantum of treatment of non-state actors
expressed concern about the lack of input they have into the substance of the law.
They request more consultation could be done through intermediaries these on non-state actors on
the ground so that legal standards take into account the September realities of field condition.
The international community has to accept that the concrete realities in the field faced by non-state actors need to be understood and addressed.
I give you an example. It is said that it is not allowed to have children associated with armed groups,
but for some or for many children, their parents have decided to be robbers.
And this is a basic right of a child to live with his parents.
So we live all together and they are under in the international community, they are considered as child soldiers because associated with armed groups.
So there was an attempt in in Mindanao to release all these children associated with groups.
And the final, when they had to finalise the resurge, would have meant that 108,000 children would have.
Being obliged to leave their presence, which is totally crazy. So I think the international community has to understand the reality in the future.
This is not black and white like for states, but in this case, for instance, the right of a child to with his parents is a basic right.
But he's living everyday with people, with carrying weapons.
And so we have to explain to these troops how they have to protect the children in case of attack,
how this is not allowed to take them on the frontline and they don't have the right to use them of spies or bringing food to the combatants.
But. They can see positive measures seen.
They armed groups affirm that it is finally on the question of terrorism.
They affirm that it is counterproductive to label amnesty fighters as terrorists organisation, prohibiting access to them and still expel them.
At the same time to respect humanitarian and human rights engagement.
But engagement doesn't mean impunity. Even when non-state actors don't protect or deliberately targeted civilians.
It is without any doubt necessary to report to use also the naming and shaming process to condemn, but not only.
It is also essential, as I said, to try to engage them for their respective humanitarian needs.
So my conclusion is I just mentioned the question of access.
Governments and the international community have to accept the engagement of all non-state actors will not reinforce them,
but is a precondition to the protection of civilians. In this sense,
concerned states have to recognise that the abstraction to access for humanitarian
organisation is the wrong approach and will have a negative impact on civilians.
And I would like to conclude the UN Secretary General, Ban Ki moon, who now really insists on this aspect, asking Member States not taking.
Or adopting national legislation or measures that will prohibit access to armed groups.
And I think what says Ban Ki moon is is clear, he say.
He says, as you can read, while engagement with non-state armed groups will not always result in improved protection,
the emphasis and systematic engagement will almost certainly mean more, not fewer, civilian casualties in current conflict.
So things are moving on.
And even last week, the Security Council insisted or said for the first time, it is important to engage armed groups on humanity.
So in most of them, no. And finally, I would like to insist also on the importance to engage everybody.
The listing of terrorist organisations, as I said, is a political process and must not impact humanitarian action.
And the criminalisation of the humanitarian actors will at the end affect the civilians more than their own lives.
And it's important to say and to see again that the war on terror should not affect their humanity in.
In most of the discussion that Geneva Cole has had with our non-state actors,
they have made it clear that they want to take ownership of their humanitarian obligation.
And supporting such a request does not mean being an advocate of all non-state actors,
but rather an advocate for those who suffer as a result of violation of international humanitarian norms.
And certainly, like states, not all armed non-state actors will be seriously committed to respecting humanitarian law.
But for those who are willing to consider humanitarian norms, what they are the incentive.
Maybe we can ask our self whether we are doing our best to enable them to contract.
And in closing, we must not lose sight of the probability that international mechanisms controlled by states will
tend towards supporting their own interests in a world where conflicts are primarily between states.
This did not pose a problem. However, we know that this is not the case today.
Conflicts are internal conflicts, and we want to be able to justify the separate.
If we want to be able to justify the separation of usable from use in value to
the most numerous actors in today's armed conflict that are non-state actors,
then it is our responsibility to ensure that they do not feel prejudiced either by the separation itself or by the way in which it is enforced.
So I thank you for your information and if you have questions.
Thank you very much.