On account of the evident salience of non-international armed conflicts today, the observance of the rules of war by non-state armed groups is a phenomenon of the greatest importance. Non-state actors reportedly have a range of reasons why they choose to respect the rules of war codified under the regime known as International Humanitarian Law (IHL). These include image and PR considerations conducive to securing an often-elusive legitimacy for their cause, the need to maintain discipline and morale among the troops, and to elicit reciprocity from the enemy.
Most notably, they may also abide by IHL out of moral conviction. Having previously been relegated to a subordinate position vis-à-vis the law, the importance of ethical considerations in the regulation of behavior during armed conflict has enjoyed a recent revival in the literature, including in an International Committee of the Red Cross study titled “The Roots of Restraint in War”. But the law is not enough under combat; ethical considerations are also needed.
One of the main ethical justifications for targeting combatants and sparing non-combatants who are not able to put up a fair fight is the so called “honor theory,”. It is therefore worth asking if non-state actors amenable to complying with normative standards during conflict can be said to be acting with honor, aside from more conceptual issues connected to modern military honor, or whether this is truly just a parody.
Like caricatures with their exaggerated features, parodies reveal an underlying reality which the purported comedic effect brings to the forefront. Thus, the “Black Knight” from Monty Python and the Holy Grail, who remains absurdly stubborn and cavalier even after losing his arms and legs, is an example of a caricature of medieval chivalry. If we take the case of Cervantes’ Don Quixote, we can see that the main character is envisaged as a parody of the same code of chivalry, which was already out of fashion in 16th century Europe, but continued to define many aspects of society and culture in the continent during the Middle Ages.
Thereby, whether it is the limbless Black Knight, Don Quixote or the Knights Templar of Michoacán, these amusing portrayals remind us of a time when chivalry, restraint and honour actually meant something in society, and in particular on the battlefield. Their regrettable loss in modern days is the main reason why they make us smile. And, we may add, this is also why we find Shakespeare’s Falstaff and his skepticism of honour so relatable in our age. To paraphrase Edmund Burke: “the age of chivalry is gone; that of sophisters, economists, calculators, and comedians has succeeded.”
But is it truly gone? Modern parodies and caricatures aside, the legacy of medieval chivalry can arguably be found within contemporary IHL, for instance, in the principle of distinction between combatants and non-combatants, and in the prohibition of perfidy - the act of betrayal in armed conflict. Thus, a code of conduct admittedly reserved only for a lucky few in the past has been now universalised through IHL.
Far from parody, amongst those involved in armed conflict, commitment to IHL can be characterised as “deadly serious” given the importance assigned to it. And it is precisely these kinds of standards that not only state forces but also non-state armed groups are increasingly observing through a process of norm socialisation – spanning from instrumental calculations to group conformity and the ultimate internalisation of the norm as part of one’s identity. Some encouraging evidence of this can be found in the database curated by the organisation Geneva Call, titled “Their Words: Directory of Armed Non-State Actor Humanitarian Commitments.”
Although there is indeed some progress in this area, compliance with IHL by non-state armed groups is still much harder to measure than for state forces, due to the many organisational and cultural differences between them. A better understanding requires effective engagement with local leaders and communities. Yet, in the face of grave breaches of such standards, including war crimes, wrongdoers remain criminally liable no matter who they are fighting for.
Ultimately, compliance with humanitarian standards by non-state actors is best understood as a spectrum rather than an “on/off” switch. If we are able to better understand the varied and complex motivations of non-state actors, and do our best to nurture those humanitarian values within those groups, then perhaps parody can usher reality back to the stage, lest the victims of war end up discovering that the joke is ultimately on them.