Where will ICHRANSA - 26 take place?

The conference will be held in the city of Zurich, CHE.

What is the format of ICHRANSA - 26?

ICHRANSA - 26 is structured as a conference, providing a platform for in-depth discussions and presentations.

International Conference on Human Rights and Armed Non-State Actors (ICHRANSA - 26)

Name: International Conference on Human Rights and Armed Non-State Actors (ICHRANSA - 26)
Start: 2026-08-07T00:00:00Z
End: 2026-08-08T00:00:00Z
Location: Zurich

Aug 7–8, 2026Zurich, SwitzerlandIn-person

ConcludedRegistration closed

The International Conference on Human Rights and Armed Non-State Actors (ICHRANSA - 26) is set to convene in Zurich, Switzerland. This event provides a crucial platform for examining the complex interplay between human rights principles and the actions of armed non-state actors (ANSAs) across various global contexts. Participants will delve into the challenges posed by ANSAs to international humanitarian law and human rights, exploring strategies for accountability, protection, and engagement.

Committees & topics

Topics
The Universal Human Rights Framework and Armed Non-State Actors · Conflict Resolution Involving Armed Non-State Actors · Patterns of Violence by Armed Non-State Actors · Human Rights Violations by Armed Non-State Actors · Accountability Mechanisms for Armed Non-State Actors · Transitional Justice in Post-Conflict Societies · The Role of Civil Society in Conflict Resolution · International Humanitarian Law and Armed Groups

Why it matters

The proliferation and evolving nature of armed non-state actors present significant challenges to global peace and security, directly impacting human rights. From groups involved in protracted conflicts to those emerging in fragile states, ANSAs often operate outside traditional state structures, complicating efforts to uphold international legal norms. This conference is vital because it brings together experts to discuss how international law applies to these diverse entities and what mechanisms can be developed to ensure accountability for human rights violations.

The discussions will likely cover a broad spectrum of issues, including the legal status of ANSAs, their obligations under international humanitarian law, and the responsibilities of states in addressing their conduct. Understanding these dynamics is critical for policymakers, legal scholars, humanitarian workers, and peacebuilders who are often on the front lines of these complex situations. The insights generated from ICHRANSA - 26 can inform more effective strategies for protecting civilians, promoting justice, and fostering stability in regions affected by armed conflict.

How to prepare

To prepare effectively for ICHRANSA - 26, participants should familiarize themselves with the foundational principles of international humanitarian law and international human rights law, particularly as they pertain to non-state actors. A strong understanding of the legal frameworks governing armed conflict and the protection of civilians will be essential. Reviewing case studies of ANSA involvement in various conflicts, such as those in SYR, COD, or YEM, can provide practical context for the theoretical discussions.

Consider exploring the Model Diplomat lesson on "what-is-stakeholder-mapping" to understand how to identify and categorize the diverse range of actors involved in conflicts. Additionally, the "hidden-stakeholders" lesson can offer insights into understanding less obvious but influential parties. For those looking to engage with these complex entities, the "engagement-strategies" lesson provides valuable frameworks. A comprehensive approach to preparation will allow participants to contribute meaningfully to the conference's objectives of fostering dialogue and developing actionable solutions.

Country perspectives

Where the most-relevant 4 countries stand on the core issues in play. Click through for the full country profile.

Switzerland

As the host nation, CHE maintains a strong tradition of neutrality and humanitarian diplomacy, often serving as a hub for international law and human rights discussions.

Role in topic

CHE provides a neutral and respected venue for discussions on sensitive topics like human rights and armed non-state actors, facilitating dialogue among diverse stakeholders and promoting adherence to international humanitarian law.

Syria

SYR has experienced prolonged conflict involving numerous armed non-state actors, leading to severe human rights challenges and a complex humanitarian crisis.

Role in topic

The ongoing conflict in SYR offers a critical case study for examining the impact of armed non-state actors on civilian populations and the challenges of ensuring accountability and human rights protection in such environments.

DR Congo

COD has been a site of persistent armed conflict involving various non-state armed groups, resulting in widespread human rights abuses and humanitarian emergencies.

Role in topic

The situation in COD highlights the devastating consequences of armed non-state actor activity, providing a crucial context for discussions on civilian protection, resource exploitation, and the role of international intervention.

Yemen

YEM is embroiled in a protracted conflict with multiple armed non-state actors, leading to one of the world's most severe humanitarian crises and extensive human rights violations.

Role in topic

YEM serves as a stark example of the complexities of armed non-state actor involvement in civil wars, demonstrating the challenges in delivering humanitarian aid and protecting human rights amidst ongoing hostilities.

Topics & background

The background behind each topic and the actors that shape it.

The Universal Human Rights Framework and Armed Non-State Actors

The modern human rights regime was constructed around states: the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the 1966 International Covenants, and the regional conventions all impose obligations primarily on governments. Yet a growing share of contemporary abuses—killings, abductions, sexual violence, forced displacement—are committed by armed non-state actors (ANSAs) such as insurgent groups, militias, cartels, and designated terrorist organizations operating in places like Syria, Myanmar, the Sahel, Colombia, and the eastern Democratic Republic of the Congo. The legal debate over whether ANSAs bear human rights obligations directly, or only obligations under international humanitarian law (IHL) when they are parties to an armed conflict, has intensified since the 2011 OHCHR commissions of inquiry on Libya and Syria began documenting ANSA conduct under human rights language. UN Security Council resolutions on children and armed conflict (1612), conflict-related sexual violence (1820, 2467), and counterterrorism have gradually woven non-state actors into the human rights conversation, but enforcement remains fragmented. Today the central dispute is normative and practical: how to extend recognized rights protections to populations living under the effective control of armed groups without legitimizing those groups, and how to reconcile state sovereignty with humanitarian engagement. The OHCHR, Geneva Call, and special procedures mandate holders continue to push for clearer standards.

Key players

Conflict Resolution Involving Armed Non-State Actors

Since the end of the Cold War, the share of armed conflicts that are intrastate or internationalized intrastate has grown to over 80% of active conflicts tracked by the Uppsala Conflict Data Program. This has reshaped conflict resolution: peace processes increasingly involve negotiations with rebel movements, insurgents, and paramilitaries, from the 1998 Good Friday Agreement and the 2005 Comprehensive Peace Agreement in Sudan to the 2016 Colombian peace accord with the FARC and ongoing talks in Yemen and the Philippines. Mediation practice has evolved through the UN Department of Political and Peacebuilding Affairs Mediation Support Unit, the 2012 UN Guidance for Effective Mediation, and Track II initiatives by groups like the Centre for Humanitarian Dialogue and the Berghof Foundation. Yet conflict resolution with ANSAs faces persistent obstacles: counterterrorism listings can criminalize dialogue, host states may refuse third-party mediation, and many ANSAs are internally fragmented or financed through illicit economies that disincentivize settlement. The current debate centers on how to design inclusive processes that bring ANSAs to the table without compromising accountability, how to sequence ceasefires, disarmament, and political reform, and how to sustain agreements through DDR (disarmament, demobilization, reintegration) and security sector reform.

Key players

Patterns of Violence by Armed Non-State Actors

Violence by ANSAs ranges from organized insurgency and terrorism to cartel and gang violence and communal militia attacks. The post-2001 era of counterterrorism focused attention on transnational jihadist networks—Al-Qaeda, Islamic State, and their affiliates in the Sahel, Lake Chad Basin, and Mozambique—while parallel surges in cartel violence in Mexico and Central America, and gang rule in Haiti, blurred the line between political and criminal violence. UN documentation, including reports of the Secretary-General on conflict-related sexual violence and on children and armed conflict, has catalogued recurring patterns: targeting of civilians, recruitment of minors, sexual and gender-based violence, attacks on schools and hospitals, and use of explosive weapons in populated areas. The 2022 political declaration on explosive weapons (EWIPA) and the Safe Schools Declaration are recent attempts to constrain these practices, but ANSAs are not formal signatories and compliance is uneven. Delegates must grapple with how to characterize different forms of ANSA violence under international law, how to protect civilians in areas of contested control, and how to address drivers including illicit financing, small arms proliferation, and grievances rooted in marginalization.

Key players

Human Rights Violations by Armed Non-State Actors

Although international human rights law was drafted to bind states, UN commissions of inquiry on Syria (2011), Libya (2011), South Sudan, Myanmar, and Ukraine have routinely documented violations by ANSAs using human rights vocabulary. Groups such as ISIS, Boko Haram, the RSF in Sudan, the M23 in eastern DRC, and Hamas have been credibly accused of summary executions, sexual violence, hostage-taking, forced recruitment of children, and persecution of minorities. The normative basis for holding ANSAs accountable for these acts draws from common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions, Additional Protocol II, the Rome Statute of the ICC (which applies to individuals regardless of affiliation), and emerging UN practice. Geneva Call's Deeds of Commitment have engaged hundreds of armed groups on bans of antipersonnel mines, protection of children, and prohibition of sexual violence, demonstrating that direct engagement is possible. The core dispute is how to expand documentation and condemnation of ANSA abuses without weakening state obligations or providing groups with implicit recognition. Sanctions regimes, ICC referrals, and universal jurisdiction prosecutions are increasingly used, but coverage remains selective.

Key players

Accountability Mechanisms for Armed Non-State Actors

Accountability for ANSAs has developed unevenly. The ad hoc tribunals for the former Yugoslavia and Rwanda established that individuals from non-state forces could be prosecuted for war crimes and genocide. The 1998 Rome Statute extended this to a permanent court, and the ICC has indicted leaders of the LRA, M23, and other groups. UN-backed mechanisms—the IIIM for Syria, UNITAD for ISIS crimes in Iraq, and the IIMM for Myanmar—now collect and preserve evidence even where prosecutions are not immediately possible. Beyond criminal accountability, the UN Security Council uses targeted sanctions, including asset freezes and travel bans, against ANSA leaders under regimes covering Somalia, the DRC, Mali, and the Central African Republic. Domestic universal jurisdiction cases—in Germany, France, Sweden, and the Netherlands—have produced landmark convictions of Syrian and ISIS figures. Civil society reporting, Geneva Call's commitments, and naming-and-shaming in the Secretary-General's annexes on children and armed conflict provide softer accountability. The debate now is whether to create more direct mechanisms for ANSA accountability, such as treaty-based reporting obligations or hybrid courts, while addressing concerns from states that fear legitimization of armed groups or external interference.

Key players

Transitional Justice in Post-Conflict Societies

Transitional justice emerged from Latin American democratic transitions in the 1980s, South Africa's Truth and Reconciliation Commission in the 1990s, and post-genocide processes in Rwanda and the Balkans. The 2004 Report of the Secretary-General on the Rule of Law and Transitional Justice and the appointment of a Special Rapporteur on the promotion of truth, justice, reparation and guarantees of non-recurrence in 2011 established a consolidated UN framework built on four pillars: criminal prosecutions, truth-seeking, reparations, and institutional reform. Recent and ongoing processes—in Colombia (the Special Jurisdiction for Peace), The Gambia, Tunisia, Sri Lanka, and prospective frameworks for Syria and Ukraine—illustrate persistent tensions: peace versus justice, amnesty versus prosecution, individual versus collective reparations, and the role of victims and ANSAs in the process. Hybrid courts, such as the Kosovo Specialist Chambers and earlier examples in Sierra Leone and Cambodia, remain a contested model. The core debate involves how to sequence and finance transitional justice in fragile contexts, how to address abuses by ANSAs alongside state forces, and how to ensure that transitional arrangements satisfy victims without entrenching impunity through blanket amnesties that violate emerging international norms.

Key players

The Role of Civil Society in Conflict Resolution

Civil society—NGOs, faith-based organizations, women's networks, professional associations, and community leaders—has shaped conflict resolution from the Quaker mediations in Biafra to women's mobilization in Liberia and Northern Ireland. UN Security Council Resolution 1325 (2000) on Women, Peace and Security formally recognized civil society's role, and the 2015 review of UN peace operations (HIPPO) called for more inclusive peace processes. Civil society delivers humanitarian aid, documents abuses, builds intercommunal trust, monitors ceasefires, and channels victims' voices into formal negotiations. Yet civic space is shrinking in many conflict-affected contexts. CIVICUS Monitor and OHCHR have documented restrictions on NGO registration, foreign funding limits, criminalization of humanitarian engagement with designated ANSAs, and targeting of peacebuilders. The post-2014 surge in counterterrorism financing rules has had particular chilling effects on humanitarian and mediation work, prompting the 2022 UNSC Resolution 2664 humanitarian carve-out. The current debate addresses how to formalize civil society's role in Track I and Track II processes, protect human rights defenders and humanitarian workers, and reconcile counterterrorism frameworks with the need for principled engagement with ANSAs.

Key players

International Humanitarian Law and Armed Groups

International humanitarian law (IHL) binds all parties to armed conflict, including ANSAs. Common Article 3 of the 1949 Geneva Conventions and the 1977 Additional Protocol II set out core protections in non-international armed conflicts (NIACs), supplemented by customary IHL as catalogued by the ICRC's 2005 study. Since most contemporary conflicts are NIACs, the IHL framework for ANSAs has become central, covering distinction, proportionality, protection of medical and humanitarian personnel, and treatment of detainees. Application remains difficult. ANSAs may lack the capacity or willingness to comply, may not view themselves as bound by treaties they never signed, and frequently operate amid civilians whose protection is hardest to ensure. The ICRC engages directly and confidentially with hundreds of armed groups; Geneva Call obtains formal Deeds of Commitment; and UN inquiries increasingly invoke IHL violations alongside human rights abuses. The interplay between IHL and counterterrorism law has created friction, particularly around medical care and humanitarian assistance to areas under ANSA control. Delegates must weigh how to strengthen ANSA compliance with IHL, whether through training, conditional engagement, or sanctions, and how to ensure humanitarian access in conflicts where designated terrorist groups are parties.

Key players

Resources

News, lessons, and country profiles to prep for International Conference on Human Rights and Armed Non-State Actors (ICHRANSA - 26).

Recent reporting to ground your prep

Supreme Court's Voting Rights Impact on 2026

Trump's Federal Election Strategy

Supreme Court VRA Ruling Empowers GOP 2026

AAP's Internal Crisis

Lessons

Bite-sized lessons to build the basics

Hidden Stakeholders

Engagement Strategies

Dynamic Analysis

Stakeholder Mapping Workshop

Courses

Guided courses that go deeper on the topic

Conflict Resolution

Advanced Negotiation

Multilateral Negotiation

Policy Brief Writing

The states in play, with the data that shapes their stance

Switzerland August 2026

By committee

Frequently asked questions

International Conference on Human Rights and Armed Non-State Actors (ICHRANSA - 26)

Aug 7–8, 2026Zurich, SwitzerlandIn-person

ConcludedRegistration closed

Committees & topics

Topics
The Universal Human Rights Framework and Armed Non-State Actors · Conflict Resolution Involving Armed Non-State Actors · Patterns of Violence by Armed Non-State Actors · Human Rights Violations by Armed Non-State Actors · Accountability Mechanisms for Armed Non-State Actors · Transitional Justice in Post-Conflict Societies · The Role of Civil Society in Conflict Resolution · International Humanitarian Law and Armed Groups

Why it matters

How to prepare

Country perspectives

Where the most-relevant 4 countries stand on the core issues in play. Click through for the full country profile.

Switzerland

As the host nation, CHE maintains a strong tradition of neutrality and humanitarian diplomacy, often serving as a hub for international law and human rights discussions.

Role in topic

Syria

SYR has experienced prolonged conflict involving numerous armed non-state actors, leading to severe human rights challenges and a complex humanitarian crisis.

Role in topic

DR Congo

COD has been a site of persistent armed conflict involving various non-state armed groups, resulting in widespread human rights abuses and humanitarian emergencies.

Role in topic

Yemen

YEM is embroiled in a protracted conflict with multiple armed non-state actors, leading to one of the world's most severe humanitarian crises and extensive human rights violations.

Role in topic