Weaponizing Civilians: Human Shielding and the Politics of Legitimacy in Non-International Armed Conflicts

• In Event: Human Security

Abstract

Why do some non-state armed groups use human shields even though it is explicitly prohibited under International Humanitarian Law (IHL) and constitutes a war crime under the Rome Statute? Can violations of IHL serve as an instrument of legitimacy for these groups? This study argues that, beyond the military advantages human shielding provides, it functions as an effective political strategy for legitimacy-seeking non state armed groups (NSAGs). With asymmetric warfare increasingly becoming a predominant form of modern-day conflict, NSAGs often rely on unconventional tactics to compensate for military and resource disparities. Among them, human shielding remains one of the most controversial practices. Although this practice is widely recognized as legally and morally indefensible, ambiguities within the existing legal frameworks and the lack of adequate regulatory and enforcement mechanisms create a legal gray zone. NSAGs exploit these gaps to reframe legal constraints as strategic opportunities. These groups portray themselves as the victims or the defenders, and accuse their opponents of not upholding legal obligations and of using disproportionate force. Drawing from constructivist theory, this study proposes that NSAGs claim legitimacy by shaping local and international public opinion through retaliation, reinterpretation of legal norms, and strategically shifting the blame to their opponents. It employs a comparative case analysis of NSAGs across different regions in non-international armed conflict settings. While existing scholarship focuses on human shielding predominantly from a legal, military, or ethical lens, this study positions it as a political act.

Author

• Gamze Ozker, Independent Researcher