Internal armed conflicts: Inherent imbalances in accountability

Unlike conflicts between states where parties to an armed conflict are required to abide by internationally accepted rules of war, inherent imbalances in accountability exist in the case of internal armed conflicts between state and non-state actors for different reasons.

- BY NEVILLE LADDUWAHETTY

This is the case with the armed conflict between the Sri Lankan state and the non-state actor - the LTTE. These imbalances are due to the fact that although the Sri Lankan state and the LTTE as parties to the conflict are bound alike, the evidence against the LTTE is not enforceable due the nonexistence of its perpetrators, unlike in the case of the security forces.

In such a context, where those who participated in the conflict on behalf of the Sri Lankan government and the LTTE are citizens of Sri Lanka, accountability for actions relating to the armed conflict should be guided by a combination of its existing domestic laws and those international laws that Sri Lanka has accepted as part of domestic law, except for military acts. Furthermore, the question of enforcing punishment for violations committed during and after hostilities ceased, is different due to the fact that identification and access to LTTE violators presents a near impossible challenge, while it is not so with the Sri Lankan security forces. Consequently, imbalances in accountability are inevitable.

THE IMBALANCE in ACCOUNTABILITY

The inherent imbalance between state and non-states actors such as the LTTE, enables them to evade consequences of accountability to an extent that it amounts to a virtual amnesty, while the security forces would be compelled to face the full rigors of investigations and punishment. The resulting outcome would be the serious polarization of the communities and a barrier to reconciliation.