About the author(s):
Pascal Bongard is Co-Director of the Centre on Armed Groups and Humanitarian Research Scholar with the Fordham University’s Institute of International Humanitarian Affairs. He has extensive experience in humanitarian engagement with armed groups and has published widely on the issue. He was a Co-Investigator of the research project https://words2deeds.org/ on armed groups’ practice and interpretation of international humanitarian norms. He holds an MSc in Comparative Politics from the London School of Economics and an MSc in International Relations from the Geneva Graduate Institute of International and Development Studies.
Anki Sjöberg
Ann-Kristin “Anki” Sjöberg is the Co-Director and Founder of Fight for Humanity, focusing on extending human rights to armed and political actors, especially armed groups. She has 16 years of experience from working in the non-profit sector on issues linked to conflict, security, armed groups, and gender. She holds a PhD in International Relations focused on Political Science from the Graduate Institute of International and Development Studies, Geneva, Switzerland.
This post forms part of the Beyond Compliance Symposium: How to Prevent Harm and Need in Conflict, featured across Articles of War and Armed Groups and International Law. The introductory post can be found here. The symposium invites reflection on the conceptualisation of negative everyday lived experiences of armed conflict, and legal and extra-legal strategies that can effectively address harm and need.
This post builds on the authors’ experience in conducting consultations with non-State armed groups as well as an earlier internal research commissioned by Save the Children.
Non-state armed groups (NSAGs) play an increasingly important role in today’s armed conflicts. According to the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC), some 210 million people live in areas under the full or contested control of NSAGs. Some NSAGs have established de facto authorities and state-like governing structures in territories they rule. These actors impact the lives of civilian populations in many ways. In some instances, NSAGs attack civilians and civilian infrastructure, including schools, universities, hospitals, and markets, or use them for military purposes. In other instances, NSAGs, their civilian authorities or humanitarian wings, facilitate or even provide basic services, such as education and health care.
The Importance of Research Consultations with NSAGs
In recognition of the critical role played by NSAGs, there has been a growing trend of humanitarian engagement and consultations with these groups in recent years. This approach stems from the realisation that addressing the needs and harm experienced by civilian populations, requires comprehension of the perspectives and practices of both States and NSAGs. Moreover, consultations with NSAGs offer unique insights for understanding dynamics in conflict zones that can serve stakeholders beyond the humanitarian community, such as peace, development, and academic actors operating in or focused on specific contexts.
When discussing how to incorporate NSAGs into the development of norms in international law, Heffes and Somer propose what they call a “participation model” for NSAGs. They identify five levels of participation: inform, consult, involve, collaborate, and empower. These processes, they argue, can exist in parallel. While acknowledging the multiple limitations on the active involvement of NSAGs in norms development, the authors conclude that “such formal processes should establish means to at least consult NSAGs, and eventually aim, if the political climate allows, to involve them.” Even though their analysis looks at norm development, which goes beyond the scope of this article, the first three categories – inform, consult, and involve – remain relevant for consultation methodologies.
Examples of Research Consultations with NSAGs
A recent example relates to the Practical Measures for Armed Actors to Prevent and Mitigate Conflict-Induced Food Insecurity, a new guidance tool developed by InterAction and a Steering Committee composed of UN, NGOs, and academics. Interestingly, a concerted effort was made to seek meaningful feedback from NSAGsduring the drafting process. Five NSAGs and affiliated organisations from Colombia, Mali, Myanmar and Syria were consulted by the Centre on Armed Groups and Fight for Humanity to solicit their perspectives on the feasibility, relevance, and potential impact of the measures. Key inputs were collected during these consultations and integrated into the final document released last May. Moreover, the consultations created awareness, buy-in, and a sense of ownership from the NSAGs on the topic and the guidance tool.
Other examples of consultations with NSAGs include: The role of NSAGs in implementing the Women, Peace and Security agenda in Myanmar and Yemen (Fight for Humanity and Berghof Foundation, 2024); NSAGs’ practice and interpretation of international humanitarian law and human rights norms (Geneva Graduate Institute, 2022); The practice and challenges of NSAGs engaging in reparations (Lukas Moffet, 2021); The conduct of hostilities by NSAGs (Geneva Call, 2020); Child protection and education by NSAGs (Geneva Call/Protect Education in Insecurity and Conflict – PEIC – 2016); Safeguarding the provision of health care(ICRC, 2015); Perceptions of NSAGs on humanitarian action (Geneva Call, 2015).
Terminology
It is worth noting that a few of the consultation efforts that have been undertaken with NSAGs have employed different terminologies, some use the concept of “perception study,” while others are framed as “consultations” or different types of research, including participatory action research. The choice of terminology is already a first step in the engagement process with NSAGs. While there is no definitive right or wrong choice, as it depends on the purpose of the engagement, we should be aware that different concepts can convey differentmessages to NSAGs. For example, “consultation” could be seen more like a process where one is seeking the feedback (and potentially approval) of an approach, a way of working, or a document, whereas the use of the terms “study” or “research” could position NSAGs more as “objects” of analysis rather than as “subjects.” Nevertheless, when it comes to how the NSAGs view for example humanitarians, perception could be appropriate terminology.
Approaches
Based on the levels of engagement defined by Heffes and Somer above, the below table develops the three main levels of NSAG research consultations that humanitarian and human rights organisations could engage in: information, consultation, and involvement. The choice of approach depends on the purposes of the consultations.
Types of NSAG consultations
| Inform | Consult | Involve | |
| Level of stakeholder engagement | To provide NSAGs with information on an organisation’s mandate and working principles (transparency). | To understand NSAGs perceptions on a topic and obtain their feedback on an organisation’s work and programming (provision of services, protection, etc.). | To exchange views between NSAGs, humanitarian/human rights organisations and other relevant stakeholders on key challenges and identify potential actions to address them. |
| Methodologies | Sharing of brief reports and sample material; Information sessions; Public campaigns; “Classical” trainings and presentations (lecture type); Use of local insiders to pass on messages. | Thorough desk research on NSAG policies and practices;Interviews with NSAGs and key external informants;Focus group discussion (FGD). | Workshops/conferences; Expert meetings; Participatory trainings that engage the perspectives and experiences of the NSAGs;Insider researchers, participatory action, research where members of the NSAGs take part inthe data collection process (including the development of the methodology and the analysis and writing parts if possible). |
| Outcomes | NSAGs accept an organisation and allow for its activities. | Development of informed strategies of engagement with NSAGs and of sustainable programmes in areas where they operate. | NSAG participation or involvement in implementation. |
| When to use it | NSAGs are relevant, but not crucial for the success of an organisation’s programmes. A go-to-choice when the policies and practices of the NSAGs are inconsistent with international normsand good practices (e.g. involvement of the NSAGs in the organisation’s work is not desirable). | NSAGs are important for the success of an organisation’s programmes and their perspectives and policies are not well known. Useful when relationships with NSAGs are broken/needs mending. Can be useful when the policies of the NSAGs are partially aligned with international norms and good practices, but their practices need improvement. | NSAGs are crucial for the success of an organisation’s programmes, notably in the case of de facto authorities. The policies and practices of the NSAGs are mostly aligned with international norms and good practices. |
There might be situations in which research consultations may not be productive and should be avoided; when they cause for example risks to researchers or participants, when the NSAGs are not receptive, or too loosely organised, etc. Ethical considerations should be evaluated prior to any consultations.
Ten practical steps for research consultations with NSAGs
To effectively conduct “data collection” or consultations with NSAGs, a number of preparatory steps are needed. While no specific checklists of “do’s” and “don’ts” for NSAG consultations exist, some lessons can be drawn from previous humanitarian and human rights engagement with these actors. Based on our experience, the following steps can guide NSAG consultations:
Step 1: Conduct a comprehensive analysis of the target NSAG. Understanding the NSAG’s perceptions and existing policies on the specific topic is essential for effective engagement. This analysis could either be carried out in-house or by external experts, depending on limitations concerning capacities, funding, and time.
Step 2: Identify the right entry points and methods for consultations. Effective entry points could be insiders/semi-insiders who can provide insights into the NSAG, as well as offer advice on which members to target within the NSAG and what methodology of consultation to use.
Step 3: Define who will conduct the consultation. The consultations can either be conducted directly by humanitarian or human rights organisations or in collaboration with partners or consultants, depending on existing sensitivities or limitations concerning capacities and time. In some cases, involving an insider to leadthe consultations directly, might generate different dynamics and information.
Step 4: Frame the issue and prepare questions. The questions and wording should be informed by the initial analysis conducted and will need to be slightly adapted to each interlocutor. Preparing a cover letter and a written questionnaire might be necessary, as the insiders/semi-insiders and/or stakeholders may need to share it in advance to secure approval from the superiors to participate. Some stakeholders may prefer to respond in writing. Share the draft data collection tools with experts on the NSAG or with the insider for feedback. They will be aware of sensitive wording and framing that is perceived in a more positive way.
Step 5: Define how to utilise the consultations. Undertaking consultations with NSAGs provides a conducive basis for engagement or reengagement with them if relationships need to be reset. Be prepared to outline potential next steps, as this can incentivise NSAG cooperation.
Step 6: Inform NSAG leadership and agree on the process. Failure to involve NSAG leadership risks undermining the consultation’s success, potentially jeopardising participants or creating obstacles that reduce effectiveness.
Step 7: Define how you will analyse the findings from the consultations, for example which legal framework to use. When engaging with NSAGs, particularly de facto authorities, it may be useful to encourage them to go beyond their IHL obligations. For this, we can adopt a human rights framework when analysing their obligations.
Step 8: Undertake NSAG consultations. As discussed above, this can be done in many different ways and be adapted to your objectives, the security situation, the available budget, etc. All consultations must be supported by robust research ethics, duty of care, and data protection processes.
Step 9: Undertake additional consultations with external stakeholders. In addition to the information gathered from the NSAGs, it is important to consult with relevant humanitarian actors or experts in order to obtain a more nuanced perspective. Depending on the use you will make of the data this may be sensitive though. If you are presenting it as a perception study, contrasting their information with external data might be counter-productive, depending on how you do it.
Step 10: Provide feedback to the NSAGs. Share the draft research outputs for additional consultation and once finalised, inform the participants (and leadership, if applicable) of the outcomes of the consultations and potential next steps. This is usually forgotten, but it is important for maintaining dialogue, providing the full picture to NSAG participants, and aligns with ethical research principles.
Conclusion
Over the past decade there has been increasing analysis of the perceptions of NSAGs on a number of issues related to harm and need in conflict. These studies, conducted by a number of organisations, entailed the consultation of NSAGs across various contexts.
Building on these experiences, the research project of the Beyond Compliance Consortium, aims to build evidence on promoting restraint by armed actors. To achieve this, the project will employ different methodologies, including research consultations with NSAGs. This approach aligns with the Beyond Compliance Consortium’s methodology, which, drawing on framing theory, will look at how, why, and with what outcomes different actors employ concepts such as civilian harm, humanitarian need, restraint and compliance.
Knowing that we cannot take what conflict actors say at face value, the collected information will be triangulated with other sources. Yet, it still provides value per se as representations of the narratives of the NSAGs. By better understanding these narratives, the research can help identify and strengthen strategies that promote compliance and restraint in war, including in areas under NSAG control.