The Legal Status of Rebels and Rebellion

Abstract

I Civil war in our time has assumed an ever increasing role. This is because war between states at least between nuclear powers has become too hazardous a venture, so that the super powers are trying to achieve by means of civil wars what used to be effected through wars. 'If empire once depended primarily upon the extent of colonial occupation, it now increasingly depends upon the capacity to influence the outcome of important internal wars', Falk justly remarked.1 Hence their interventions, hence also the pains they will take to promote the rise of the desired civil wars. Decolonisation offered great opportunities for civil strife. The former colonial borders were the outcome of power relations between European nations. They ran through ethnic groups and religious communities. It was easy to stimulate separatist movements. Another cause is even more significant: the masses of Asia, Africa and South America have gradually woken up or are beginning to do so. They revolt against their fate. They demand social-economic changes. In some countries they have already risen against the ruling class which, in collaboration with the rich part of the world, let themselves be the instrument of exploitation of the country and its population. Each of the continents mentioned above has produced striking characters preaching violent resistance: Frantz Fanon (Africa), Che Guevara (Latin America), Ho tsi Min and Mao tse Tung (Asia).2 Rebellion and violent action are propagated because of the prevailing conviction that peaceful means are ineffectual. This line will become increasingly popular if the established order is maintained. And for the time being it does not look as if the ruling powers intend to cooperate in the matter of necessary change. Civil war has a great future among the poor nations. Therefore it is of importance to examine the legal status, according to international law, of the rebel and of rebellion.