Scholarlink

<p>This article examines the legality under international law of taxation by non-state armed groups (NSAGs) for the purpose of funding rebel governance, focusing on its compatibility with the prohibition of pillage under international humanitarian law (IHL). While rebel taxation’s role within rebel governance structures continues to grow, its legal status remains ambiguous, particularly due to the lack of specific IHL provisions regulating this practice. This article thus evaluates the legality of taxation by NSAGs against the rule deemed the most suitable for this assessment: the prohibition of pillage. The analysis highlights the complexities of rebel governance, where taxation transcends simple resource extraction to serve political, organisational, and economic purposes. The findings demonstrate how international law’s state-centric framework inadequately addresses the realities of rebel governance, ultimately calling for greater clarity in legal standards to regulate taxation and governance by armed groups in conflict zones.</p>

错误：搜索内容不能为空，请输入英文关键词
错误：关键词超出字数限制，请精简
高级检索

Covering the Expenses of Rebel Administration: Are Rebels Taxing or Pillaging Towns?

  • 期刊论文

  • 出版模式：

    开放获取

  • 发表日期：

    2025年9月16日

查看全文
  • Lautaro Melcón

摘要

This article examines the legality under international law of taxation by non-state armed groups (NSAGs) for the purpose of funding rebel governance, focusing on its compatibility with the prohibition of pillage under international humanitarian law (IHL). While rebel taxation’s role within rebel governance structures continues to grow, its legal status remains ambiguous, particularly due to the lack of specific IHL provisions regulating this practice. This article thus evaluates the legality of taxation by NSAGs against the rule deemed the most suitable for this assessment: the prohibition of pillage. The analysis highlights the complexities of rebel governance, where taxation transcends simple resource extraction to serve political, organisational, and economic purposes. The findings demonstrate how international law’s state-centric framework inadequately addresses the realities of rebel governance, ultimately calling for greater clarity in legal standards to regulate taxation and governance by armed groups in conflict zones.