Scholarlink

<p>Maritime militias, increasingly institutionalized by states as hybrid entities, blur the traditional demarcation between state and non-state actors. However, international law lacks explicit regulations for these “soldier-civilian” collectives. Existing analyzes primarily invoke <i>the UNCLOS</i> in peacetime, <i>international humanitarian law</i> during armed conflict, and <i>the ARSIWA</i>. Functioning as state actors under government control, maritime militias predominantly conduct law enforcement and quasi-military operations, with their state responsibilities firmly rooted in domestic legal mandates. Conversely, as private actors, they largely engage in routine fishing, voluntary safeguarding of maritime rights, and wartime civilian assistance. A balanced legal framework is imperative, as these entities simultaneously mitigate escalation risks while generating ambiguities in attributing responsibility. To address this duality, future international legal developments should adopt a comprehensive approach that not only rigorously defines internationally wrongful acts under both peacetime and wartime conditions, but also implies permission for some actions in the absence of explicit legal prohibitions. Consequently, it would leverage non-state actors’ potential as soft power to mitigate conflict threats, avoid new legal risks, and promote the evolution of the global legal system.</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

Maritime militias in international law: state actors or private actors

  • 期刊论文

  • 出版模式：

    开放获取

  • 发表日期：

    2025年8月21日

查看全文
  • Jie Liu,
  • Haoran Cui

摘要

Maritime militias, increasingly institutionalized by states as hybrid entities, blur the traditional demarcation between state and non-state actors. However, international law lacks explicit regulations for these “soldier-civilian” collectives. Existing analyzes primarily invoke the UNCLOS in peacetime, international humanitarian law during armed conflict, and the ARSIWA. Functioning as state actors under government control, maritime militias predominantly conduct law enforcement and quasi-military operations, with their state responsibilities firmly rooted in domestic legal mandates. Conversely, as private actors, they largely engage in routine fishing, voluntary safeguarding of maritime rights, and wartime civilian assistance. A balanced legal framework is imperative, as these entities simultaneously mitigate escalation risks while generating ambiguities in attributing responsibility. To address this duality, future international legal developments should adopt a comprehensive approach that not only rigorously defines internationally wrongful acts under both peacetime and wartime conditions, but also implies permission for some actions in the absence of explicit legal prohibitions. Consequently, it would leverage non-state actors’ potential as soft power to mitigate conflict threats, avoid new legal risks, and promote the evolution of the global legal system.