Reassessing Control and Dependency in State-Supported Armed Groups: Legal Implications and Limitations Presented by: Narissa Ramsundar Date: March 28, 2022 Dependence - High dependency is insufficient, what is required is complete dependency - Evaluation of evidence to consider: 1. Creation of the group 2. Infusion of funds, logistical and other forms of military support 3. Ability of the group to survive without these funds and military support 4. Was the dependency total or did the group maintain a real margin of independence Control  Control over the military or paramilitary operation in the course of which international crimes occurred;  By radio or direct command  Removal of doubt could well be committed by members of the contras without the control Motivations For States To Support Armed Groups  The support of an armed group serves as a means to prevent direct confrontation with another state but nevertheless realize foreign policy objectives without the costs of a dedicated policy objective;  The armed group may have an ideological connection with major religious or ethnic groups in the supporting state and want to imprint that ideology on the state the group operates;  To extract human and material resources within the borders of other countries, without the intentional sponsorship of these states or governments;  To use support of an armed group to conquer one state so as to launch into more elaborate military strategies on neighboring states. Reality Of The Relationship - ... "It is appropriate to look beyond legal status alone, in order to grasp the reality of the relationship between the person taking action, and the State to which he is so closely attached as to appear to be nothing more than its agent: any other solution would allow States to escape their international responsibility by choosing to act through persons or entities whose supposed independence would be purely fictitious." [392] Different Forms Of Control Dependency relationships maintain power imbalance that: 1. Can afford a psychological dimension for control that allows the powerful to manipulate plans, goals, strategies of the weaker party; 2. Take a supervisory role in the planning of military operations in situations where it is directly foreseeable that international crimes are likely to happen; 3. Creates a common criminal purpose in the relationship as the means to achieve the goals of the group are within a general context that international crimes can occur; 4. Allows for the Hinter Mann, i.e. an armchair controller that facilitates the commission of international crimes. Limitations Of Current Interpretations Of Effective Control Does not include: 1. Psychological control 2. Ideological or ideational control 3. Manipulation of the group to achieve supporting states own foreign policy agenda: a. Through legislating for aid for the group in congress/parliament as part of foreign budget b. Using the group to create "puppet" states to assist in invasions, annexations c. Using the group to exploit neighboring resources for the benefit of the supporting state Prevent And Punish Duties  Due diligence obligations on treaty and customary norms  Distinguishable from criminal responsibility and does not call out the role of the state in driving international crimes through subversive means Limitations Of The Complete Dependency Test Does not include: 1. Sequentially capacitation of the membership of the group; 2. Empowerment of the group's ability to complete conquests via funds infusions; 3. Development of intelligence and tactical planning skills which function as key scaffolding in the perpetuation of the group's Success; 4. Impact of administrative support in keeping the group viable. Suggestions - Reinterpretation of the tests of effective control and complete dependence to factor in indirect forms of control; - Create a lex specialist for articles 4 and 8; - Vary the tests of attribution to overall control or high dependence.