#PapuaExpertStudy Category: Non-International Armed Conflict #InternationalLaw

Summary

This video delves into the legal and humanitarian complexities of the ongoing conflict in Papua, Indonesia. It explores the classification of the conflict under international law, with a focus on the status of armed groups and civilian protection. The discussion highlights the state's refusal to recognize the situation as a non-international armed conflict, and the consequences of labeling groups as criminals. Experts emphasize the need for political dialogue, transparency, and accountability, alongside recommendations for resolving the conflict through legal clarity, humanitarian aid, and restoring trust. The video aims to raise awareness for a peaceful resolution while safeguarding human rights.

Takeaways

• 😀 The conflict in Papua meets the definition of an armed conflict under international law, with de facto armed force between the state and non-state armed groups.
• 😀 International humanitarian law recognizes two types of armed conflict: international and non-international, with the Papua situation fitting the criteria for non-international armed conflict.
• 😀 For a conflict to be categorized as non-international armed conflict, there must be sustained armed violence and a non-state armed group with an organized structure and clear political objectives.
• 😀 The Indonesian government refuses to acknowledge the conflict as non-international armed conflict, which avoids the application of international humanitarian law and the protection of civilians.
• 😀 Labeling armed groups in Papua as criminals (such as KKB or KKP) prevents international scrutiny, humanitarian access, and civilian protection under international law.
• 😀 The strategy of labeling groups as criminals instead of recognizing their political agenda blocks international interference and allows the state to conduct military operations without adhering to international standards.
• 😀 Despite these challenges, opportunities for peace still exist, especially through inclusive dialogue, as demonstrated in the Aceh conflict resolution.
• 😀 Dialogue in Papua should include the government, armed groups, traditional leaders, churches, and civil society to address the region's political, historical, human rights, and economic issues.
• 😀 The state's approach to Papua has been security-based, often neglecting the root causes of the conflict, which include human rights violations and economic inequality.
• 😀 Transparency and accountability in military operations are crucial. The public has the right to ask about the legal basis for military actions and how state resources are used in conflict zones like Papua.

Q & A

What is the central legal question in the conflict in Papua?

The main legal question revolves around whether the conflict in Papua can be classified as an armed conflict under international law, which would trigger protections for civilians and other humanitarian obligations.

What are the two main categories of armed conflict under international law?

International armed conflict (between two or more countries) and non-international armed conflict (between state officials and non-state armed groups within the same country's territory).

What criteria are needed to classify a conflict as a non-international armed conflict?

To be classified as a non-international armed conflict, the situation must involve sustained and high levels of armed violence and must include non-state armed groups with an adequate organizational structure, operational capabilities, and political objectives.

Why does the Indonesian government refuse to recognize the conflict in Papua as a non-international armed conflict?

The Indonesian government avoids recognizing the conflict as a non-international armed conflict because it would invoke international humanitarian law, making the state accountable to international organizations and binding it to stricter legal standards regarding the protection of civilians.

What are the consequences of labeling the Papua conflict as a 'criminal' issue rather than an armed conflict?

Labeling the conflict as criminal allows the government to avoid international legal obligations, thus enabling more repressive actions and limiting humanitarian access, while also stigmatizing individuals involved in the conflict or critical of the state.

What has been the impact of the evolving labels for armed groups in Papua, such as 'OPM,' 'KKB,' and 'KKP'?

The changing labels serve as part of a political and legal strategy to deny the political nature of the armed groups' actions, avoid international scrutiny, and limit the recognition of their struggle for independence, framing them solely as criminal groups.

How can dialogue contribute to resolving the conflict in Papua?

Inclusive dialogue, which involves all stakeholders including the government, armed groups, and civil society, is seen as essential to resolving the conflict. Past successes, such as the peace agreement in Aceh, provide a model for such efforts in Papua.

What role does the Truth and Reconciliation Commission (TRC) play in the peace process in Papua?

The TRC could play a crucial role in acknowledging past human rights violations, offering reparations, and helping to rebuild trust among Papuans, providing a platform for justice and healing.

Why is the classification of the conflict in Papua as a non-international armed conflict important for civilian protection?

If recognized as a non-international armed conflict, international humanitarian law would require the government to adhere to principles protecting civilians, such as proportionality, distinction between combatants and non-combatants, and the obligation to minimize harm to civilians.

What steps should the Indonesian government take to ensure the legality and accountability of military operations in Papua?

The government must first determine the legal status of military operations in Papua, ensuring transparency, budget accountability, and adherence to national and international legal frameworks. This would help prevent further civilian harm and provide legitimacy to the actions taken.