Criminalizing Acts of Rebel Governance as War Crimes: An Assessment Focused on the War Crime of Sentencing or Execution without Due Process.

This article examines the legal and policy appropriateness of criminalizing governance activities performed by non-state armed groups controlling territory as war crimes, focusing on justice administration and the Al Hassan case before the International Criminal Court (ICC). It argues against an overly broad interpretation of the nexus requirement—the necessary link between conduct and armed conflict—that would classify all rebel governance acts as war crimes, noting that such an approach conflicts with international humanitarian law and leads to unfair, asymmetric criminalization of non-state armed groups. Instead, the article supports a "restricted nexus" approach, where only acts directly related to the armed conflict qualify as war crimes, while ordinary governance activities, including justice administration, fall under other legal frameworks such as international human rights law. It further proposes criteria to distinguish when non-state armed groups' justice administration constitutes rebel governance exempt from war crimes law and when it does not. The article highlights the importance of this distinction for future ICC jurisprudence, especially in light of the pending judgment in the Al Hassan case.