Armed conflicts as impediments to enforcing the State centric nature of human rights obligations. Case study of the convention on rights of persons with disabilities

The State centred structure remains the legal basis on which obligations under public international law are formulated. In this context the occurrence of armed conflicts of different types might create different problems. The paper demonstrates the problems that the State centred model of applying accountability to the different types of armed conflicts under international humanitarian law. This will perhaps require demonstrating way in which the conventional approach of solely depending on the presence of state Actors for applying State centric obligations of public international human laws becomes contestable in armed conflicts in which the non-State Actors are involved, becomes increasingly controversial and probably questionable. The paper shall identify the weakness and threats that such actors can pose the enforcement of state centred human rights treaty obligations. Some these obligations are enshrined in specialised treaties such as the Convention on Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD). Are these legal structured upon the prerequisite existence of the state necessary for legitimising duties and rights futile where acts of violations are committed against a child, woman or a person with disabilities by such non-States entities? In this paper the above inapplicability of State centered obligations in regulating the conduct of non-state actors such as rebel groups or militia shall be illustrated, although with special interest in examining if this is weakening the application of duties. Special reference is made to State Obligations that are envisaged to be upheld in armed conflicts as enshrined in Article 11 of the CRPD (Disability treaty) or Article 4 of the Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC) in times of non-international armed conflict