Reparations represent a key element to redress the suffering caused to victims of armed conflict. Taking into account the predominantly non-international nature of contemporary armed conflicts and the fact that armed groups represent half of the participants, it seems legitimate to question whether reparations should also be provided by armed groups. From the victims’ perspective, the suffering caused to them remains the same irrespective of whether the perpetrator is a state or a non-state actor. In this context, there appears to be an emerging practice supporting the obligation of armed groups to provide reparation, as acknowledged in some UN reports. In addition, there have been examples of armed groups committing to provide some forms of reparation to victims through peace agreements, unilateral declarations and codes of conduct. This article analyses the recent international practice and examines any potential duty by non-state armed groups that could have been recognised in the provision of reparations. More precisely, the article evaluates whether the developments in the practice of armed groups could be considered as contributing to customary international law and suggests how this practice could be weighted together with the practice of states. It also identifies challenges and limiting factors in the provision of reparations by armed groups.

中文翻译：

---

武装团体提供赔偿的义务：习惯国际法下的规范？

赔偿是纠正武装冲突受害者遭受的痛苦的关键因素。考虑到当代武装冲突的主要非国际性质以及武装团体占参与者一半的事实，质疑武装团体是否也应提供赔偿似乎是合理的。从受害者的角度来看，无论肇事者是国家行为者还是非国家行为者，他们遭受的痛苦都是一样的。在这种情况下，正如一些联合国报告所承认的那样，似乎有一种新的做法支持武装团体提供赔偿的义务。此外，还有武装团体承诺通过和平协议、单方面声明和行为守则向受害者提供某种形式的赔偿的例子。本文分析了最近的国际实践，并考察了非国家武装团体在提供赔偿时可能承担的任何潜在责任。更准确地说，本文评估了武装团体实践的发展是否可以被视为对习惯国际法的贡献，并建议如何将这种实践与国家实践结合起来衡量。它还确定了武装团体提供赔偿方面的挑战和限制因素。该文章评估了武装团体实践的发展是否可以被视为对习惯国际法的贡献，并建议如何将这种实践与国家实践结合起来衡量。它还确定了武装团体提供赔偿方面的挑战和限制因素。该文章评估了武装团体实践的发展是否可以被视为对习惯国际法的贡献，并建议如何将这种实践与国家实践结合起来衡量。它还确定了武装团体提供赔偿方面的挑战和限制因素。