Pro-government militias, human rights abuses and the ambiguous role of foreign aid

Pro-government militias, human rights abuses and the ambiguous role of foreign aid

Download PDF 3.1 MB

Carey, Sabine C. / Neil J. Mitchell
Briefing Paper 4/2016

Bonn: German Development Institute / Deutsches Institut für Entwicklungspolitik (DIE)

Dt. Ausg. u.d.T.:
Regierungsnahe Milizen, Menschenrechtsverletzungen und die ambivalente Rolle der Entwicklungszusammenarbeit
(Analysen und Stellungnahmen 4/2016)

Many governments worldwide make use of unofficial armed groups. This practice substantially increases the risks for civilians, as the activities of such pro-government militias (PGMs) are usually accompanied by a higher level of human rights violations, including killings, torture and disappearances. Examples are the Shia militias in Iraq, the Shabiha militia in Syria and the Imbonerakure in Burundi.
Better knowledge about these groups is essential, given the extreme suffering, violence and instability they are linked to. This briefing paper shows that PGMs exist not only in failed states, poor countries or those engulfed in civil war and armed conflict. They can also be found in more or less democratic governments and are most common in semi-democracies.
Governments outsource security tasks to irregular forces because they provide efficiency gains when leaders perceive themselves to be under threat in an uncertain environment. PGMs are attractive to governments because they are cheaper, more flexible and often better informed than regular forces. They complicate lines of accountability for the violence committed, and therefore lower the political costs for governments when there is a controversial use of violence. These aspects make PGMs particularly attractive to governments that intend to use violence against a domestic opponent but fear national and international repercussions for excessive human rights violations. Although these groups make conflict more feasible financially and are perceived to lower political costs, they may bring – sometimes unintended – consequences, such as increased suffering and violence for civilians, as well as greater instability and crime in the medium- and long term.
The risks that PGMs bring for peace, security and stability can only be reduced if the international community knows how governments delegate security tasks and holds governments responsible for the violence that their various state and non-state agents commit.

  • The international community needs to pay attention to unintended consequences when promoting democracy. When incentivised to limit repression, governments in target countries might distance themselves from the violence rather than seek to reduce it.

  • Aid decisions should be informed by a thorough assessment of the security sector, which should include regular as well as irregular forces.

  • Governments are responsible for protecting the lives of their citizens. If civilians are targeted by militias, a government has failed in this task and should therefore be held accountable for such violence.



Weitere Expertinnen/Experten zu diesem Thema

Furness, Mark

Politikwissenschaftler 

Grävingholt, Jörn

Politikwissenschaftler 

Mroß, Karina

Politikwissenschaftlerin 

Martin-Shields, Charles

Politikwissenschaftler 

Ruhe, Constantin

Politikwissenschaftler 

Aktuelle Publikationen

Deutschlands Rolle für globale Entwicklung: der Anfang einer Strategiedebatte

Klingebiel, Stephan
Mitarbeiter sonstige, 18.10.2017

China’s 19th Party Congress: A stronger role for China in global development?

Janus, Heiner / Lixia Tang
Die aktuelle Kolumne, 17.10.2017

Eine Welt ohne Hunger in einer Welt voller Kriege?

Wegner, Daniel / Michael Brüntrup
Die aktuelle Kolumne, 16.10.2017

Mehr Entwicklung – mehr Migration? Der „migration hump“ und seine Bedeutung für die entwicklungspolitische Zusammenarbeit mit Subsahara-Afrika

Schraven, Benjamin / Steffen Angenendt / Charles Martin-Shields
Analysen und Stellungnahmen 15/2017

Thematic aid allocation: what are the benefits and risks?

Sebastian Paulo / Heiner Janus / Sarah Holzapfel
Briefing Paper 19/2017