Building on findings presented earlier in this book, this chapter has a two-fold aim. First, it explores the reasons why non-State armed groups (NSAGs) actually detain, challenging some common misconceptions about how these entities operate in conflict settings, and suggesting new lines of inquiry. Second, it considers these findings and discusses the legal grounds necessary for these non-State actors to deprive individuals of their liberty in conflict settings or, to put it differently, to ensure that the actions of NSAGs in this regard are not manifestly unlawful. This chapter (and the book more broadly) is of the view that NSAGs need to enact their own normative authority to guarantee the respect of individuals’ safeguards, including the principle of legality. Given the lack of an explicit legal basis to deprive individuals of their liberty in international law, in particular in treaty and customary international humanitarian law, it is submitted that NSAGs’ ‘laws’ and regulations, which result from their law-making (or law-adapting) activities, are the only legal tools that may actually serve for this purpose.

A Narrative of Sovereignty: looks at the tangible ramifications that Supreme Court decisions have had and continue to have on reservation life. The piece focuses on the Navajo Nation and tracks how its tribal laws and policies have evolved with changing Supreme Court decisions from 1970 to 2003 to try to meet the needs of its people while living with the limits placed upon its authority by the courts. Krakoff concludes that courts need to be more cognizant of the effects of their decisions on reservation communities to ensure the cultural survival of American Indians.