Willem de Vlaming, March 2026
Peoples and nations that feel oppressed have the right to resist and fight their oppressor. And a nation or state may use force against insurrection. However, there is no objective standard to distinguish between legitimate resistance and illigitimate insurrection, or illigitimate oppression and a legitimate fight against insurrection.
But all are bound by international humanitarian law, and laws regarding armed conflict. Humanitarian law regulates how force may be used. Key principles include: distinguishing between civilians and combatants; proportionality and legitimacy of force (force must be proportional and tied to legitimate military objectives); humane treatment.
Violations of humanitarian law can and should be be judged independently of the cause.
Right to resist vs. right to suppress. There’s no universally binding legal test that cleanly separates the two in all cases.
There s some recognition — especially in political theory and certain UN texts — of a people’s right to resist domination (e.g., colonial rule or foreign occupation). This idea is often tied to self-determination.
At the same time, **states are recognized as having the right (and duty)** to maintain order and territorial integrity. So from a legal standpoint:
A government may label violence as insurrection or terrorism
Opponents may frame the same acts as resistance or liberation
Why no clear objective standard exists
There’s no single objective line between resistance and insurrection or oppressioan and fighting insurrection and that’s partly because:
Legitimacy is contested (Who represents “the people”?)
Context matters (colonialism, occupation, civil war, repression)
Recognition is political (other states and institutions take sides, implicitly or explicitly)
International law tends to avoid fully endorsing one narrative over the other unless there’s broad consensus (which is rare).
Where international law does draw firm lines
Even if it doesn’t settle who is right, it does regulate how force is used. Frameworks like the 'International Committee of the Red Cross' and treaties such as the 'Geneva Conventions' establish rules that apply to all parties in a conflict — state or non-state.
Key principles include:
Distinction: civilians versus combatants
Proportionality: avoid excessive civilian harm
Necessity: force must be tied to a legitimate military objective
Humane treatment: no torture, no execution without trial
These rules apply whether a group calls itself a resistance movement or is labeled an insurgency.
The practical reality, In practice:
Labels like "freedom fighter” vs. “terrorist” are often political judgments
Legal clarity tends to emerge only after the fact (e.g., tribunals, historical consensus)
Violations of humanitarian law can be judged independently of the cause
⸻ ⓦ ⸻
Between states, there is a clearer legal framework to judge who started the war (via the UN Charter system). But political realities still affect how “objective” those judgments are in practice. And regardless of who is right, the same laws of armed conflict apply to all parties.
International law separates two questions:
A. Is going to war lawful? (jus ad bellum) This is governed mainly by the United Nations Charter.
The baseline rule is: states must not use force against other states. There are only a few widely accepted exceptions:
Self-defense after an armed attack (Article 51)
Authorization by the UN Security Council
More controversially debated: preemptive self-defense, humanitarian intervention
So unlike internal conflicts, there is a formal legal framework to judge who is the aggressor.
B. How is the war fought? (*jus in bello*)
Regardless of who started the war, all sides must follow: The Geneva Conventions & Customary international humanitarian law
So even a state acting in lawful self-defense:
Can still commit war crimes
Is still bound by the same rules as the aggressor
The legality of why you fight does not change the rules of how you fight.