Actors and parties in conflict

Parties to the conflict (those fighting), third parties (outsiders who intervene) and non-combatants (people not fighting, mainly civilians).

The actors directly fighting or in dispute — states (governments, armies) and/or non-state actors (rebels, militias).

An organised group that is not a government — a rebel group, militia, insurgency or terrorist group — that takes part in the fighting.

An outside actor who intervenes without being a main fighting side — another state, an IGO like the UN, an NGO or a mediator.

People who are not fighting — civilians, refugees, aid workers and journalists — often the ones who suffer most.

A neutral outsider who helps warring sides talk and reach an agreement such as a ceasefire or peace deal.

By sending peacekeepers to separate sides, mediating a ceasefire, and delivering aid and monitoring human rights.

By backing a side with weapons, money or troops for their own interests, turning a local conflict into a longer proxy war.

A conflict where outside powers back opposing local sides to pursue their own interests, so they fight indirectly through others.

They may not sign or honour treaties, can hide among civilians, may lack one clear leader, and can be resupplied by outside backers.

Outside actors usually have their own interests, so they may take a side rather than act purely to help end the conflict.

An intergovernmental organisation — a body set up by states to work together, such as the UN or a regional bloc.

The UN and regional bodies authorise action, deploy peacekeepers, mediate, impose sanctions and coordinate humanitarian aid.

The UN's most powerful body, which can authorise sanctions or the use of force to address threats to peace.

The power of each of the five permanent members to block any Security Council action single-handedly.

Collective action authorised by the UN is more widely accepted than one state acting alone, making intervention and peacekeeping more legitimate.

It has no army of its own, so it relies on member states for troops, money and consent, and can only act as far as states allow.

The African Union (AU), European Union (EU), ASEAN and NATO, which can carry out regional peacekeeping and mediation.

It has clear successes (peacekeeping, mediation, aid) but also failures where the veto paralysed it or missions were under-resourced.

Expanding the Security Council, limiting the veto in cases of atrocity, and better-resourcing peacekeeping so it can act more consistently.

It is the only near-universal security forum, provides legitimacy, and runs peacekeeping and aid that save lives — so its flaws argue for reform, not abolition.

They are indispensable but conditional — effective when great powers back them, weak when blocked — so most conclude they need reform.

Deliver food, water, shelter and medical care, protect and care for civilians and refugees, monitor the laws of war, and give a voice to victims.

Humanity (relieve suffering), neutrality (don't take sides), impartiality (help by need, not side) and independence (free of any warring party).

Not taking sides in the conflict, so that all warring parties allow them to reach civilians.

Helping people based only on need, not on which side they are on.

It lets them win the trust of all sides, cross front lines to reach civilians, and gives them protection as impartial actors.

Staying neutral can mean not naming the side committing atrocities, which can feel like complicity — so access and speaking out can conflict.

Aid can be taxed, stolen or diverted to feed fighters and prolong a war, and its provision can let a government dodge its own responsibilities.

Because silence over atrocities can make them complicit, and bearing witness can mobilise pressure to stop the abuses.

Because warring parties increasingly disregard neutrality and target aid workers, making humanitarian action dangerous.

Because states and armies frequently do not protect civilians in war, so relief organisations are the main actors delivering aid across front lines.

It does much more good than harm — indispensable, life-saving work — but carries real dilemmas that must be managed rather than ignored.

An organised armed group that is not the regular forces of a state — such as a rebel group, militia, insurgency, terrorist group or private military company.

They drive most modern conflicts, can control territory and populations, and resist far stronger states using asymmetric tactics.

Tactics used by a weaker side to avoid open battle with a stronger army — guerrilla warfare and terrorism.

A firm that sells armed force and security services for money — a type of non-state armed actor.

They use asymmetric tactics, hide among civilians, and can be resupplied by outside backers or funded through resources and crime.

They may lack a single leader who can sign a deal, may reject the state's legitimacy, and may fund themselves, so they have less reason to stop.

They have diffused power in conflict away from states, driving many wars and resisting far stronger armies, though states still dominate overall.

States retain the greatest hard power (armies, borders), the legitimacy to make binding peace, and most armed groups depend on state backers.

Often yes — the same group is labelled differently by opponents and supporters, so labels are political and methods matter for judgement.

By their methods and respect for civilians as much as by the justice of their cause — deliberately targeting civilians is widely condemned.

Power in conflict has diffused toward non-state actors, but states retain decisive hard power and legitimacy — so power is shared and shifting, not transferred.

Through local dialogue and reconciliation, inclusion in peace processes, activism, and building the local ownership that makes peace last.

Peace efforts led by local communities themselves, from the bottom up, rebuilding trust and relationships between divided groups.

When the community helps shape and sustain the peace, so it is more likely to last after negotiators leave.

Women often prioritise the everyday needs and reconciliation that sustain peace, and their inclusion gives the agreement wider legitimacy.

Because they are signed by leaders and outsiders but ignore the communities who must live in peace, so they lack local trust and ownership.

They are trusted within their communities, so they can mediate, calm tensions and rebuild relationships where outsiders cannot.

As peace activists, protesters, survivors who bear witness, and diaspora communities who can support or hinder peace from abroad.

It can be slow, small-scale and hard to protect during fighting, and cannot alone stop armies or sign national ceasefires.

It rebuilds the day-to-day trust and relationships between people that a signed national deal cannot create by itself.

Only leaders and states can sign binding ceasefires, command armies to stop, and bring resources and enforcement at national scale.

The two are complementary: leaders stop the fighting and provide the framework, while communities rebuild the trust that makes peace last.