Colombia has experienced a decades-long armed conflict that began with the formation of guerrilla groups, notably the FARC and the ELN. Paramilitary groups later emerged to fight the guerrillas. Following a landmark peace agreement with the FARC in 2016 and ongoing negotiations with the ELN that began in 2018, violence levels have been reduced. But the protracted conflict has led to a profusion of armed actors and fueled the growth of private military and security companies (PMSCs).

In a September 2025 report, the UN Working Group on the use of mercenaries raised the alarm over the role of mercenaries and PMSCs in exploiting natural resources at the expense of human rights in multiple conflict zones around the world. The Working Group detailed how these entities, often colluding with governments, corporations and criminal syndicates, commit grave rights abuses to secure access to valuable resources such as minerals, oil, timber and agricultural land.

According to the report, these abuses include arbitrary detention, torture, sexual violence and forced displacement, as well as severe environmental destruction. The experts highlighted the disproportionate impact of these activities on indigenous populations and rural communities: “These communities often face violations of their rights to land, culture, and livelihood, further compounded by the lack of access to justice and remedies.”

While experts in the new statement acknowledged the legitimacy of some overseas employment in military and security roles for Colombians, they reiterated that the use of mercenaries is prohibited under international law. The experts concluded: “Effectively tackling mercenary recruitment is not just a national issue; it requires robust regional and global cooperation given its transnational nature.”

From JURIST, March 28. Used with permission. Internal links added.

Photo: Contagio Radio

The report stated: “The displacement in the occupied West Bank…at the hands of the Israeli military appears to indicate a concerted Israeli policy of mass forcible transfer throughout the occupied territory, aimed at permanent displacement, raising concerns of ethnic cleansing.”

The report charged that the military has enabled the drastic escalation in settler violence on the West Bank: “Settler violence continued in a coordinated, strategic and largely unchallenged manner, with Israeli authorities playing the central role in directing, participating in or enabling this conduct.”

The pervasive and persistent impunity prevents the implementation of an effective solution to reduce settler violence, the report stated. “Israeli measures to formally and informally support the militarization of the settler movement both amplified the severity of settler violence against Palestinians and rendered it extremely difficult to distinguish between instances of settler violence and instances of State violence.”

In addition, Israeli authorities are implementing policies to render their annexation of West Bank territory irreversible.

The report found that the Israeli military’s transfer of power to civilian settler authorities and measures taken to confiscate Palestinian lands for settlement expansion “amounted to an institutionalised regime of systematic discrimination, oppression and violence by Israel against Palestinians,” violating the international prohibition on racial segregation and apartheid.

According to the report, UN member states’ efforts to end and prevent Israeli settler violence through sanctions remained largely ineffective:

Sanctions previously imposed by the United States of America were rescinded on 20 January 2025, while sanctions by other States have primarily targeted individual settlers rather than affiliated entities or organizations, lessening the capacity of such measures to combat widespread, concerted settler violence. Sanctioned individuals have frequently circumvented restrictions by transferring assets or receiving financial support from pro-settlement networks.

In October 2025, a total of 42 settler attacks resulted in 131 injured Palestinians, the highest number recorded in a single month since 2006. The report also found that gender-based violence was a contributing factor triggering displacement. “Other attacks led to family separation, in which women and children were forced to leave, while male family members remained to attempt to retain possession of lands and properties.”

UN High Commissioner for Human Rights Volker Türk called on Israel “to immediately and completely cease and reverse the establishment and expansion of settlements, for the evacuation of all settlers, and an end to the occupation of Palestinian territory.”

From JURIST, March 19. Used with permission.

Photo: B’Tselem

In the statement, the Law Society stressed that interpreting legislation is a constitutional function of courts. While the provincial executive may disagree with the courts’ statutory interpretation, the statement urged politicians to respect judicial powers and independence. The statement concluded by urging the government to reconsider the proposed amendment of the DRIPA. The Canadian Bar Association issued a similar appeal on Jan. 21.

The statement follows remarks by David Eby, premier of British Columbia, at the provincial Natural Resources Forum on Jan. 20. In his remarks, he accused the courts of creating “real confusion about what DRIPA is about and what reconciliation means in practice.” He added that reconciliation—a relationship between the Canadian, provincial and First Nations governments by which shared sovereignty is negotiated—is not for the courts to appropriate. He signaled the government’s intention to amend DRIPA to reflect “legislative intent” and protect private property rights by limiting the role of the courts in reconciliation efforts.

In 2025, the province witnessed two landmark rulings relating to Aboriginal rights and title. The BC Supreme Court held in August that the Cowichan Tribes have established Aboriginal title in the city of Richmond. It follows that the fee simple interests—a freehold interest in land—on the Cowichan Title Lands are unjustified infringements on Aboriginal title and therefore defective. While the court held that Aboriginal title and fee simple interests can coexist on the same piece of land, the government is required to negotiate an arrangement with the Cowichan Tribes over these lands. The court ordered that such arrangements be reached within 18 months.

In December, the BC Court of Appeal held that the provincial mineral tenure system—allowing registration of mineral rights online without notifying or consulting the Gitxaała and Ehattesaht nations—is impermissible under DRIPA, which commits the province to upholding principles of the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.

Conservative BC lawmaker Scott McInnis issued a call to repeal DRIPA after the rulings.

Premier Eby rejected outright repeal, stating that DRIPA has allowed development projects to move forward without prolonged litigation. He added that repealing DRIPA would not accelerate such projects or attract investment. He reaffirmed that reconciliation with the First Nations and the recognition of Aboriginal title are the province’s constitutional obligations under Article 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982, and the unanimous consensus of the provincial legislature in 2019.

First Nations, however, objected to the possible DRIPA amendment. Marilyn Slett, chief councillor of the Heiltsuk Tribal Council, told the CBC that DRIPA, co-developed by the provincial government and First Nations, provides for trust, stability and economic certainty. The BC Assembly of First Nations similarly warned that amending DRIPA and appealing the court rulings could harm the relationship between the First Nations and the government.

From JURIST, Feb. 3. Used with permission.

See our last reports on Aboriginal title cases in British Columbia.

Similar mining laws are also at issue in Saskatchewan and Ontario.

Photo: Wikipedia

On Jan. 15, union leaders and members of the Confédération Paysanne held protests in opposition to the EU-Mercosur Deal, signed in December 2024 but still pending ratification, which would reduce tariffs and more deeply link the European market with the bloc of South American nations. Participants unfurled banners in offices of the Agriculture Ministry in protest of the agreement.

Protesters included a large delegation from the French overseas departments and regions of Guadeloupe, Martinique, French Guiana, Réunion and Mayotte, who denounced unfair competition from imports that would be imposed under the agreement. Three key spokespersons were among those arrested.

The experts warned that arresting and charging peaceful protesters may violate thr freedoms of assembly, expression and association, enshrined in both the French Constitution and international law. According to farmer advocate groups, use of the BRAV-M—a special motorized anti-riot unit—to quell the protest signaled criminalization of peaceful assembly, raising concerns about proportionality and necessity of police force.

The EU-Mercosur Deal is a free-trade agreement between the European Union and Mercosur bloc nations of Argentina, Brazil, Paraguay and Uruguay. The agreement, which has been debated for 25 years, would connect South American farmers with millions of EU consumers. However, domestic producers in France fear the deal will undercut them and drive them out of the market.

The European Parliament voted on the agreement on Jan. 21, with 334 votes in favor and 324 against, although it still awaits ratification by EU member states. Many French  lawmakers have resisted ratifying the agreement unless it includes safeguards for European farmers, environmental protections, and regulatory parity.

Farmer and agricultural worker advocate groups like La Via Campesina, Serikat Petani Indonesia (Indonesian Peasants’ Union), the Kenyan Peasants League, European Coordination Via Campesina and the Latin American Coordination of Rural Organizations have condemned the detentions and called on French authorities to cease what they describe as “the criminalization of peasant movements.”

From JURIST, Jan. 27. Used with permission. Internal links added.

Photo: UN Human Rights Council via Twitter

The massacre in Nkana village—located in Kwamouth territory, Mai-Ndombe province, just some 75 kilometers northeast of the capital Kinshasa—was reportedly carried out by fighters from the Mobondo militia, which is aligned with the Yaka ethnic group. Human Rights Watch, which documented the attack in a report released Dec. 16, said fighters armed with firearms and machetes killed “mostly ethnic Teke villagers in their homes as they attempted to flee.”

The Teke are indigenous to western Congo and have long-established customary land rights in the area. However, in recent years Yaka people from neighboring provinces have started to migrate to the area, either to work as farmhands or to farm on newly settled lands in exchange for payment of a tax to the local Teke customary chief.

The attack was apparently triggered by the refusal of Teke residents to appoint a customary chief from the Yaka people. In the days leading up to the assault, threatening messages were sent to some Teke villagers.

HRW described the killings as “an apparent retaliatory attack linked to rising intercommunal tensions.” The organization urged Congolese authorities to take immediate action to address the root causes of the violence. The organization warned that failure to act decisively risks entrenching cycles of revenge that could destabilize areas close to the capital.

Kwamouth territory has experienced repeated clashes between Yaka and Teke communities since June 2022, driven by disputes over land, customary authority, and political representation. The violence has drawn condemnation from civil society activists, human rights groups, and traditional authorities.

Following the attack, Congolese authorities deployed military personnel to the area and announced an investigation. Some lawmakers have called on the provincial assembly to adopt urgent measures to address the crisis.

“The violence in Kwamouth is just one of many deadly ethnic conflicts in Congo,” said Lewis Mudge, Central Africa director at Human Rights Watch. “The global focus on the peace accords in eastern Congo shouldn’t distract from the unchecked violence and injustice and the cycles of impunity in other areas.”

From JURIST, Dec. 17. Used with permission.

Note: Mai-Ndombe and the provinces from which Taka settlers are arriving were all carved out of Bandundu province in a 2015 repartitioning of the DRC’s internal borders.

Map: PCL

The clashes, concentrated in southern Chad, are said to be driven by climate change, population growth, and an influx of weapons and support from armed groups in the neighboring Central African Republic. Researchers stated that higher temperatures, desertification, and shrinking pasturelands in the center of the country have led herders to travel longer distances and settle in southern provinces where conditions are more conducive to livestock grazing.

At the same time, Amnesty found that farmers, who face declining soil fertility and seek to expand cultivated areas, often encroach on herders’ corridors and limit access to pastures and water. Many clashes, like one in Sandana in February 2022, began with the intrusion of herders’ cattle onto an agricultural plot, leading to fighting between the groups.

The report additionally stated that conflicts are fueled by the emergence of “neo-herders”—military leaders and entrepreneurs who buy large herds. In this néo-élevage (neo-pastoralism), the herds have absentee owners, who hire workers to drive the livestock rather than sharing in the semi-nomadic way of life.

Amnesty called on Chadian authorities to take preventive and protective measures to guarantee respect for the right to life in accordance with obligations under Article 6 of the International Covenant on Civil & Political Rights and Article 4 of the African Charter on Human & Peoples’ Rights (ACHPR).

Although recently implemented consultation and negotiation mechanisms have been effective to an extent, Amnesty argued several structural limitations impede potential resolutions. The group urged officials to develop a coherent legal framework accounting for climatic and demographic realities, revive joint committees composed of both herders and farmers, and prioritize climate change adaptation plans.

As a landlocked country, Chad’s economic activity is largely centered on agricultural commodities like cotton and cattle, in addition to oil. As of 2022, agriculture supported around 88% of households nationwide. Extreme heat and flooding brought on by climate change have affected the country substantially in recent years.

From JURIST, Nov. 20. Used with permission.

Note: There is an ethnic cast to this conflict, as many of the herders and “neo-herders” are Fulani or Arab, and the southern farmers are largely of the Kodo people. The government has refered to some of the farmers involved in these clashes as “Kodo rebels” being armed through the Central African Republic. (North Africa Journal)

Herder-farmer violence has been increasingly linked to climate change across the Sahel, from Nigeria to the Horn of Africa.

See our podcast “West Africa’s forgotten wars”

Photo: European Commission/DG Echo via NASA Earth Observatory

“The organized, forced displacement of Palestinians in the refugee camps has removed nearly the entire Palestinian population from these areas,” the report stated, noting that residents of Jenin, Tulkarm and Nur Shams camps have been denied the right to return nearly a year after the operations commenced.

The refugee camps in the West Bank were established following the 1948 Arab-Israeli war, when hundreds of thousands of Palestinians were displaced from their homes. Those who fled or were expelled from areas that became part of the State of Israel were housed in UN-administered camps in neighboring territories, including the West Bank and Gaza. Originally intended as temporary solutions in the absence of a mutually acceptable solution to the Israel-Palestine land disputes, the camps have persisted for over 75 years, and have become densely populated residential areas.

Israeli forces used heavy weaponry to empty the camps, giving residents abrupt orders to leave during active military operations earlier this year, HRW reported.

The Israel Defense Forces (IDF) maintained that the operations targeted “terrorists” and were mandated by security imperatives. In an October response to Human Rights Watch, the military stated:

The operation was based on the understanding that terrorists exploit the terrain and the densely built environment of the camps, which restricts the IDF’s freedom of action. And that Hamas plants explosive devices in houses, civilian infrastructure, and along traffic routes in order to detonate them, thus endangering the lives of security forces and local residents.

According to HRW, the Israeli military’s response left a number of gaps:

The Israeli military did not explain why the displacement of the entire population of all three camps was necessary to achieve its aims, nor whether alternatives had been considered. Rather, it stated that the “IDF has had to operate for an extended period of time, as required by operational needs and the circumstances on the ground.” The response did not answer Human Rights Watch’s questions about whether Israeli authorities had attempted to provide food, shelter, and access to medical services for the civilian population it had displaced, as required under international humanitarian law.

International humanitarian law prohibits forcible displacement of civilians in occupied territories except in specific, limited circumstances with safeguards. Human Rights Watch found Israeli forces failed to meet these requirements, including providing safe evacuation routes or humanitarian assistance to displaced residents.

The organization called for investigations by the International Criminal Court and state authorities under universal jurisdiction, and recommended targeted sanctions against Israeli officials including Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, Defense Minister Israel Katz, and military commanders.

The matter may add to the cases already under investigation by the International Criminal Court, which issued arrest warrants for Israeli leaders in November 2024 on charges stemming from the broader conflict.

From JURIST, Nov. 20. Used with permission.

See our report on Operation “Iron Wall,” and the genocide accusations against Israel.

Photo: Wikipedia

The protesters mostly belonged to the Munduruku indigenous people of the Amazon rainforest, who inhabit the states of Amazonas and Pará (of which Belém is the capital). They blocked access to the COP30 venue, which required the army to intervene to reinforce security. Protesters’ demands included increased representation of indigenous peoples in COP30 and the UN climate process, as well as an end to extractive activities that threaten Munduruku territories in the Tapajós and Xingu river basins.

Indigenous participants at COP30 expressed their support for the protest. A Chilean indigenous youth representing the Mapuche people, Emiliano Medina, asserted that such protests are a response to growing challenges faced by indigenous populations from miningand industrial activities, including land grabs and forced displacements.

Brazilian Environment Ministry official Ana Toni, executive director of COP30, affirmed that Brazil’s government is attentive to the concerns raised by the protesters. She emphasized that COP30 has seen an increase of 600 indigenous participants compared to the previous year’s conference in Azerbaijan. Toni stressed that selecting Belém as the venue for COP30 was intended to facilitate participation by indigenous peoples, and amplify their voices in the climate dialogue. She also stated that the Brazilian government permits diverse forms of protest and anticipates additional demonstrations during the conference.

The central themes of COP30 include strategies to limit the rise in global temperatures to 1.5°C, the submission of updated national action plans, and the evaluation of progress regarding financial commitments established at COP29, which climate activists have deemed insufficient.

In March, Transparency International urged the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) to take measures to restore trust in the COP process and prevent fossil fuel lobbyists from hindering negotiations. In October, rights organizations called on Brazilian authorities to implement safeguards to ensure the protection of the rights of civil society members at the COP30, including indigenous people, who face life-threatening environmental risks due to mining and other extractive activities in their territories. Environmental activists are increasingly targeted with repressive measures worldwide, which the UN has described as a threat to both climate action and human rights.

From JURIST, Nov. 15. Used with permission. Internal links added.

Photo: Diego Herculano/UNFCCC via UN News

Trump stated on social media: “If the Nigerian Government continues to allow the killing of Christians, the U.S.A. will immediately stop all aid and assistance to Nigeria, and may very well go into that now disgraced country, ‘guns-a-blazing.'” He pledged that any US strike would be “fast, vicious, and sweet.”

The comments follow Trump’s declaration the previous day designating Nigeria as a “country of particular concern” (CPC) for religious-freedom violations, citing what he described as an “existential threat” to Christianity. US Sen. Ted Cruz has similarly pushed Congress to adopt the designation, alleging that “[r]eligious persecution and violence against Christians and other religious minorities in Nigeria is endemic.”

Nigerian President Bola Ahmed Tinubu rejected the claims, arguing that they misrepresent the country’s religious landscape and constitutional protections.

“Religious freedom and tolerance have been a core tenet of our collective identity and shall always remain so,” Tinubu said. “Nigeria opposes religious persecution and does not encourage it.”

Trump’s threat marks a dramatic departure from traditional US diplomatic strategy in West Africa, and raises immediate questions about the legality of unilateral American military action.

Under Article II of the US Constitution, presidents have the authority to order military operations, but large-scale offensive action typically requires congressional authorization under the War Powers Resolution of 1973, which mandates congressional notification and limits unauthorized deployments. Humanitarian intervention alone is not an independent statutory basis for presidential war powers. Absent a national-security justification or congressional authorization, large-scale strikes would likely exceed executive authority.

International law further constrains such action. The UN Charter prohibits the threat or use of force against sovereign states absent Security Council approval or self-defense grounds. Nigeria has not attacked the United States and has not consented to intervention. A unilateral “guns-a-blazing” operation would therefore face formidable legal obstacles and diplomatic backlash.

The threat to halt aid sits on firmer legal footing. The executive branch maintains broad authority under the Foreign Assistance Act to suspend or condition foreign assistance for human-rights concerns, including religious-freedom violations. Yet doing so would signal a significant policy shift, given Nigeria’s role as a regional counter-terrorism partner and Africa’s most populous country.

Nigeria was first placed on the CPC list in 2020 over what the US State Department described as “systematic…violations of religious freedom,” although the designation did not single out attacks on Christians. President Joe Biden’s administration lifted the designation in 2023.

From JURIST, Nov. 2. Used with permission.

Note: Jihadist groups have indeed targeted Christians in Nigeria’s Plateau and Borno states, although these areas have also seen repeated atrocities and mass abductions by the same groups against fellow Muslims. The Northwest region, where there are few Christians, has been heavily impacted. These conflicts are often rooted in land disputes between mostly Muslim herders and mostly Christian farmers, and it contested to what degree communities are targeted for their religion. (NewsHour)

Map: PCL

According to the OHCHR statement, 757 settler attacks took place in the first six months of this year, a 13% increase compared to the same period last year. The attacks appear to be escalating as the harvest season arrives. The report found that within the past week (Oct. 7-13), settlers had carried out at least 71 attacks in the West Bank, leaving at least one dead and scores injured.

Ajith Sunghay, head of the OHCHR for the Occupied Palestinian Territory, stated:

Settler violence has skyrocketed in scale and frequency, with the acquiescence, support, and in many cases participation, of Israeli security forces—and always with impunity… Two weeks into the start of the 2025 harvest, we have already seen severe attacks by armed settlers against Palestinian men, women, children, and foreign solidarity activists.

Israeli security forces often protect the settlers even amid their strategic attacks, the statement charged. Recent video footage shows the settlers burning or uprooting olive trees, setting fire to homes and vehicles, and beating farmers.

The OHCHR noted a multi-year trend in these attacks, finding that 96,000 dunums (around 9,600 hectares) of olive groves were left unharvested in 2023 due to attacks and harassment, leading to over $10 million in losses for Palestinian farmers. Since October 2023, Israeli settlers have killed at least 1,000 Palestinians in the West Bank and displaced thousands more. Additionally, olive trees historically represent more than just income to the Palestinian people, but groves cared for over generations symbolize attachment to the land.

Sunghay also warned that the settler violence is part of a larger scheme to annex the entire West Bank. He stressed Israel’s legal responsibility to end the occupation of Palestinian land, pursuant to the International Court of Justice ruling of July 2024. He also urged all UN member states to “exercise maximum pressure to protect civilians, halt and reverse these policies, and ensure accountability for decades of violations.”

From JURIST, Oct. 23. Used with permission.

Note: The ICJ ruling on Israel’s occupation and settlement of Palestinian territory was an advisory opinion requested by the UN General Assembly. Two interim rulings have been issued in the separate ICJ case accusing Israel of genocide. Israel is now accused of an annexationist agenda in both the West Bank and Gaza Strip.

Photo: B’Tselem