Malian soldiers stand guard outside Kati Barracks in Bamako, October 2012. CC BY 2.0
Taskin Tanika | February 8, 2026
In April 2012, Non-State Armed Groups (NSAGs), the; Malayan National Liberation Army (MNLA), Al-Qaeda in Islamic Maghreb (AQIM) and ‘ANSAR DINE’ meaning ‘the defenders of the faith’ in Arabic, fought against the Malian Armed Forces and took over the territory of Northern Mali, Timbuktu. The NSAG(s) declared the proclamation of an independent state called Azawad. This region formed a police force, law and court system based on Islamic Sharia Law. Afterwards, on 10 to 14 January 2013, with the intervention of French forces and assistance of Chad, the Malian Army reconquered the territory. Following the withdrawal resolution by the UN Security Council (UNSC) under Chapter VII of the UN Charter, Timbuktu returned to the Mali Government. As per the common article 2 of the Geneva Convention, all cases of declaring war or armed conflict among states shall be conducted as an International Armed Conflict (IAC) where recognition of state is not essential.
In such circumstances, the legal question that arises is, whether claiming the “Right to Self-Determination” after taking full control over a territory and forming a government body still can subject a territory to the rules of a Non-International Armed Conflict (NIAC) under international law and international humanitarian law. This blog will discuss the interpretation of ICC regarding the question arose following the case, The Prosecutor vs Al Hassan Ag Abdul Aziz Ag Mohamed Ag Mahmooud [2024], where the ICC has mentioned that even though there is a right to self-determination claim, the armed conflict between NSAG(s) and Mali Army shall be conducted as per Article 8(2) of the Rome Statute and Common Article 3 of Geneva Convention; (NIAC). In this blog, I will re-evaluate the “right to self-determination” under international law and will examine its elements with IAC.
The ICC concluded that the armed conflict between Mali Army and NSAGs was an NIAC as per Article 8(2) of the Rome Statute and Common Article 3 of Geneva Convention as the claim of self-determination was inconsistent with international law, as it is not the common language of all people of Northern Mali.
I re-evaluate self-determination under international law as defined by James Crowford, as the self determination of “people” is difficult to define. As per the ICRC commentary and UNESCO, a part of the land or territory, other criteria, such as common language, culture, ethnic is an element to declare right to self-determination. Also, there has to be a common sentiment of people to form a common state. If there is any aspect that separates the people from each other, then it is a distinctive element. In January 2013, the Mali Armed Force took control over Timbuktu, also, the United Nations Security Counsel passed a resolution under chapter VII for withdrawal of the coalition from Northern Mali. As a result, the people of Timbuktu celebrated by displaying the flag of Mali. Therefore, the proclamation of self-determination as Azawad was not accepted by the people and did not comply with international law.
The Territory of Timbuktu was still part of Mali
Judge Mindua has mentioned in his separate and partly dissenting opinion that as per article 2(4) of the UN Charter, all members shall refrain from intervening in the integrity and political independence of any state. Furthermore, as per article 51 of UN Charter, until the UNSC has taken any measure, there is nothing in the charter which will impair the inherent right of an individual or collective self-defense if any armed conflict occurs in the member state. This article refers to jus ad bellum which assures that the state has the right to use force as far as the state is concerned. Now scholars argue that self-defense can be used against the NSAGs as a response to “imminent” threats to state sovereignty. Also, other member states can assist as collective self defense to protect the sovereignty of a state.
ICC in its Trial Chamber decision has mentioned that the Malian Armed Forces had not lost the control of the territory. During the armed conflict, the Mali Army has been disorganized, and it has been difficult to follow the chain of command. As a result, the Mali army lost control over the territory for a short time. Under such a situation, the Chamber concluded that it is not necessary to determine the degree of organized form of Malian Army, rather it is legal to assess this armed conflict as NIAC as Malian Army was deployed against the NSAGs.
Evaluating ‘Right to Self Determination’ under International Law
The blog disagrees with the Chamber decision on considering it as a NIAC. Because, after claiming self-determination, there is no specific time required to hold a territory to become a state by law (dejure).
As per the Montevideo Convention on the Rights and Duties of States (1933), the requirement for statehood is permanent population, territory, government and the capacity to enter into diplomatic relations with other states. Timbuktu has a population, a territory of Northern Mali and an Islamic government. However, there was no recognition by other states. But it is important to mention, Timbuktu was not referred to the UN General Assembly for recognition. Rather, the situation in Mali was referred to the UNSC for withdrawal of the occupation of the Ansar Dine (here, here).
On the other hand, article 2(4) of the UN Charter indeed protects the territorial integrity of a state from preventing a state from using force and taking control over a territory. However, it does not create any bar to being a new state through self-determination. The majority of today’s nations are being created by declaring independence and self-determination.
The recognition of a state depends on international politics rather than international law, no state is under any obligation to recognize it as soon as the self-determination is claimed. Moreover, recognition of a state does not give birth to a new state; rather it gives a legal status for international operation. However, when a newly declared state is not recognized internationally, the territory belongs to the former sovereign state. It is worth mentioning that without formal recognition of each state, two de facto states can have diplomatic relations among them. Thus, non-recognition is not an impediment to enter into friendly relationships among states.
The right to self-determination is an element of international character, when it is exercised in the existence of population, territory, government and the ability to enter diplomatic relations. Thus, the armed conflict in Mali stands in a gray area between IAC and NIAC. Under such circumstances, only because the control of territory is shifted to a state party whose armed forces are also deployed in the conflict, it cannot be considered as NIAC. Thus, the conflict in Mali should be considered an IAC, otherwise it is a transnational armed conflict, which needs a new set of rules under which to be governed.