Uncovering how IHL protects – or could protect – rangers

Before examining in depth how rangers may be considered under IHL, it is important to recall that, although this body of law does not explicitly mention rangers or provide them with specific safeguards, it does afford protection to the natural environment during armed conflict. The environment is not only considered civilian in character – meaning that no part of it may be directly attacked unless it constitutes a military objectiveFootnote ¹⁶ – but is also subject to specific protections, including the prohibition of using methods or means of warfare that are intended, or may be expected, to cause widespread, long-term and severe damage.Footnote ¹⁷ Moreover, IHL allows areas of particular environmental importance or fragility – where rangers typically operate – to be designated, by agreement between the parties to the conflict, as demilitarized zones.Footnote ¹⁸ Such designations prohibit military activity within those areas, including the placement of military objectives or the targeting of such objectives, thereby reinforcing both environmental protection and the safety of those engaged in conservation efforts. IHL does not, however, require the establishment of such zones. Nonetheless, the protection of areas of particular environmental importance or fragility, even in the absence of formal designation, is always ensured by the rules governing the conduct of hostilities, including the principles of distinction, proportionality and precaution, as well as the prohibition against causing widespread, long-term and severe damage to the environment.Footnote ¹⁹

Within this framework, the safeguarding of rangers’ specific functions – beyond their general protection as civilians – could be seen as a functional corollary of the existing IHL obligations to ensure protection of the natural environment given that their role is indispensable to the effective implementation of ecological protection. Ensuring the safety of rangers in the performance of their duties may thus be regarded as a natural extension of – and necessary for – protecting the environment itself, consistent with IHL’s overarching aim of securing individuals in accordance with their status and functions.Footnote ²⁰ It is against this backdrop that the legal position and functions of rangers must be carefully assessed – a complex task, as will be shown, given the diverse circumstances in which they may find themselves during hostilities.

Rangers have traditionally been employed by ministries responsible for the environment, forestry or wildlife, as well as by non-governmental organizations, private conservation bodies and local communities, or they may operate on a volunteer basis.Footnote ²¹ In this capacity, they are generally regarded as civilians and are afforded protection against direct attack. This protection, however, is not absolute: Article 51(3) of Additional Protocol I to the Geneva Conventions (AP I) provides that civilians lose their protection “unless and for such time as they take a direct part in hostilities”, a principle also reflected in customary IHL.Footnote ²² The practical implications for rangers can thus be considerable if their activities are considered direct participation in hostilities between opposing parties to a conflict. Routine operations grounded in ordinary law enforcement – such as apprehending poachers, confiscating illicit equipment or dismantling trafficking networks – are not typically designed to affect the military capacity of a belligerent in support of another party to the conflict and therefore do not qualify as participation in hostilities. These actions are motivated by environmental conservationFootnote ²³ rather than the pursuit of military advantage over a party to the conflict, and the protection owed to rangers as civilians therefore remains intact. By contrast, in exceptional circumstances, offensive undertakings such as actively preventing a belligerent from financing weapons through illegal wildlife trafficking or providing intelligence that directly enables or determines the timing, location or success of military operations may amount to participation in hostilities, provided that the three cumulative criteria of threshold of harm, direct causation and belligerent nexus are satisfied.Footnote ²⁴ To consider these criteria in turn, the threshold of harm requirement could be met where disrupting a trafficking network or transmitting operational intelligence materially weakens a belligerent’s military capacity. The direct causation criterion, meanwhile, would be fulfilled where this weakening is attributable to the rangers’ actions – for example, if they themselves seize a shipment of trafficked animals or supply real-time intelligence used to plan or execute an attack. Finally, a belligerent nexus would exist if these operations were undertaken not merely to protect wildlife but specifically to undermine a belligerent’s ability to finance or sustain its military operations, thereby supporting the opposing party to the conflict. In practice, however, meeting this last criterion is particularly difficult; it requires demonstrating that the rangers’ actions were undertaken not only to harm one belligerent but also with the specific intent of supporting the other. In such circumstances, the rangers’ conduct could, at least temporarily, deprive them of civilian protection and render them lawful targets under IHL.

This analysis highlights the delicate balance that rangers must handle: routine conservation and law enforcement activities preserve their civilian status, whereas sustained or offensive engagements with armed actors that meet the established criteria may constitute direct participation in hostilities, temporarily altering the protection afforded to them under IHL. Such a balance is becoming increasingly difficult to maintain in conflict-affected regions like Kivu in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, where rangers are progressively drawn into what has been termed “green militarization”, the pursuit of conservation objectives through military-style strategies.Footnote ²⁵ These strategies aim to achieve environmental protection goals by adopting tactics, organizational structures and operational methods traditionally associated with armed forces.Footnote ²⁶ Rangers may undergo formal military training, carry heavy firearms and deploy advanced technologies – including surveillance drones, night-vision equipment and armoured vehicles – to deter or confront poachers and transnational criminal networks.Footnote ²⁷ In addition to conventional patrols, operations that may be carried out in support of, or in coordination with, armed forcesFootnote ²⁸ typically involve intelligence-gathering, the strategic disruption of illicit trafficking routes, and rapid-response interventions. This development reflects a broader shift from passive conservation toward proactive, security-oriented enforcement.Footnote ²⁹ Yet this militarization of conservation comes at a cost – the blurring of boundaries between conservation responsibilities and military roles not only exposes rangers to greater physical danger but also compromises the integrity of their mandate.Footnote ³⁰ In armed conflict contexts, when rangers are perceived as siding with one party to the conflict, their credibility is called into question, eroding community trust and provoking hostility from the opposing party; when their work appears driven by security or political agendas rather than the impartial protection of biodiversity, their credibility is likewise diminished.Footnote ³¹ The repercussions of this extend far beyond the rangers themselves, resulting in a double loss: weakened safeguards for endangered wildlife and reduced resilience of local communities whose survival depends on fragile ecosystems.Footnote ³²

It is important to emphasize, however, that despite this growing militarization, most rangers do not, a priori, meet the criteria under IHL to qualify as combatants or to benefit from prisoner of war protections in situations of international armed conflict (IAC). With limited exceptions,Footnote ³³ they are neither formally incorporated into a State’s regular or irregular armed forcesFootnote ³⁴ nor placed under the “responsible command” of a party to the conflict.Footnote ³⁵ Moreover, there appear to be no reported instances in which such a party has been formally notified, as required by Article 43(3) of AP I, that rangers, acting in their capacity as an armed law enforcement agency, have been incorporated into the armed forces. Likewise, in NIACs, rangers are rarely part of State armed forces and are even less commonly involved in carrying out a “continuous combat function”Footnote ³⁶ for non-State armed groups.

Finally, as noted above, although rangers carry out tasks that are essential to the protection of vulnerable ecosystems and the communities that depend upon them and face heightened risks of violence, they are not granted any special protection beyond the general safeguards afforded to civilians under IHL. That being said, the functions performed by rangers may be viewed as closely aligned with humanitarian objectives. By preserving ecosystems and species of ecological significance, managing protected areas and preventing the illicit exploitation of natural resources that can sustain or exacerbate hostilities, rangers contribute not only to environmental stability but also to the fulfilment of “essential civilian needs”, including access to clean water, food security, and a healthy environment. This observation provides a compelling basis for considering whether the special protection regime afforded to relief personnel under Article 71 of AP I and customary international lawFootnote ³⁷ could, by analogy, extend to rangers. While Article 71 traditionally applies to actors engaged in strictly defined humanitarian relief, its underlying rationale – to protect individuals performing work indispensable to civilian survival – invites reflection on the inherently humanitarian character of conservation activities. This is all the more persuasive in light of growing evidence underscoring the interdependence between ecological integrity and human survival, particularly in conflict-affected regions where communities depend directly on natural resources for their livelihoods and resilience.Footnote ³⁸ In the same spirit, both the United Nations Human Rights CouncilFootnote ³⁹ and the United Nations General AssemblyFootnote ⁴⁰ have recognized that safeguarding ecosystems is integral to the realization of fundamental human rights, including the rights to life, health, water and food.

Extending the protection afforded to relief personnel to rangers would serve two essential purposes. First, it would reinforce the credibility and legitimacy of rangers’ conservation functions during warfare. Second, it would help ensure that their ecological tasks are carried out with the support of belligerents and without interference or threats to their mission, personnel or equipment, provided they act strictly within their conservation mandate. Such reasoning flows directly from Article 71 of AP I, which stipulates that relief personnel approved by a party to the conflict shall “be respected and protected” (para. 2) and shall, “to the fullest extent practicable”, be assisted by each party, except for reasons of imperative military necessity (para. 3). Were such recognition to be granted to rangers, it could entail the use of distinctive emblems, explicit protection of their equipment and guarantees of safe passage, measures that would facilitate essential conservation functions such as anti-poaching operations, habitat monitoring, environmental restoration and protected area management.

At the same time, the mandate of rangers aligns closely with the civil defence regime established by Articles 61–67 of AP I. Civil defence personnel are individuals tasked with protecting the civilian population from the dangers of hostilities or disasters by carrying out activities such as detecting and marking dangerous areas, decontaminating affected zones, conducting rescue operations, firefighting, providing medical assistance and safeguarding essential services.Footnote ⁴¹ Many of the tasks performed by rangers – combating wildfires, mitigating environmental hazards, ensuring the continuity of vital natural resources or evacuating local communities – fall squarely within this framework. This alignment is further illustrated by the fact that, in certain countries such as Nigeria,Footnote ⁴² rangers have been formally incorporated into civil defence units. Such recognition implies that rangers and their equipment, as civil defence personnel and apparatus, should benefit from heightened protection under IHL, enabling them to carry out their duties effectively. That protection, however, would not be absolute. Civil defence organizations and personnel are protected only when they are assigned by a party to the conflict to perform, and are exclusively engaged in, civil defence tasks.Footnote ⁴³ Their protection is lost – after a warning that remains unheeded – if they commit, or are used to commit, acts harmful to the enemy outside their proper functions. This would include, for example, misusing civil defence status to shield military objectives, engaging directly in combat operations or transmitting military intelligence. Importantly, Article 65(3) of AP I specifies that carrying light individual weapons solely for maintaining order or self-defence does not constitute an act harmful to the enemy, and civil defence personnel do not lose their protection on this basis. However, in areas where hostilities are taking place or are likely to take place, parties must endeavour to limit such weapons to handguns in order to help ensure that the distinction between civil defence personnel and combatants is maintained. This is particularly relevant to rangers, who are often armed to protect themselves and others against poachers or armed criminal groups. Recognizing rangers as civil defence personnel would therefore accommodate their limited use of weapons while preserving their protection under IHL, provided their activities remain strictly defensive, aimed at maintaining order and non-combatant in nature. Such recognition would also signal clearly to belligerents that the mere possession of weapons does not render rangers lawful military targets. Furthermore, rangers would not lose their protection if they cooperated with military personnel in the performance of their civil defence tasks, or if military personnel were attached to their organization,Footnote ⁴⁴ an arrangement that may often occur in practice. Finally, while engaged exclusively in their civil defence duties, civil defence organizations and their personnel, facilities and equipment are entitled to display the international distinctive sign of civil defence.Footnote ⁴⁵ This measure is particularly important for rangers operating in conflict-affected areas, as it enables clear identification and reduces the risk of being mistakenly targeted.

It may therefore be argued that the protective regimes applicable to relief personnel and, even more so, to civil defence personnel could, by analogy, be extended to rangers, given the comparable nature of their functions. This interpretation, however, remains subject to important limitations. First, such an expansive interpretation remains far from settled in doctrine or practice. Second, the regime applicable to relief personnel could itself be strengthened: although it requires that such personnel be respected and protected, and that parties to the conflict refrain from interfering with their activities except for reasons of imperative military necessity, it offers little further clarification as to the precise content and scope of these obligations. Finally, neither regime was conceived with rangers in mind, and the respective protections found therein may therefore fail to encompass the distinct functions carried out by rangers or to address the particular risks inherent in the performance of conservation duties.

Enhancing rangers’ protection through IELFootnote ⁴⁶

Although IHL remains highly relevant for protecting rangers as civilians – and, as suggested above, as relief or civil defence personnel – IEL can offer an additional layer of protection. Indeed, this regime is specifically designed to address the complex conservation and protection roles that rangers perform during armed conflict. By imposing affirmative obligations on States to preserve biodiversity – particularly in areas of high ecological value – IEL not only provides a normative foundation for safeguarding those entrusted with ecosystem stewardship but also establishes a legal imperative to adopt concrete and effective measures to that end. Integrating IHL’s humanitarian rationale with IEL’s ecological requirements thus offers a more coherent and resilient framework for preserving both rangers and the biodiversity they defend in times of war.

Drawing upon this premise, IEL can strengthen the protection of rangers in two complementary ways.Footnote ⁴⁷ First, IEL can inform the interpretation of IHL under the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties,Footnote ⁴⁸ particularly through the principle of systemic integration.Footnote ⁴⁹ This principle allows IHL treaties to be interpreted in light of “any relevant rules of international law applicable in the relations between the parties”,Footnote ⁵⁰ including those contained in IEL. Such an approach could serve to align the IHL protection regimes applicable to relief personnel and civil defence workers with the environmental functions performed by rangers. For instance, IEL – particularly certain widely ratified multilateral environmental agreements (MEAs) – could inform a purposive interpretation of the notion of “relief actions” under Article 71(1)–(2) of AP I. This interpretation would encompass environmental interventions indispensable to human survival, rather than confining relief to orthodox humanitarian modalities, in light of the interdependence between ecosystems and human well-being. Indeed, this interconnection is explicitly acknowledged in the preambleFootnote ⁵¹ to the Convention on Biological Diversity (Biodiversity Convention),Footnote ⁵² which underscores the intrinsic link between human welfare and ecosystem health; in the Convention on Wetlands of International Importance Especially as Waterfowl Habitat (Ramsar Convention),Footnote ⁵³ as reinforced by the Changwon Declaration on Human Well-being and Wetlands,Footnote ⁵⁴ which highlights the importance of wetland protection for human benefit; in the preamble of the Convention Concerning the Protection of the World Cultural and Natural Heritage (World Heritage Convention),Footnote ⁵⁵ which recognizes that safeguarding natural and cultural heritage of outstanding universal value is a duty owed to all humanity, thereby implying benefits for human prosperity; and in the preamble of the Revised African Convention on the Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources (African Convention),Footnote ⁵⁶ which affirms the connectedness between natural resources, human security and economic development. In the same vein, by acknowledging the intrinsic bond that exists between environmental integrity and human well-being, these MEAs could inform an interpretation of the tasks performed by civil defence personnel to include not only those directly aimed at protecting the civilian population against the dangers of hostilities or disasters – as formally envisaged in Article 61(a) of AP I – but also environmental functions undertaken by rangers that are indispensable to safeguarding human welfare. Such duties entail the protection and restoration of potable water sources, the prevention and remediation of pollution incidents and the conservation of natural areas that underpin local livelihoods and food security. In doing so, IEL would help ensure that the vital environmental roles underpinning human survival are recognized as integral to humanitarian relief and civil defence operations.

Second, beyond contributing to the interpretation of IHL, most MEAs are widely regarded as remaining applicable during armed conflict, unless they expressly provide otherwise.Footnote ⁵⁷ While the present study does not engage with the broader doctrinal debates concerning the applicability of MEAs during warfare, nor with the complex question of how IHL and IEL norms interact in such circumstances, it is important to clarify one point. The instruments referred to in the previous paragraph, insofar as they are relevant to this analysis, are assumed to remain in force during armed conflict.Footnote ⁵⁸ Indeed, the World Heritage Convention, the Ramsar Convention and the African Convention provide for their applicability during armed conflict, either expressly or by inference.Footnote ⁵⁹ By contrast, the Biodiversity Convention and the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species (CITES)Footnote ⁶⁰ are formally silent on the matter, but are nonetheless generally presumed to continue in force during warfare.Footnote ⁶¹ It should, however, be noted that notwithstanding the general applicability of these instruments, two exceptions may arise: first, when it is expressly stated that a specific rule, or part thereof, does not apply; and second, when the application of a specific rule, for which no exemption is specified, would be incompatible with a rule of IHL, a determination that must be made on a case-by-case basis.Footnote ⁶² We will return briefly to this last point below.

That being said, the applicability of MEAs to the work of rangers is more complex than it may initially appear. As with instruments of IHL, most MEAs make no explicit reference to rangers; however, MEAs differ fundamentally from IHL because of the distinct scopes and purposes of these bodies of law. Whereas IHL does not set out obligations to establish protected areas (leaving their creation entirely voluntary, as noted above), MEAs impose detailed, affirmative duties aimed at environmental protection and conservation, including explicit obligations to designate, manage and monitor protected areas through concrete and effective measures.Footnote ⁶³ The Biodiversity Convention, for instance, obliges States to establish systems of protected areas where necessary,Footnote ⁶⁴ to regulate and manage biological resources both within and beyond those areas so as to ensure their conservation and sustainable use,Footnote ⁶⁵ and to rehabilitate and restore degraded ecosystems and threatened species through the development and implementation of appropriate management strategies.Footnote ⁶⁶ Similarly, the Ramsar Convention requires parties to create nature reserves on wetlands,Footnote ⁶⁷ to integrate wetland conservation into national planning and implementation processes, and to “promote personnel in the fields of wetland research, management, and wardening”.Footnote ⁶⁸ The African Convention obliges States to adopt and implement measures to achieve the objectives of the ConventionFootnote ⁶⁹ – which include “fostering the conservation and sustainable use of natural resources”Footnote ⁷⁰ – and “to establish, maintain, and extend, as appropriate, conservation areas”.Footnote ⁷¹ The World Heritage Convention goes further still, mandating that States identify, protect, conserve, present and transmit to future generations designated cultural and natural sitesFootnote ⁷² – an obligation that includes, where such mechanisms are absent, the creation of services equipped with appropriate personnel and resources to carry out these functions.Footnote ⁷³ While CITES does not explicitly address protected areas, it lays down complementary obligations relevant to this context; for example, it requires parties to adopt domestic measures ensuring the effective protection of listed species.Footnote ⁷⁴

Ultimately, the concrete implementation of conservation, protection and management obligations depends on States making adequate resources available, including trained personnel and institutional support. Rangers occupy a central position in this framework: they are the front-line agents through whom States give practical effect to their IEL treaty commitments. It therefore follows that States must not only entrust rangers with protective responsibilities but also ensure that they are equipped to discharge them safely and effectively. This requirement becomes particularly acute in situations of armed conflict, where the risks facing rangers intensify, making it essential that protective measures be tailored to the specific nature of their work and the volatile environments in which they operate. In this regard, both the World Heritage CommitteeFootnote ⁷⁵ and the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN)Footnote ⁷⁶ – key actors in the implementation of the World Heritage Convention and Biodiversity Convention respectively – stress that protected areas affected by armed conflict require strengthened ranger protection, enhanced staffing and training, increased resources and support, and improved security protocols, highlighting that safeguarding rangers is an essential element of States’ broader conservation obligations.

Building on these institutional expectations, guidance may be drawn, inter alia, from emerging best practices such as those reflected in the Draft Protected and Conserved Area Rangers Convention.Footnote ⁷⁷ Essential protections for rangers include formal recognition of their protected status, authorization to display official emblems, guarantees of safe passage and assistance, secure means of transport and communication, and dedicated facilities for conservation planning and operations. Equally indispensable are operational safeguards; these include clearly defined protocols for engagement with armed actors, comprehensive logistical support, contingency planning,Footnote ⁷⁸ personal protective equipment, and reliable medical and emergency response systems. Strong accountability mechanisms must address crimes committed against rangers as well as, where relevant, those perpetrated by them. These mechanisms should be supported by a clear disciplinary framework and by robust recruitment and vetting processes designed to prevent violations.Footnote ⁷⁹ Rangers should also be provided with official identification, and in conflict zones, light individual weapons such as handguns for self-defence where authorized. In parallel, rangers must receive law enforcement training aligned with international human rights standards, ensuring that the legal framework governing their conduct is fully understood. Pre-deployment training should further encompass cultural awareness, non-violent strategies, rules of engagement and de-escalation techniques.Footnote ⁸⁰ Where weapons are authorized, rangers should also be rigorously trained in their safe and lawful use.Footnote ⁸¹

In this context, it can be contended that States will be able to discharge their obligations under the above MEAs only if they ensure that rangers are both operationally capable and adequately protected. Consequently, ensuring rangers’ security is not merely a matter of policy choice but a legal imperative deriving from the duty to conserve biodiversity, particularly in areas of exceptional ecological value when threatened by warfare. Absent such measures, rangers would be unable to prevent the illegal exploitation of natural resources, including endangered species, or to secure the sustainable management of ecosystems and wetlands, thereby exposing States to potential breaches of their IEL commitments. Within this framework, the security and operational capacity of rangers are not ancillary considerations but essential components of States’ overarching duty to ensure the effective governance of ecological systems.

Nevertheless, it should be noted that the protection afforded by MEAs may be impeded during armed conflict for two principal reasons, one legal and the other practical. On the one hand, from a legal perspective, as recalled above, this protective framework may be displaced, in whole or in part, by the specific IHL rules, including those governing the conduct of hostilities, which may, in certain circumstances, constitute the lex specialis.Footnote ⁸² For instance, when rangers move beyond conservation and law enforcement functions and take a direct part in hostilities, they may forfeit their civilian protection for the duration of their direct participation and may be lawfully targeted while so engaged. The same logic applies where rangers are treated as civil defence personnel: if their actions are acts harmful to the adversary outside their proper tasks, in addition to losing their protection under IHL, they may likewise lose the protections that would otherwise be afforded by environmental instruments. Even then, however, IHL preserves important safeguards. As noted above, protection under this body of law may cease only after a warning specifying a reasonable time limit has been given and ignored.Footnote ⁸³ Certain acts, such as cooperating with the military in civil defence tasks or carrying light weapons for self-defence, are explicitly not considered harmful.Footnote ⁸⁴ These exceptions are particularly important because rangers often work closely with the military and carry weapons while performing conservation duties in conflict zones.

On the other hand, from a practical standpoint, active hostilities may frequently impair States’ ability to honour the obligations contained in MEAs. Because many obligations to protect ecologically important areas are obligations of due diligence,Footnote ⁸⁵ their fulfilment depends on States’ institutional and operational capacity. In practice, capacity constraints may entirely prevent the deployment of rangers, require their withdrawal – particularly when their safety cannot be guaranteed – or lead to the militarization of conservation through the provision of military equipment to rangers or the deployment of armed forces alongside them. As noted above, such militarization – whether through arming rangers or integrating military units into conservation operations – not only undermines the civilian nature of protected area management but also jeopardizes the civilian status of the rangers themselves. This blurring of roles complicates the distinction between combatants and civilians and increases the risk that rangers will be perceived as, or become, participants in hostilities, particularly when they provide direct support to armed forces or are otherwise directly involved in military operations.

Taken together, these considerations call for the establishment of finely tuned, context-specific protections and mandates for rangers: preserving their operational capacity is vital to fulfilling States’ environmental obligations, but such measures must be crafted with care to avoid blurring the civilian–combatant divide and thereby producing adverse legal or operational effects.

Protecting rangers in non-international armed conflicts

The final issue concerns the scope of non-State armed groups’ obligations to respect and protect rangers in NIACs. In NIACs, as in situations of IAC, rangers are, in principle, civilians and may not be deliberately targeted by either State or non-State forces, except for such time as they take a direct part in hostilities.Footnote ⁸⁶ Unless special agreements are concluded between belligerents to grant them additional protection, as encouraged by Article 3 common to the four Geneva Conventions, rangers do not benefit from any distinct status comparable to that afforded to civil defence personnel in IACs. Additional Protocol II (AP II) creates no such regime in NIACs, and customary law does not recognize one, though some commentators have argued that it should.Footnote ⁸⁷ Extending protection to rangers by analogy with humanitarian relief personnel is also more problematic in NIACs under treaty law. Unlike in the context of IACs, AP II contains no explicit provision granting such personnel heightened protection. Still, under customary international law, humanitarian relief personnel in NIACs must also be respected and protected.Footnote ⁸⁸ In this regard, the commentary to Rule 31 of the ICRC Customary Law Study has underlined that Article 18 of AP II requires the organization of relief actions for civilians in need, which necessarily entails respect and protection for the humanitarian relief personnel carrying them out so that they can perform their duties effectively.Footnote ⁸⁹ By extension, it could be argued that rangers should benefit from similar reinforced protection, given the proximity of their functions to those of relief personnel; whether such a framework can legitimately be applied to rangers remains unsettled, however.

The absence of a dedicated IHL-based protective regime for rangers makes the potential application of IEL frameworks to armed groups all the more significant, as a means of strengthening rangers’ protection beyond that afforded by their civilian status. That said, this approach raises both legal and practical challenges. Legally, States are often reluctant to extend IEL obligations to non-State armed groups, fearing that doing so could confer de facto legitimacy upon them.Footnote ⁹⁰ Nonetheless, persuasive – albeit contested – arguments suggest that IEL may bind not only States but also non-State armed groups, insofar as the latter exercise effective territorial control and assume quasi-governmental functions.Footnote ⁹¹ Undoubtedly, States bear the primary responsibility for ensuring that rangers are respected and protected from armed groups, including by deploying the necessary military means, enabling them to carry out their conservation duties – for example, by providing logistical support, securing access to protected areas or maintaining environmental monitoring – and arresting or prosecuting those responsible for acts of violence against them. At the same time, non-State armed groups with de facto control over territory may also be bound under IEL to respect rangers and refrain from interfering with their conservation activities.

From a practical standpoint, critics may contend that even if environmental obligations formally applied to non-State armed groups, they would often remain ineffective in practice, since such groups frequently lack the material capacity to comply. This objection, however, warrants qualification. Most environmental obligations relevant to the conservation and management of protected areas – which indirectly enhance the protection of rangers – are obligations of due diligence. They must therefore be implemented to the maximum extent feasible in the prevailing circumstances.Footnote ⁹² In principle, non-State armed groups that exercise territorial control and possess sufficient institutional capacity to administer protected areas could assume responsibility for ensuring the protection of rangers. That said, one must admit that rangers are unlikely to cooperate directly with non-State armed groups engaged in hostilities against State actors, as they generally operate under the authority of the State, either as public officials or as employees of organizations whose mandates and legitimacy stem from their association with State institutions. Any direct collaboration with a non-State actor opposing the State would almost certainly sever that relationship and could be perceived as disloyal, or even tantamount to treason. Nonetheless, in situations where State authorities are absent from key biodiversity areas, conservation authorities may, in practice, find themselves compelled to negotiate with the non-State armed groups controlling those territories in order to secure at least a minimum level of protection for these sites.Footnote ⁹³

Concluding observations

Under IHL, rangers are protected first and foremost as civilians and might, by analogy, be assimilated to civil defence or humanitarian relief personnel. This, however, remains essentially a de lege ferenda proposition. Moreover, as civil defence personnel are not expressly protected in NIACs, such assimilation of rangers cannot be sustained in that context. By contrast, IEL provides a complementary framework that safeguards the ecosystems in which rangers operate and regulates activities, such as wildlife trafficking, that lie at the core of their mission. In principle, therefore, while not explicitly provided in MEAs, a protective regime recognizing the role of rangers and ensuring their safety could be derived from those instruments, as such a regime is necessary to implement the obligations they contain. Yet this approach hinges on contested questions concerning IEL’s applicability during armed conflict, particularly regarding the complex interaction of MEAs’ provisions with parallel IHL obligations. These challenges are particularly acute in NIACs, where the notion of extending environmental obligations to non-State armed groups remains contentious. Even where such obligations are recognized, expecting these groups – even those with territorial control and quasi-State structures – to protect State-mandated rangers will often be unrealistic, given the latter’s affiliation with authorities that armed actors seek to challenge.

Against this backdrop, integrating the protection of rangers into ongoing reflections on strengthening the protection of essential service providers in armed conflictFootnote ⁹⁴ would be highly valuable. Just as providers of water, energy and other critical services are indispensable to civilian populations and face heightened risks in wartime, rangers perform an equally vital role in safeguarding biodiversity hot spots that are frequently targeted for their resources, in preventing poaching and illegal logging, and in maintaining ecosystem services – such as clean water, fertile soil, carbon sequestration and climate regulation – that directly underpin human health, food security and community resilience.Footnote ⁹⁵ Extending to rangers the recommendations developed for essential service providers – including operational continuity plans, improving visibility, cultivating relationships with local actors to build resilience, negotiating safe passage, and dedicating staff to monitor risks and coordinate protective measuresFootnote ⁹⁶ – would not only enhance their safety but would also help to ensure that their indispensable work continues to support both ecological integrity and the survival and welfare of the human populations that depend on the ecosystems they protect.