Legitimate Violence and State Sovereignty


                When we consider legitimate violence within an independent state there is a relatively simple framework to work with. In the barest of terms there is the governing, and the governed. The debate over the legitimacy of international violence is more complicated, due to the fact that you are faced with not only the ‘official’ international actors, say Sudan or Brazil, but also the groups within those states and groups that exist in, around, and outside those states, like the Islamic State.
                For the moment, let us assume that violence is legitimate. What role does the international community, if any at all, have to play in regulating international altercations when state sovereignty is on the line? As a convenient example, I fall back on the Islamic State. In particular the portion of the conflict playing out in Syria. It is especially complex because of the allegations of chemical warfare levelled against the Syrian state. In this case, other sovereign states are contributing to the efforts against the Islamic State in Syria, joining forces with the Syrian government. Of course, at the same time, the Syrian government is not on solid footing, as it fights off rebel groups who oppose the government of Bashar Al-Assad. Additionally, the connections between the terrorist groups and the rebel groups can be blurry. In short, it is a nightmare of a situation for any citizen simply trying to live their life in Syria.
                On the other hand, it is a situation in which the student of international relations can find much to study. There is almost nothing but violence, all spread out across a tangle of states and transnational groups. Syria has consented to allow the international community to assist with the attempted eradication of the Islamic State, but they are not open to any interference in their on-going civil conflict. Where does this place state’s who are interfering to quell the violence, when the altercations between the rebel groups and government forces only continue to add to the greater regional disorder.
                There doesn’t seem to be a final answer to this question, but it does underline how in today’s international system, we do have standards for the maintenance of state sovereignty, even when working within their sovereign territory to manage a separate situation. This is in part due to the multilateral system in which Russia and the United States, both of whom are entwined in the Syrian situation, must not come directly into conflict with each other. Even when managing legitimate violence, or facing ‘illegitimate’ violence, a certain amount of state sovereignty must be maintained.

Comments

  1. UnknownJuly 1, 2018 at 4:05 PM

    The question of legitimate violence is very interesting. I've read that Weber claims that states have a monopoly over legitimate physical violence. But, as you've mentioned, there are non-state actors that challenge that monopoly. This challenge is often what defines terrorism (the use of violence by a non-state actor). Do you think that a state's act of violence could be considered "illegitimate" or be defined as terrorism?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. EHJuly 12, 2018 at 4:49 PM

      I do, particularly as it pertains to the persecution of minorities. I think of Rwanda or the Armenian genocide, etc etc. We have the UN's council on human rights to try and prevent some of those illegitimate acts of violence. Unfortunately, they more frequently arrive only in time to clean up the mess left behind.

      Delete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Anarchy in the USA

           While discussing realist motives and intentions, it seems that the United States is headed down a curious path worth looking at. Clearly a powerful nation, the United States should be in a unique position to latch onto globalization in order to secure a stable future. Calm, cool, collected domination is a much better look than ramping up rhetoric and perceived might, because your neighbor's interest to attack is seemingly when they are most threatened by show of force.             The United States has long taken advantage of its allies, while using economic bargaining to secure peaceful existence. The European Union is a clear ally in the spread of Democracy and Capitalism, two tenants central to the existence of the United States. It is this point that makes recent events troubling with regards to a peaceful future.             In an effort to bolster nationalism, our country has tur...
Read more

Waltz's Neorealism

The reading by Waltz points out some key points that Neorealists believe in. Neorealists view power as a possibly useful means. Neorealism contends that international politics can be understood only if the effects of structure are added to the unit-level explanations of traditional realism. It rejects the assumption that man’s innate lust for power constitutes a sufficient cause of war in the absence of of any other. Specifically, we need to look at the causal link interacting units and international outcomes. We’ve established before with Hobbes that the system we live in is anarchy. States are rational actors that at their basest level want to survive. Neorealism states that within an anarchy, states need to provide their own security to protect themselves from threats. This security dilemma is a problem, war occurs. This depends on situations and characteristics of states, not because states want to have war. The more important question then becomes what started th...
Read more

Corporations Will Run Amuck

Corporations help create domestic and global economic prosperity. However, when they grow extremely rich they can become powerful which may threaten sovereign actors’ authority, both on a national and international level. Additionally, through hefty donations their lobbying capability allows them to manipulate politicians and the political process undermining democratic processes and devaluing the voice of the people.  In order to prevent corporations from interfering with the democratic processes there needs to be an overarching system that monitors what corporations do and how they do it. To a certain extent room and flexibility may help corporations better compete against one another. Capitalist societies like the United States believe that less regulations on corporations means more incentive to be innovative. And while that may be true to some extent, there are also many abuses these companies commit in order to maximize their profits. Without strict gui...
Read more