Non-State Actors: The “Spectrum” of Political Violence

PO 325: International Politics

State and Non-State Actors

• As noted, the state has historically been

considered the primary actor in the study of international politics, and we have focused solely on the state up to this point

• Even those major theories that disagree with

the undisputed centrality of the state recognize that organized state power is very important in global politics

State and Non-State Actors

• However, there may be reason to believe that

ignoring non-state actors causes us to miss an important facet of global relations and conflict. The remainder of this section deals with such actors.

– What about nations? Are they different than states?

Are they important?

– What about insurgent groups (e.g., terrorism)? – What about international organizations (liberalism)?

Example of Non-State Actors: The Nation

• Nations are groups of people who live in a specific geographic

region and claim a commonality based on ethnic, religious, racial or other characteristics

• Some nations are states (or have sovereignty in the international

system), but not all nations are states and very few states are exclusively comprised of the people of one nation

– Japan: Nation-State – Old USSR: Multinational State – Kurds: Nation without a State • As the Kurdish example shows, actors who are not states can have

an important impact on global relations (is “International Relations” a misnomer?)

Conflict Reconsidered: Why is the State so Important?

• The state is powerful (can impose and absorb

many costs)

– Deters action from non-state actors altogether – Actual or threatened violence makes opponent’s

costs outweigh potential benefits

– Violence can destroy opponent • Due mainly to sovereignty and pro-status quo

bias

Conflict Reconsidered: Why is the State so Important?

• HOWEVER – State power is limited

– Even states can suffer prohibitively high

costs

– Weaker potential “revisionist” entities may

take advantage of this (insurgency – see below)

Non-State Actors and Conflict: Insurgency

• Probably the most prevalent form of

violence involving non-state actors is the use of force by such actors against states for the purposes of changing some perceived injustice or unfavorable status quo. This form of violence is normally known as insurgency

Why is Insurgency Important to the Study of IR?

• In addition to causing domestic concerns for states,

insurgent groups impact international relations

• Insurgent groups, though normally fighting against the

government of one state, often gain the backing of other states, thereby making the conflict international

– Example: French Involvement in the American Revolution • Insurgencies can be transnational; when this occurs, the

actions can change the foreign policies of the target and their relations with other states

– Example: Al Qaeda, the US, and the NATO allies

•

Non-State Actors and Conflict: Insurgency

From a rational perspective, when might less powerful entities engage in insurgent violence against more powerful entities?

• • •

They feel that there is at least some probability that they can use what power they have to impose enough costs on the stronger opponent as to make it reconsider its position AND They are willing to attempt to reach their goals despite the massive costs the stronger opponent can impose OR They do not think the full power of the stronger opponent will be brought to bear on them for whatever reason (e.g., will not be caught, access to sanctuary)

Non-State Actors and Conflict: Insurgency

• There are several different classes of insurgent

violence in which non-state actors can engage against states

• From a rational perspective, the type of violence

that a group chooses is commensurate with the amount of relative capabilities that it possesses vis-à-vis its opponent (state)

The “Spectrum” of Political Violence

• 1. War – Interstate War – Dealt with Exclusively by Major Theories of IR • Example: 2003 Gulf War – Civil War – Insurgency, Involving Intrastate Groups with Similarly

Matched Military Capabilities, in which Insurgents Wish to Establish Separate State

• Example: US Civil War – Revolutionary War – Insurgency, Involving Intrastate Groups with

Similarly Matched Military Capabilities, in which Insurgents Wish to Overthrow Existing Government and Establish New One

• Example: Russian Civil War (Misnomer)

The “Spectrum” of Political Violence

• 2. Coup D’état • Insurgency in which a small number of elites in an

established state maneuvers to gain control of military apparatus, thus effecting regime change by presenting existing leadership with fait accompli

• Power disposition is uncertain until point of coup; if

plotters fail, they possess no power resources

– Example: Pakistani coup of 2000

The “Spectrum” of Political Violence

• 3. The Police State (Totalitarianism) • The State itself is technically the revisionist

power (not insurgency)

• State leadership attempts to use its vast power

resources to preclude threats to its rule through physical intimidation, coercion, and purposeful or random kidnapping and murder of citizens

– Examples: Nazi Germany and Soviet Russia

The “Spectrum” of Political Violence

• 4. Guerilla Warfare • Insurgency in which non-state actors with considerably fewer

power resources (including numbers) than the state engage in political violence against the state

• Though they possess some of the equipment of conventional war

and normally operate from a defined territorial base, guerillas recognize that victory cannot be achieved through full-scale frontal engagement

– Engage in small, diffuse ambushes to inflict costs on state forces, thus

forcing the state to reconsider its position

– Use sanctuary to ensure secrecy, minimize costs suffered • Example: East Timorese insurgency

The “Spectrum” of Political Violence

• 5. Terrorism • Insurgency in which non-state actors are overwhelmingly

overmatched by state forces

• Insurgents do not use the resources of conventional war because

they do not possess them; rather, they engage in tactics and strategies that utilize rudimentary materials to inflict costs on the civilians, not the forces, of the state

– Costs are almost always political in nature; the goal is to make the

citizenry fearful enough to force its government to change status quo

– Secrecy of utmost importance; defeat spells disaster • Examples: Hezbollah, Al Qaeda

POWER OF THE TARGET (OR STATUS QUO ENTITY) THE SPECTRUM OF POLITICAL VIOLENCE: STRATEGY AND RELATIVE MILITARY POWER Terrorism Guerilla Warfare Civil War Interstate War Coup D’etat “Police State” POWER OF THE INITIATOR (OR REVISIONIST ENTITY)

Insurgency: Conclusion

• Traditional IR theories seem to deal with only a

small part of conflict in the global community – that occurring amongst states

• In fact, the most pressing form of conflict

(terrorism) is left unaddressed

• Insurgent groups do not choose strategies and

tactics based on any consideration other than relative capabilities