Professor Jackson’s soliloquy this week talked a lot about
the role of violence in the public and the legitimacy of that violence. He left
use with a few questions to ponder, does legitimate violence exist? Is any
violence legitimate? A state protects its sovereignty and territoriality with
violence, violence plays an important role in maintaining that state, so
whether the violence is legitimate or not is important.
For the sake of this post, I am operating under the
assumption that violence can be considered legitimate. Is violence only
legitimate when a state uses it to protect its sovereignty, or territory? Who
determines whether that violence is legitimate or not in particular situations?
What if the state is no longer acting in the interest of protecting is sovereignty,
are the people of the state then able to use legitimate violence to force a
change?
Another way to look at these questions is to look at a
current example in world politics. If you have been following the news at all, you
are aware that ISIS militants have been fighting in Iraq and taking over cities
and fighting over key oil rigs. ISIS has been using violence to take over cities
and people. Is this use of violence legitimate if they see that there is a
fundamental error with their current government? Is it considered legitimate
violence if the state of Iraq fights back? What about other states reacting and
using violence to combat ISIS; is that considered legitimate violence? If the
state asks another state to engage in violence, such as the use of drones, is
that legitimate? Why or why not?
I believe that, with the assumption that there can be
legitimate violence, the use of force is acceptable if the state is using it to
protect its territory. If the state is asking for help in protecting itself by
inviting another state to use force, which can also be seen as legitimate
because it is affecting the state’s self-interest. The fighters, like ISIS, are
not using force legitimately because there could be alternatives before
engaging in this kind of violence.
That is just one way to look at this example. What do you
think?
You raise some interesting questions. I agree with you that there is legitimate violence. The challenge is determining what constitutes legitimate violence. Violence is scalable from pistols and rifles all the way to dirty bombs and nuclear weapons.
ReplyDeleteWith regard to the current situation in Iraq, I assess it a bit different than you. President Maliki marginalized the Sunnis of Iraq upon the withdrawal of US troops at the end of 2011. ISIS now includes some of these Sunni Iraqis who decided in 2006 - 2007 to turn on Al Qaeda in Iraq under Zarqawi in Anbar Province. These Sunni Iraqis helped the US defeat Al Qaeda in Iraq. Now they feel justified in fighting against a central government who has used Iranian support to vilify them. Unfortunately, ISIS is more extreme in its ideology than Al Qaeda. Ultimately, it is sectarian violence based on the Sunni-Shia divide in the Middle East.
On a different note, I find it interesting how some policy folks advocate the principle of right to protect. During the NATO military intervention in Libya in 2011, the operation was justified by Libyan attacks against civilians determined to be "crimes against humanity." The NATO response was to use a UN resolution to employ military airpower to protect Libyan civilians while simultaneously employing offensive air strikes against Gaddafi and his regime in Tripoli.
Important questions, Ashley. The way in which you frame the discussion, though, it seems like the key element is the legitimacy of the state, i.e.:
ReplyDeleteIf the state is seen as legitimate, then the violence it conducts in the name of its own territorial integrity follows as legitimate. I wonder if this is always the case; I'm not sure it is.
Related: I wonder if the move to define borders of control is a simultaneous move to allow rhetorical reference to "territorial integrity".