I thought this weeks topic was an interesting examination of the question of statehood in the face of the growing presence of transnational organizations and international systems of law.
In theory, states should place the limits to the control of violence as the highest priority on their list. Without the "monopoly on the legitimate use of violence," state sovereigns cede authority, and if they are replaced as the legitimate source of the use of violence then they ultimately forfeit their sovereignty. Privatization may supplant other government services such as healthcare, education, transportation, and even tax collection (depending on the nature of the social contract the sovereign as with their subjects). Ultimately however, the sovereign's legitimacy lies in the ability to protect it's citizens, and enforce law and order. If citizens do not respect this legitimacy of the state, then the sovereign has no public authority within that territory, leaving a vacuum for another type of sovereign (organized crime or a separatist government for example).
The introduction of privatized police forces and the use of militias in weaker states threatens this dynamic for sovereigns in states wrestling with these issues. In states with significant security gaps, often times they are forced to resort to alternative measures to enforce their own security. Take for example the instance of Ukraine, where the conventional military is not sufficiently powerful to handle the separatist insurgency in the East of the country. They are forced to rely on nationalistic militias to tackle this security threat, and these militias are not always loyal to the government, and there have even been instances of armed conflict between the government and these forces (Oliphant). Despite these confrontations, the state still heavily relies on these militias to do much of the fighting in the East of the country, and these militias have gained much local popularity as a result of their efforts. This creates an issue of legitimacy for the state, where it doesn't necessarily have a monopoly on the use of legitimate violence, and calls into question how much sovereignty the state truly has. In summary, states need to worry about how much legitimacy the give to state actors in terms of legitimate use of violence, because it creates issues of sovereignty down the road.
Roland Oliphant, "Far-Right group Pravy Sektor challenges Ukraine government after shootout," The Telegraph, 27 July, 2015. https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/ukraine/11734520/Ukrainian-forces-surround-nationalist-militia-following-deadly-attack-in-western-Ukraine.html (accessed on 25 July, 2018)
When thinking about issues of violence within and between states, I wonder what smaller developing governments are supposed to do in the face of the idea that monopolization of violence is the ultimate expression of sovereignty. I appreciated your example of the Ukraniane’s use of nationalistic militias in Eastern Ukraine and the threat of these militias to the government’s sovereignty. Which leads me to ponder, what would be the more significant resignation to sovereignty, the inability to control separatist groups or having to resign the safety of their citizens to privatized security? Perhaps they are equal or perhaps the ultimate resignation of sovereignty would not be handing the controls over to a privatized force, but having to seek aid from another state entirely.
ReplyDeleteI really liked your looping in Ukraine's use of militias and giving power to non-state actors. Time and time again throughout history we've seen what happens when state actors try to delegate their legitimacy as regards the use of violence. I love the Ukrainian example, but it can also be said for the Russian use of similar militia groups, as well. At what point do those delegations of authority to non-state actors turn into their own sovereigns, no longer accountable to their "masters".
ReplyDelete