Hayes, can you tell to us who defines the "legitmacy of war actors"? Apparently the current conflict between Israel and Hezbollah is an example of Fourth Generation War. Does your narraw (presumably) definition of "legitmacy of war actors" still apply in 4GW?
Agreements between nation states define who are legitimate actors - in this case, nation states. You'll have to elaborate of what you mean by 4GW and make some justification about why an all-inclusive (presumably) perspective should be taken.
Is there such an agreement between Israel and Lebanon that Hezbollan would be an illegal actor should an armed conflict arise? 4GW is defined as war fought by non-state force against state.
Hezbollah is an illegal actor. It has no legitimacy in attacking an external state. Unless you are claiming that Lebanon asked Hezbollah to act on its behalf. And? I hope you're not suggesting that any non-state force is a legitimate actor to start a war.
So you are conceding you couldn't find an "agreement between Israel and Lebanon" to support your argument? Neither does Israel. Regardless of the controversy whether the two IDF soldiers were captured in which country's territory, Israel has not stopped its provocations into Lebanese borders since "official" withdrawing forces in 2000. If you cannot provide any accord, agreement, convention, law, or treaty on the "legitimacy of war actors," you are in perpetual motion of circular reasoning.
No, lol - you're just purposely being dense. States are the only legitimate actors when in comes to engaging in direct military action against another state. All agreements and conventions are between nation-states (rather than other actors), not necessarily between individual states. The US and Canada don't have a Treaty on the Laws of War, lol - all the nation states do in the form of a Convention on the subject. Yes, it does by virtue of being a nation state. That is a necessary condition that Hezbollah does not have. I don't see either any proof of this assertion nor does it affect our disagreement. Whether or not Israel has been engaging in 'provocations' into Lebanon or not, Hezbollah is no legitimacy to attack Israel unless Lebanon has designated Hezbollah to act on its behalf. And again I ask if you are suggesting that any non-state force is a legitimate actor to start an external war with another state? You've indicated that you want to be inclusive rather than exclusive, so please clarify for us.
You mean any occupier can set up a puppet government thus outlaw any resistant forces because there is a state "that has responsibility and sovereignty over the issue"? Hmmm...
tigermission1: What if that 'external' state is an occupier, or a colonial power, would it be 'illegitimate' for a subnational group to resist that occupation and struggle to achieve true independence? HayesStreet: Yes, when there is a state that has responsibility and sovereignty over the issue. Hard to read it any other way. What a ghost. LOL.
Not at all. Conventions legitimize internal struggles (or probably more accurately give some legitimacy to internal struggles), not external attacks on other states. It might have been clearer if I'd said "Yes, when there is a state that has responsibility and sovereignty over the issue, unless that state endorses such action (which I did say in another post)."
I didn't say 'aggression', I basically asked you if resistance to a foreign occupier (not aggression against a state) would be considered a legitimate use of force, you said no. You're wrong. IMO, your confusion is probably caused by the erroneous view of nation-states as the only legitimate actors in the international arena.
I don't know who's being dense here. You insist non-state actors lack legitimacy in armed conflicts with states, yet you are NOT able to point to any legalistic documents to support you argument, upon challenged. The Laws of War don't designate non-state actors as illegitimate participants, nor do the authors on the Fourth Generation Warfare. Only in your D&D Hayesian Book does such twisted concept exist. Heck, I guess even you as the author of Democarcy War will have to admit your long running assertion that a democracy never attacks another democracy is coming to a grinding halt. Necessary condition of what? It's like some prejudicial sheriff overseeing a neighbourhood street fight arbitrarily calling any participant a thug who's not from a "middle class" family that has two SUVs, two kids, two dogs, and a minimum annual household income at $150,000. I don't blame you don't see any proof of Israeli provocations prior to the current conflict, because we can always safely assume, likewise, there are extreme Islamic propagandists claiming WTC Twin Towers didn't exist in the first place. Israel would be voided of any legitimacy in attacking Lebanon if the IDF soldiers ventured into Lebanese territory, regardless where two of them were captured. In the current case of the conflict, I believe, and many would also agree, that Hezbollah didn't start the war. Israel had it planned for years, only to use the capturing of their two soldiers as tenuous excuse. My opinion on the inclusiveness/exclusiveness of legitimacy of war actors conforms to the neutral assessment of the situation.
I think I pretty clearly make the internal/external distinction in my latter post and in the posts before your question. In fact, I went on to further clarify my answer to you in the exchange with michecon. I never said states were the only legitimate actors in the international arena, I said subnational groups are not legitimate actors capable of direct military action against another state. That you didn't say 'aggression' is exactly the point - you don't recognize the legitimacy of a subnational group to attack externally either. In our earlier posts you threw out NGO's, corporations, and internal struggles - and I replied that none of those are legitimate actors to attack another state externally. That's the framing of all this discussion.
Lol, the problem for you wnes, is that no document gives legitimacy to a subnational group attacking externally. That is the dispute. ALL of the Conventions in place serve as guidelines to how STATES act in external conflicts - which is the point - the nation-state is the only legitimate actor in such a situation. Not going to argue your convoluted analogy. Only a state (or group of states) can legitimately move against another state (externally). It is a necessary condition that such an actor be a state, not a subnational group. That is still not sufficient, as the state has other burdens to meet if the action is to be seen as legitimate, but if it isn't a state then it fails the first hurdle of legitimacy. I think you would be fairly alone in your assessment. The UN, Lebanese government, EU, and Arab League all recognize Hezbollah started this mess. Now both wnes and tigermission you can tell us what you DO believe instead of henpecking my answers: is a subnational group a legitimate actor in attacking another external state?
Yea, really. I can't beleive those folks seriously made that game. But as sad as the game is, I seriously feel like that is GWB's policy. It is okay to kill people sometimes because he's saving souls. btw, I assume you meant the game is offensive ...not my comment.
In other words, what you are saying is: In case of resistance force and puppet government, the non-government resistance force can only win struggle "internally" first in order for them to gain "legitimacy" to attack externally as a form of resistant struggle against occupation?
I don't know why are we caught up on "legitimacy" here. I'm curious what kind of document gives Israel "legitimacy" to bomb all the Lebanon infrastructure and cilivian targets full-fledge just because some group captured two of their soldiers? Oh, BTW, what is the legal status for American troops' continued staying in Iraq? - I'm cautious not to use the word "occupation' here, since I don't know what kind of agreement there is/or isn't between US and the new Iraqi government.
I'm saying that a subnational group has some basis for legitimate action for an internal struggle (ie in a civil war or to a lesser extent resist an occupation) according to the Conventions on War et al. However, they do not have basis for direct military action externally, only states have that legtimacy.
The discussion emerged when some posters started equating Israel and Hezbollah as if they were comparable actors. They aren't. One is a state, and as such has a starting point to engage another state legitimately (a necessary condition), while one isn't. Keep in mind that I've also claimed that there must be sufficient conditions met to declare such action legitimate (which goes to your point about evaluating Israeli tactics), but that is a different discussion. We don't have to get to that secondary discussion to conclude Hezbollah's actions were illegitimate. It breaks down like this: A + B = C A = Legitimate actor (necessary condition) B = Legitimate rationale/tactics (sufficient condition) C = Legitimate action Israel = A, we can argue about B and try and determine if we get C. Hezbollah does not = A, there is no need to argue about B or C. Not sure, nor do I know what impact that would have on this discussion.
