You may be right, but....
Sunni Miltia v Shia Militia? Tutsi v Hutu? Pashutn v anybody? Anyone still want to call these things "insurgencies?"
I suspect that that would depend on the form of government :wry:. I've been trying to think of examples and the ones that pop to mind are gang fights, clan feuds (e.g. Scots-English border raids) and, occasionally, outright "wars" (in the Holy Roman Empire). On the whole, I am really hesitant to use the post-Westphalian state as the basis for any general model of conflict.
Marc,
Are you suggesting that somehow the Western post-Westphalian view is not the only version of what "right" looks like? or that every state that either fails or refuses to adopt such a construct is not a "Failed state" demanding immediate fixing??? :)
I probably do use modern western words, but hey, here I am. But I don't see how this would not apply equally well to Kingdoms, or looser confederated empires like the one led by Genghis Khan, etc. A Sovereign of some nature equating to a state.
Whoah there! You do not have to be a state to conduct warfare. Why is this held to be important?
You merely have to have a collective policy that you wish to advocate by violence. That's it.
Hi Bob,
Yup :D!
I suspect it would apply to many kingdoms and some confederacy "empires" (although I suspect that would only be true if they had a history of a "Royal [Noble] Tribe"). I don't think it would really apply to the Iroquois Confederacy, merchantile "empires" such as Venice, most pastoralist groups, or many other social forms we've had in our history.
Even in situations where the "sovereign" is incarnate, we have some problems with it (e.g. Machiavelli's distinction between the first amongst equals of the west and the Eastern despot). Things, to my mind, get trickier still when we bare dealing with discarnate sovereigns such as a God or Goddess (e.g. the Sumerian city states), a Constitution, etc. In that case, the "sovereign" can't "speak" for "themselves, but rely upon a group of people who constantly interpret the "will" of the "sovereign" - often in mutually contradictory ways ;).
Honestly, I don't know what terminology would work best for our current situations :wry:. I'm leery of using the post-Westphalian terminology because it assumes too many things that, IMO, just aren't present.
(wrong thread/wrong post)