Insurgency vs. Civil War

[jmm99]

I believe we have at least a temporary agreement on most points - some suggestions and comments; submittted with the hope that you will stay on the rez (a forlorn hope, but a hope ).

from BW
... in response to perceptions of "Poor Governance" (rooted in Legitimacy, Justice, Respect and/or Hope....

I'd suggest something like a "negative perception of existing governance" (by the insurgent group) and leave out value-laden terms such as "good, poor and bad governance". A good chunk of objections to your theories comes from your use of those terms.

As to "Legitimacy", that is one of my current buzzwords - which I have not tried to define in general terms; but for which, I could provide some examples (besides the obvious legal ones) rooted in my concepts of Ideology, Opportunity and Security (or of "relatively better insecurity" in more Marc Legrangian terms). That triad may not be much different than your Justice, Respect and/or Hope triad.

Yup, as to as much emphasis on Civil Emergency as is "reasonably possible" (how's them for litigation language). Meet violence with violence (with no apologies for being violent). Meet non-violence with non-violence (cutting the insurgents some slack by not over-reacting to smaller provocations) - let the insurgents up the ante to terrorism (Intefada I vs Intefada II). Generally, meet military with military; political with political (realizing that political insurgencies can develop a nasty side in a hurry - and that some counter-violence will still be needed in the political struggle).

from BW
Civil War, on the other hand, is when a State breaks cleanly at the start of the conflict into 2 or more distinct legal entities, with clear boundaries and formal governing bodies. The new states willing to fight to retain their newly declared independence, and the remnant of the old state willing to fight to prevent the same. This is more traditional warfare between these two governments. Once the Civil War is resolved by accepted principles of warfare, however, one may find them self with all of the conditions of insurgency as described above that must be appreciated and managed as well.

Some may say that I am leaning too heavily on the American experience. No, it is merely a distinction that to me provides some form of worthwhile merit.

So, between a populace and its government: insurgency.

When a new government forms, and a new state is formed: Civil War.

I've no real objection to looking at civil war in this way. Basically, you are equating a "civil war" with "recognition of a belligerent", which is similar to (but not the same as) "recognition of a new state" - the Soresen concept explained above. Don't simplify too much here - "distinct legal entities" are fine; but "new states" go a bridge too far.

As you recognize (and we agree), bright lines are hard to draw.

In simple terms, a "belligerent" is an "insurgent" who has gained some respect. Or, in my local Finlander terms, a belligerent is a "hi'glas" insurgent - or a drunken Finlander.

Our Civil Rights struggle and our Civil War are fine examples of a non-violent response and a violent response. We've never differed on those.

Now, if we can just work on the American Revolution and get around to my (proper) interpretation of the Declaration of Independence.

-----------------------
Brief note to Rex.

from Rex
I think there are two rules of thumb that ought to guide conceptual definitions:

1) Does the category have any analytical utility? The whole purpose of applying labels and drawing conceptual boundaries, after all, is to aid analysis.

2) Does the use of the term more-or-less coincide with the way the term is used by scholars and a broader audience? If it doesn't there is simply too much scope for increased confusion.

No doubt. That's why I prefer "recognition of belligerency" cuz that's been around from before the Hague Rules.

If belligerency is recognized, that recognition will cause (or should cause) a change in policy in each of the affected Powers. Since both the military struggle and the political struggle are (or should be) merely continuations of policy by other means (how's that for slipping in a little Mao-Giap), the expected changes in policies have some analytical value.

The drawback in using I Law terms is your second point - they are fairly well defined (at least well exemplified), but lack a broad audience.

Regards

Mike