Please introduce yourself (Hint: go to Hail and Farewell) and give us some background. Welcome and thanks in advance.

There are three basic situations (some of the real situations we see will be consistent with the legalistic concept of the nation-state's "monopoly on violence"; some not):

1. Nation-state vs nation state.

2. Nation-state vs violent non-state actor.

3. Violent non-state actor vs violent non-state actor.

Much of the present construct is based on Westphalian nationhood, and is often too legalistic (e.g, where a "nation-state" exists de jure under I Law, but does not really exist de facto).

The extent of violence generally determines whether the situation is one of armed conflict or not armed conflict. A grey area does exist between armed conflict or not armed conflict, but usually we have a pretty good common sense of whether the situation is one or the other.

All situations involve a choice of violent and non-violent COAs to handle the situation. In armed conflicts, for example, we might see only a military effort, or a mix of military and political efforts.

Global Law, particularly with respect to violent non-state actors, is a mess; and anyone who attempts to solve present problems with present legalisms, is often standing on some very shifting sands.

When reality is not well-defined, law is often inadequate. Once a area becomes better defined, law usually manages to catch up - unless it becomes dogma-bound.

A good monograph, worth reading and then studying to induce independent thinking, is Mark O'Neill, Confronting the Hydra (2009).

Cheers

Mike