Violent Non-State Actors

[jmm99]

your comment:

I was slightly surprised that Violent Non-State Actors (VNSA) was actually an abbreviation in use here, ah well cannot recall everything here.

caused my SWC re-search engine to fire up - knowing that I've used the term VNSA - though usually as TVNSA (Transnational Violent Non-State Actor); sometimes as DVNSA (Domestic Violent Non-State Actor).

My usage goes back to this post (30 Mar 2009), JP, the answers to your questions ....., which doesn't deviate from my present theories:

JP's question:

...the question of which law applies - Local laws and regulations (State and Federal Statutes) or the laws of warfare (UCMJ/Geneva Convention).

My answer:

JP, the answers to your questions ..... cut across a number of currently on-going threads. The answers are NOT matters of law only, although the Rule of Law (local and international) and the Laws of War do come into play.

Two levels will come into play, besides law:

1. The current study of "irregular warfare" and the military policies that will be developed from that, including the applicable SROEs.

2. The national strategic policy that is currently under development - not for the far future, but the policy that will be in effect for, say, 2010 (not 4 or 10 years in the future).

This is complicated because one size will not fit all of the situations. From a legal standpoint - and from the military SROE standpoint, I see at least four different situations that the military will have to confront:

1. Conventional warfare.

2. Insurgency (primarily focused on one nation which has one or more Domestic Violent Non-State Actors - DVNSA, with or without external support by one or more State or Non-State Actors).

3. Military action against Transnational Violent Non-State Actors (TVNSA), such as AQ, who launch attacks across international borders. Related to this is the permissible scope of civilian agency paramilitary action against the same TVNSA target. Two approaches have been taken: "War ROEs" and "LE ROEs" (these are in quotes because there are different views internationally as to what "War ROEs" should be, and what "LE ROEs" should be). Adoption of one or the other as a default does not necessarily preclude use of the other in certain defined situations. There is a huge conflict here.

4. Military assistance in LE (Law Enforcement) Operations, which may involve groups that are either DVNSAs or TVNSAs, but as to which the political decision has been made NOT to raise the status of the problem to that of an "armed conflict". In short, these generally will be regarded as domestic criminal law problems.

All of these situations require reasoned political decisions (national policy level); and hopefully mission tasking type orders to the military to allow it to formulate appropriate SROEs, and particular ROEs on a case by case basis - which will have to fit the military strategy, operations and tactics adopted for each case.

So, to me, VNSAs (TVNSAs and DVNSAs) are useful categories in considering the different kinds of situations requiring specific ROEs - which by necessity require (or should require) reference to the specific strategy, operations and tactics best suited to the particular situation.

Now, from whom did I derive this useful concept of VNSAs ? Well, from Slap - a few weeks before:

Slap - 9 Mar 2009:

I don't think it matters much if they are insurgents or not. Because first they are criminals or the more modern term VSNA (Violent Non State Actors).

JMM99 - 10 Mar 2009:

I like this term .... from Slap ... VNSA (Violent Non State Actors), which covers a lot of ground; and, as I am now viewing it, is much the same as a non-State actor that uses armed force.

Working as a Devil's Advocate against myself, an important question is how to define an armed conflict in which a non-State actor (VNSA) engages - as opposed to a VNSA who engages in criminal acts.[*]

Like the definitions for "terrorists", I doubt that any general definition can be tailored that will fit all cases.

In the US, my recourse would be to the constitutional process of a resolution to use armed force against a defined enemy (e.g., a VNSA), approved by both the Legislative and Executive branches. In short, a case by case determination. [**] Once that determination is made, the situation would be an armed conflict generally ruled by the Laws of War.

In the absence of such a determination, the Rule of Law (law enforcement rules) would be the default, even where a VNSA is involved.

BTW: my postings in this thread are an opinion piece - what the law should be, not necessarily what it (or the actual practice) is.

------------------------
[*] Viewing members of a VNSA as "enemy combatants" (ruled by the Laws of War) should not preclude their prosecution under the Rule of Law (domestic criminal law), unless they satisfy the requirements for combatant immunity - most will not meet those requirements.

[**] "case by case" here meaning situation by situation; not meaning judicial cases. SCOTUS has made it clear that it will not intervene where the other two branches have acted in this political area. The exceptions have been where domestic constitutional issues prevail - e.g., the habeas cases and the Steel Seizure case.

I've very much stayed with this methodology ever since.

One final question is when VSNA first reared its head at SWC. For that, we can blame Brian Hanley, 7 Nov 2007:

non-state as capable as the state

The underlying question is, "What does a VNSA (violent non-state actor) require in order to be as capable as the state?" A corollary is, "What does it mean to be as capable as the state?" I'd say the second is a combination of ideology and indoctrination. The first is an ability to cause death equal to the state. Ideology is always primary.

We see with Islamism (also with ELF and the Aum cult, but on a much smaller scale) the ability to serve up a motivating ideology and then follow it with death dealing capacity. One could even use Kaczynski as an example of a cult of one. He served himself an ideology, indoctrinated himself, then used it to attack others on an individual scale.

Here are a few references you might find useful.

Byman, D., P. Chalk, et al. (2001). Trends in Outside Support for Insurgent Movements. Arlington, VA, RAND.
Hanley, B. (2007). Chapter 16 - Understanding and Countering the Motives and Methods of Warlords. Countering Terrorism and Insurgency in the 21st Century. J. F. Forest. Westport, CT, Praeger Security International. 2
Maj. Troy S. Thomas, U. and U. Maj. William D. Casebeer (2004). "Violent Non-State Actors: Countering Dynamic Systems." Strategic Insights, Center for Contemporary Conflict, Naval Postgraduate School.
Pape, R. (2005). Dying to Win: The Strategic Logic of Suicide Terrorism. New York, Random House.
Thomas, T. S., S. D. Kiser, et al. (2005). Warlords Rising: Confronting Violent Non-State Actors. New York, Lexington Books.
Wrong, M. (2001 ). In the Footsteps of Mr. Kurtz: Living on the Brink of Disaster in Mobutu's Congo. New York, HarperCollins Publishers Inc.

This post was from the thread started by Sam (selil), Nation state and non-nation state actors (5 Nov 2007), which IMO should be consolidated in this thread. Mod adds: done sah!

Regards & HTs to all who've contributed to my constructs involving TVNSAs and DVNSAs.

Mike