I like this term ....
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.from Slap
... VNSA (Violent Non State Actors).
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.
Bookmarks