|
State Response to the Challenge of Non-State Armed Groups In an effort to maintain national security, states have focused traditionally on safety, sovereignty, territorial integrity, and their power position. Confronting non-state armed groups in order to achieve these aims has often required the adoption of extraterritorial measures in the name of security and counter-terrorism. Engaging with non-state armed groups, whether diplomatically, politically, economically, legally, or militarily, has far-reaching implications as to the legitimacy of these groups, the current international order, and the preservation of peace and security. Policymakers, lawyers, academics, and practitioners must explore options for increasing compliance by transnational and non-state armed groups with international law. The ultimate goal being to draw out the implications of and strategies for engaging transnational and non-state armed groups, in a diverse range of conflict contexts. |
|
Security and Counter-Terrorism
Traditionally, international security has relied on a policy of deterrence, assuming actors are rational and have valuable interests. This policy has been challenged by modern warfare and transnational and non-state actors whose non-linear strategies and ideological interests transcend conventional notions of security and counter-terrorism. This section addresses the scope of security issues today, potential methods of increasing security while decreasing terrorism, and successful and controversial measures taken to achieve this goal.
|
Security and Counter-terrorism
Marrying Prevention and Resiliency: Balancing Approaches to an Uncertain Terrorist Threat |
|
Engagement and Non-Engagement
Engagement with transnational and non-state armed actors is a difficult, challenging, and sensitive matter, which can also be rewarding in bringing a conflict to an end or securing protection for civilians. Engagement can indeed simultaneously confer undue legitimacy on armed groups, while also potentially leading to a resolution of a conflict, or at least a decrease in the deleterious impact on civilians. Often, engagement is undertaken carefully, confidentially, and with a great deal of consideration, while other times it is characterized by haste and incongruity. This section reveals attempts to refine engagement protocol and discusses the broader implications of engaging with armed groups.
|
Engagement and Non-Engagement
Marrying Prevention and Resiliency: Balancing Approaches to an Uncertain Terrorist Threat The Need to Refine India’s Response to Terrorist Incidents Combating international terrorism: New powers for the security council? |
|
Extraterritoriality
States are increasingly exercising extraterritoriality, that is, applying their laws outside of their national territory in confronting transnational organizations and the extensive support networks that allow these and other non-state armed groups to thrive.The context in which states do so is important as different legal frameworks apply in varying situations. It is difficult to aver with certainty when extraterritoriality is legal, as such assessment depends on the level and scope of the armed conflict, whether consent has been expressed by the host state, the type of extraterritoriality exerted (such as targeted killings), and key applicable tenets of International Human Rights Law and International Humanitarian Law.
|
Extraterritoriality
Combating international terrorism: New powers for the security council? The Implications of the Mumbai Attacks for Afghanistan Oil capture spotlights Somali pirates' reach India and Pakistan Address Terrorism Issues as Relations Deteriorate |