In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:

C H A P T E R 1 2 Just War and Guerilla War Michael L. Gross ALTHOUGH IT IS CRUCIAL TO ASK how state armies should fight nonstate guerrilla organizations justly, it is equally important to ask whether guerrillas can wage just war. It is often thought that they cannot—that guerrilla armies violate the principles of just war in the most egregious way and leave state armies to wring their hands in frustration and debate the price of violating the same principles that their adversaries mockingly ignore. Although this dismal perspective dominates the thinking of state actors, it is decidedly narrow and, ultimately, unconvincing. Some, though not all, nonstate actors that dominate armed conflict today have legitimate recourse to the force of arms when accompanied by just cause and legitimate authority. Just cause reaches beyond traditional notions of territorial self-defense to embrace a range of threats that undermine fundamental human rights that sometimes, but not always, include the right of national self-determination. Similarly, the ad bellum principle of legitimate authority—or who, exactly, may authorize the use of armed force—requires greater nuance and elasticity in the context of guerrilla warfare. Among nonstate actors liberation movements, self-governing political organizations, and, often, rival political groups replace the sovereign governments of nation-states. Deprived of just cause and legitimate authority, guerrilla organizations indeed face charges of criminal behavior. Armed with just cause and legitimate authority, however, these same organizations enjoy the right to fight, combatant status, and, in some cases, the right to aid from the international community. In the sections that follow, I give a brief overview of the state of guerrilla warfare today, lay the ground for guidelines to describe just guerrilla war, and consider the implications for war- fighting itself. 213 214 Michael L. Gross GUERRILLA WARFARE AND NONSTATE ACTORS TODAY: A BRIEF OVERVIEW Observers are mightily confused about the state of the world today, the status of the nation-state, and the role of the great powers. For some, the state remains preeminent , whether it is the United States serving out its tenure as the reigning hegemon or China and Russia slowly gaining control over their respective regions and nipping at the heels of the United States. For others, the state is in decline whether by design in Europe or by violence and accident in the Middle East and Africa. Regardless of the scenario the world, as usual, is pockmarked with conflict. Hot spots today are not ignited by rivalry among nation-states but by many nonstate groups challenging failed states and emerging hegemonic powers alike. These conflicts take many forms. For the purposes of assessing the justice of guerrilla warfare, here I focus on nationalist conflicts for independence and selfdetermination , and proxy wars. Transnational agendas, such as those al-Qaeda and other radical Islamic organizations espouse, are more difficult to evaluate. On one hand, there is nothing inherently incoherent or illegitimate about organizations striving to establish an umma or Islamic religious transnation that stretches beyond traditional national boundaries. On the other hand, these transnational movements are about subjugation, not freedom. They thrive on discord and disruption and seem to seek nothing more than the ruin of Western interests rather than the betterment of those they claim to represent. This immediately undercuts any appeal to just cause (see below) that may justify the use of armed force. Although this does not exclude transnational movements whose goals promote human rights and welfare at the expense of state sovereignty, such organizations are saddled with the burden of proof. They must show that their agenda does not dispense with the state system without offering an alternative to sustain the international order. Transnational Islamic movements do not do this. Although nationalist movements also challenge state sovereignty, they ultimately seek accommodation and recognition within the international order. Nationalist conflicts of the last quarter century are the extension of colonial guerrilla war. Some are secessionist: Chechnya, Kosovo, Sri Lanka, and Southern Sudan, for example. Others fight battles against foreign occupation: Afghanistan, East Timor, Western Sahara, Northern Ireland, and the Palestinians of Gaza and the West Bank. Proxy guerrilla wars occur as state actors enlist the aid of nonstate proxy agents to initiate conflict in their stead. In the 2006 Lebanon War, for example , Syria and Iran enlisted Hezbollah in their fight against the United States and Israel. In each of these cases there may be some semblance of casus belli. Nationalist guerrillas...

Share