Is war a legal way to deal with the actions of non-state actors?

Question

I understand that there are a thousand shades of grey between explicit state actors (think Israeli citizens on the payroll of the IDF and operating according to orders given them through an explicit chain of command) and non-state ideologues (think Al-Qaeda members funded by profits from construction and similarly legal enterprises). Supposing we were only talking about pure ideologues who committed a [dastardly and high profile enough to cause a war if a state had performed these actions] crime, what recourse would a targeted country have, legally speaking?

Answer 1

You can demand that the country in which the non-state actors are based deals with them. If that state does deal with them, then you have no need of war. If that state refuses, or is unable to deal with the group, then your conflict is with the state. How you proceed is then a matter for diplomacy or violence.

You should ask for UNSC support in this. The UNSC can authorise force against a nation that refuses to control a non-state actor that disrupts the peace. Or it can authorise support to a nation that is unable to control a group (even if that state is unwilling). If the UNSC does not authorise force, you can still act on the basis of self-defence. How this will be perceived depends on the proportionality of your response and your general standing in the world community.

Answer 2

Legally speaking it depends on whether or not, the country/countries is a party to some convention like the Geneva Convention by which their conduct as belligerents vis-à-vis the relevant articles "(e.g., Legal status of the Parties to the conflict, Protection of civilian medical and religious personnel, Safeguard of an enemy hors de combat etc.)" are bound to.

However, it gets legally complicated fast when only one party, regardless if state or non-state actor, is a signatory of such a convention. The only legal difference, as far as a non-state actor is concerned is that, they are only held accountable if, their status has already been defined in such a convention.

Which is why the International Legion of Defense of Ukraine are not mercenaries under the Additional Protocol to the Geneva Conventions (API), because the Ukrainian government has formally incorporated the Legion’s reported 20,000 foreign members including 3,000 Americans, into its armed forces, in other words although both Russia/Ukraine are signatories of the four Geneva Conventions, the Ukrainian state recognizes the International Legion of Defense of Ukraine as [foreign] volunteers but the Russian state sees them as mercenaries, and each deals with them accordingly.

The old adage of "one's man freedom fighter is another man's terrorist" comes to mind. See

Shortly after the expanded Russian invasion of Ukraine on 24 February 2022, President Zelensky created the International Legion for the Territorial Defence of Ukraine, and began calling for (foreign) volunteers to join. A special website has been dedicated to assist foreign volunteers to come and support Ukraine. Since the start of the conflict, Ukraine claims that approximately 20,000 individuals have joined the Ukrainian armed forces.

Foreign individuals also joined the Russian side of the conflict. Russian President Vladimir Putin has announced that 16,000 volunteers from the Middle East are ready to support Russia. Foreigners from Chechnya and mercenaries joining the Wagner Group from Syria and Libya are included.

Considering the death sentence imposed on two British and Moroccan fighters pronounced by a pro-Russian court in East Ukraine, and the recent capture of two American fighters in Donetsk, this perspective addresses the legal status of the foreign individuals joining the conflict in Ukraine, and some of the legal and political consequences of this situation. It provides an overview of some of the salient features of international humanitarian law, offers definitions of the terms ‘foreign volunteer’, ‘foreign terrorist fighter’ and ‘mercenary’, explains why these distinctions matter, and explores what lessons can be drawn from conflating or exchanging these different terms.

Answer 3

If the non-state actors - let's call them insurgents for clarity - are foreign based, or foreign supplied, declaring war on that foreign nation is a legal (legal is a complicated word in this context, but I think I know what you mean) response, if the response is proportionate and related to the issue you're claiming to want to resolve.

If the insurgents control territory in your state and are supported by at least parts of the population in that territory, we're talking about a civil war. Civil wars are barely covered by international law, because they are national matters, and because the insurgent party usually cannot represent itself on the international stage.

Answer 4

I understand that there are a thousand shades of grey between explicit state actors (think Israeli citizens on the payroll of the IDF and operating according to orders given them through an explicit chain of command) and non-state ideologues (think Al-Qaeda members funded by profits from construction and similarly legal enterprises).

Israeli citizens on the payroll of the IDF is a dubious a figure of speech, creating the impression that Israel has a contract/professional army, rather than a general conscription - see Israeli Defense Forces. It is like calling the US servicemen in Vietnam the US citizens on the payroll of Pentagon. Yes, they are getting paid, by they are not there by choice, just for the sake of money.

Note also that the military is more than just an armed force - it is a government sanctioned armed force, whose role is defined by the constitution/basic laws of the state, and which is subordinate to the the government. Its major role is typically defending the state and its citizens from an external aggression, although sometimes it also implies promoting the state interests abroad (like the US military does), disaster relief, etc.

Another way to view the government armed forces is as a branch of law enforcement, dealing specifically with external threats, unlike, e.g., police, which deals with internal crime (although sometimes the distinction is blurred, like the Internal Troops.)

Supposing we were only talking about pure ideologues who committed a [dastardly and high profile enough to cause a war if a state had performed these actions] crime, what recourse would a targeted country have, legally speaking?

What the question implies is more than pure ideologues - e.g., Marx&Engels were pure ideologues, but various communist regimes committing crimes in the name of their ideology were not pure ideologues.

Furthermore, it is worth noting that there are plenty of non-state actors:

• economic actors: corporations, non-profit organizations
• non-government educational institutions
• cultural organizations
• religious cults

and others.

All these may exercise legal or illegal activities on the territory of their own state and abroad. In case of illegal activities, it is the role of the law enforcement to deal with them. That is, in case of violent crimes, it is a matter for police, if the organization is native to the country, and a matter for the army, if the threat is external.

In case of an external threat it may involve sovereignty of the home state of the organization in question. This state may be asked to deal with the threat, and, depending on its response, may be assisted or itself considered an enemy (Indeed, refusal to deal with a threat to another state is a rather classical casus belli.) To give a few examples:

• The classical case here is the supposed support to Black Hand by Belgrade, which was alleged by the Austro-Hungarian government after the assassination its Crown Prince. The refusal of the Serbian government to undertake the emasures demanded by Austro-Hungary triggered World War 1.
• Al-Qaeda in Afghanistan was tolerated or even actively supported by Taliban regime, which prompted the US and allies to confront both Taliban and Al-Qaeda, by invading Afghanistan and ousting Taliban from power.
• Al-Qaeda was also active in the neighboring Pakistan, using it as a safe haven for its fighters, and leaders. Pakistan was unable to deal with Al-Qaeda on its own, but tolerated the US cross-border raids and other activities by the US citizens on the payroll of Pentagon - culminating in the assassination of Osama Bin Laden.
• A less clear case is various cross-border operations by Turkish military against Kurds in Iraq and more recently in Syria. Turkey largely gets away with this due to its military superiority vis-à-vis the host countries.
• Lebanon is another example of a state unable to deal with a military organization within its borders: despite the Israeli withdrawal from Southern Lebanon in 2000 and the UNSC resolution demanding the disarmament of Hezbollah, it continues to exist and openly attack the neighboring state. Lately Hezbollah is obstructing the US efforts to resolve the border disputes between Lebanon and Israel, despite the Lebanese government willingness to negotiate.
• Hamas and other Palestinian paramilitary organizations in Gaza are also non-state actors - not only because the Palestinian state is not universally recognized, but also because they exist outside of the Palestinian National Security Forces, which the Palestinian Authority is entitled to according to the Oslo Accords. Notably, in The PA inability and alleged unwillingness to deal with the threat that these organizations pose to Israeli citizens is largely responsible for the collapse of the Oslo accords, and the political rise of Benjamin Netanyahu and other politicians, not believing in the possibility of co-existence with the PA.

Answer 5

Yes

First of all, anything that's not illegal is legal. So in the absence of a law either authorizing or forbidding an action, that action is legal. For example, you don't have a license authorizing you to breathe because you don't need one. There is no law forbidding it, so it's legal.

As for states using military resources to dismantle rogue militant formations, which may or may not act under the color of a governing entity, it is both legal and customary to do so.

The examples of states using military against such entities are numerous, but here's just a few:

• Jordan's military fighting PLO in Jordan in a series of events which came to be known as Black September.
• NATO invasion of Afghanistan to fight Al Qaeda after 9/11 attacks by Al Qaeda operatives against the US.
• US military attacks against ISIS in Iraq and Syria.
• France retaliating against ISIS attacks in Paris (November 13, 2015), aka Charlie Hebdo attacks, by bombing ISIS seat of power in Al-Raqqah, Syria.
• Ukraine fighting Russian proxies in Donbas, between 2014 and 2022, in response to those Russian proxies taking over parts of the region of Ukraine without declaring an explicit affiliation with the Russian Federation.
• Mexican military fighting against the drug cartels.
• Colombian military fighting against the FARC guerrillas.