POLB81 – Lecture 6 – February 11 2012.
Global Governance Forum
Article on Europeans Await Report on Bus Blast in Bulgaria
o This is an instant of collective security ad identifying the aggressors. Hezbollah is
a non-state actor. Collective security is adapting to non-state violence.
o This is an instant of linkage of conflicts of the civil war which drags on in Syria.
Hezbollah is a significant actor in Lebanon which borders Syria. You can’t just
deal with Hezbollah independently. If they call Hezbollah a terrorist, what is
going happen? Intrastate conflict. There’s a linkage of conflicts between
transnational and intrastate conflict.
Intrastate conflict – Conflict taking place within the state boundaries.
Transnational conflict – Goes beyond the borders of a nation also like
intrastate conflict but the difference is that intrastate conflict are state
actors in conflict. Transnational involves non-state actors. (Ex. Of
transnational conflicts: genocide, ethnic conflict,)
Three different kinds of modern conflict. Transnational, intrastate,
o This is an instant of defining terrorism. Who gets to decide whether a group is a
terrorist or who gets to define terrorism? This is an instant of how complex this
notion of who is the terrorist. In Lebanon, they run social programs. What are
the ramifications not only of linkage of conflicts but for the people in Lebanon? If
European Union labels them as terrorist and what it will do? If they say they’re
terrorist, this changes how the states react to these terrorist groups.
o There are fluid relationships that not among states. Actors that are in conflict are
not going to be in conflict all the time or use to not be in conflict. You are dealing
with different kinds of actors (Asymmetrical which means you’re dealing with
states and other kinds of actors. A asymmetrical warfare are powerful group
against weak group)
Modern Conflict – What’s the Problem?
Modern and Traditional Conflict
o Interstate conflict – war between states. To deal with this we need collective
security of the liberal theory of international relations also Diplomacy.
Realist would solve problems by balance of power (BOP), external
balancing – alliances. Also deterrence, arms control. We have a set of
define tools for dealing with this traditional conflict.
We sort of know what problem is and what kind of tools we can use. (Liberal) We have rules of war of international law. Does this work? Can
they be adapted? There’s no collective security in the UN because there
are 5 countries that have veto power. (There was never a pure collective
security solution that happened because it is hard to find the aggressor,
and you need to have political will to stop the aggression). Diplomacy is
working a little.
BOP and deterrence is highly problematic because this favours the West.
It doesn’t help to manage the conflict. Deterrence means you threat a
large response to attack, you attack me and I will response with a big
force. Can deterrence work in modern conflict? Deterrence is also really
heavily tied to identifying aggressors and territory and it threatens or
punishes the aggressor. It’s not clear cut. Arms control is useless both in
intrastate and transnational state because they’re not going to reduce
o Are these modern conflicts new? Modern conflict doesn’t make it new because
it’s been going on for a long time but they were different in the past. Terrorism is
globalized now. What you have are ethnic groups existing across borders.
Intrastate conflicts don’t remain within their borders. (Ex. Rwanda conflict but
refugees went to other countries. Therefore existed outside the border) linkages,
globalization, emergence of actors has altered conflicts. This is why we focus on
modern conflict. Intrastate is not going away though.
o Intrastate conflict – Modern conflict – The types of actor involved are states and
o Transnational conflict – Modern type of conflict which involves actors of states
Nature and Scope of the Problem