State-Armed Group Relations: Cooperation, Conflict, and Cooptation

Session Submission Type: Full Paper Panel

Session Description

The core of statehood is classically considered to be the monopoly of the legitimate use of force within a territory. This ideal is rarely met, however: states are both challenged by non-state armed groups and may, in fact, cooperate with armed groups or delegate authority to them, at home or abroad. How do armed groups contest and claim state authority? When and why do states seek cooperative relationships or coexistence with armed groups? And what shapes civilian views of the legitimacy of armed groups’ military and governance activities? The papers on this panel present new theoretical insights and empirical evidence on the relationships between states, civilians, and armed groups ranging from rebel armies to paramilitaries and militias to local community policing organizations, in countries including Colombia, Sri Lanka, South Sudan, Syria, and Uganda. The authors explore how different armed organizations at times act independently to erode and appropriate state authority, and at others may be formed, supported, or sought out by states as partners in violence.

Mampilly examines rebel organizations as rivals to states. His paper develops a theory of taxation as a technology of rebel governance, rather than simply a means of resource extraction. When rebel organizations engage in taxation, they are both undermining the authority and fiscal capacity of the state, as well as appropriating a fundamental element of statehood, thus asserting the rebels’ legitimacy as potential power-holders should they gain control of the central state or successfully secede.

Mukhopadhyay and Howe reconceptualize rebel governance legitimacy during wartime. Drawing on evidence from the Syrian Civil War, they argue that social ties and affinity determine citizen perceptions of legitimacy and reactions of rebel governance at the local level, rather than Weberian ‘rational legitimacy’ through bureaucratic organization and service provision that is prioritized by foreign interveners.

Tapscott’s paper looks at how citizens perceive states’ relationships with armed groups. Local militias or vigilante groups may emerge autonomously to fill a vacuum created by state absence, or they may work in the service of the state. Where state security forces coexist with local armed groups, who benefits and whose authority is viewed as legitimate? Drawing on survey and interview evidence from northern Uganda, Taspcott finds that local armed groups are seen as more effective and legitimate when they operate in areas where police and other state forces are present. The state and local policing organizations are therefore able to develop a symbiotic relationship.

Thaler develops a typology of state-armed group relationships. These dyadic relationships can move across a spectrum between three key types—delegation, sponsorship, and autonomy. A state-armed group relationship may be classified by the degree to which the armed group receives material or security support from a state and pursues the strategic aims of the state, and the balance of power between the armed group and the state. Through multiple case studies, he demonstrates the empirical applicability of the framework and explores the legal and policy implications of different types of state-armed group ties.

Together these papers advance our understanding of authority and legitimacy, challenging state-centric visions of domestic governance and international relations and suggesting new avenues for research and policymaking on security, stability, and responsiveness to civilian populations.

Sub Unit

• DIVISION 21: Conflict Processes

Individual Presentations

• Rebel Taxation: Between the Moral and Market Economy - Zachariah Cherian Mampilly, Vassar College

• Reconceptualizing Governing Authority in Civil War: The Syrian Case - Dipali Mukhopadhyay, Columbia University; Kimberly Howe, Tufts University

• Vigilantes, Militias and the State: Local Authority and Security Provision - Rebecca Tapscott

• Delegation, Sponsorship and Autonomy: Understanding State-Armed Group Relations - Kai Massey Thaler, University of California, Santa Barbara

Chair

• Ariel Ahram Virginia Tech

Discussant

• Paul Staniland University of Chicago