International Law and Governance by Armed Groups: Caught in the Legitimacy Trap?

Abstract

Empirical research shows that armed groups may provide governance services to civilians where they have established some form of control over a territory or population. At the same time, armed groups often pursue policies designed to enhance legitimacy in order to strengthen their claim to power. This gives rise to the question: Does the virtuous governance circle, to which this special volume is dedicated, also apply to governance efforts on the part of armed groups and which conditions must be fulfilled in order for the virtuous circle to operate? The article highlights that the contradictory demands of the multiple audiences of legitimacy with which armed groups need to communicate, create a dilemma that may interrupt the virtuous circle. Bringing together international legal and political science discourses on armed group governance, the article argues that the state-centric fabric of the international legal framework contributes significantly to this process.

Virtuous or Vicious Circle? Governance Effectiveness and Legitimacy in Areas of Limited Statehood

“…Whenever there are multiple legitimacy audiences there is a potential for legitimacy dilemmas: Situations in which the actions that are necessary to increases an actor's legitimacy vis-à-vis one vital audience decrease it among another. These conflicts abound in areas of limited statehood (Krieger 2018;Remmert and Walter-Drop 2018).…”

“…The second part of the special issue focuses on the political, legal, and normative implications of the virtuous circle argument. The articles by Remmert and Walter-Drop (2018) and Krieger (2018) ask how foreign policy and international law should adapt to the role legitimacy plays in areas of limited statehood. They provide empirically grounded policy recommendations for actors engaging in development and state-building.…”

Deriving Countermeasures to the Use of Housing, Land and Property Rights as a War-Financing Commodity

“…These actors operate within the relationship that exists between local populations and occupying NSAGs. Emerging work regarding the realities of this relationship reveals that such populations can exercise considerable agency with regard to the types of activities carried out by NSAGs (eg., Provost 2021;Arjona 2015;Krieger 2018). The view that civilian populations are universally abused, repressed and without agency when under NSAG governance is being revised to become much more nuanced and thoroughly understood (eg., Berman et al 2018;Provost 2021).…”

(Dys‐)Functions and Potentials of Norms as a Guidance System for Peace Mediators

“…Moreover, some violent non‐state actors unilaterally observe certain norms (e.g. designed to enhance legitimacy in order to strengthen their claim to power (Krieger 2018)), which also makes these norms part of the regulatory framework of the mediation process. Commitments to human rights and international obligations in other spheres do not bind violent non‐state actors per se, although international law is showing clear signs of moving in that direction.…”