We’re not ignoring the physical nature of it. We’re ignoring your point, because it’s wrong. There is no generally accepted definition of statehood that is “land and guns.” And there is an awful lot more to recognition than “having an embassy.”
2.
a nation or territory considered as an organized political community under one government.
- by that definition they qualify.
Considered, by whom? They are not considered to be so by anyone but themselves.
No, it isn’t all that matters. Defending some piece of land from others just means you hold land. It doesn’t make the land a country.
Dictionary says so.
Dictionary also says that a state can be a political subdivision of a Federal government. ISIL is not a political subdivision of a Federal government, thus isn’t a state.
Sometimes, one has to consult more expert sources than a dictionary. In this case, the vast, vast majority of experts in international relations that there is would agree that ISIL does not constitute a state.
It may say it can be, but does it say it has to be ?
Let me get this straight: if I consider my living room to be “an organized political community under one government,” then you are saying that the dictionary defines my living room as a state. QED, end of discussion, th-th-that’s all, folks.
Am I getting this right?
In international law, the generally accepted definition of a state is the one adopted by the Montevideo Convention of December 26, 1933:
[QUOTE=Article I]
The state as a person of international law should possess the following qualifications: a ) a permanent population; b ) a defined territory; c ) government; and d) capacity to enter into relations with the other states.
[/QUOTE]
The last one means recognition.
If your living room is a nation or territory, as per definition. I guess you’re working the territory angle because it’s nice and broad.
However you would have to do more than *consider *your living room a state, you would have to show that you don’t have to follow the rules of the state which surrounds you.
I think that would eventually lead to a SWAT visit to teach you that in fact you aren’t sovereign in your living room.
Whereas ISIS can lop anyone’s head off they feel like and nobody stops them.
But if you can hold out and establish your breakaway living room - why not ? Has anyone ever put a size limit on a state ?
Because a state isn’t a physical thing. A state is an imagined thing that was made up by people as a handy way of describing a particular way of organizing people. It doesn’t actually have any meaning outside of however people are using it. And most people use it in a different way than you are.
If there is some framework you want to discuss where your personal definition of a “state” is relevant, maybe it’s worth discussing. But as far as I can tell, you are just arguing to be arguing.
Does international law count for anything real in this case ? We’ve got numerous recent examples of it counting for much less than military power. The law doesn’t always reflect reality, do we really have to wait for the lawyers to sign everything off ? Lavrov of Russian called it a pseudo state, as does someone writing in Foreign Affairs.
What about this
http://juergentodenhoefer.de/seven-impressions-of-a-difficult-journey/?lang=en
For those who think Da-esh is a state, please cite some experts on the subject who agrees with you. If you’re right, there must be dozens out there proclaiming it.
Can I add the qualifier unbiased expert ?
Possibly an irrelevant nitpick, but Syria has been stalemated. If it had been defeated Daesh or some other actor would be holding Damascus and the rest of the territory Assad is still clinging to. I think it’s an important difference, especially as Russia starts extending more aid Assad’s way.
I wouldn’t be willing to bet money on it, but one plausible outcome to this whole mess is Assad holding on long enough outlast his numerous opponents. The Alawites and other minorities are never, ever going over to the Daesh et al. - at this point this has become a sectarian struggle. Those folks will fight to the death even if they think Assad sucks balls because they have little other recourse. The alternatives of being slaughtered as heretics or becoming sex slaves can’t be very appealing.
I think this Foreign Affairs (Council on Foreign Relations) article was mentioned in passing, “ISIS Is Not a Terrorist Group”
I would say “not only,” as in “ISIS Transforming Into Functioning State That Uses Terror as Tool,” New York Times.
Walt’s own piece in Foreign Policy is “What Should We Do if the Islamic State Wins?”
Former ambassador to Saudi Arabia Robert Jordan says, “We see now huge portions not just of Iraq, but also of Syria being actually governed by ISIS. They’re…acting very much like a state and they have to be treated like a state in terms of military conflict as well.”
Within the Islamic State, “now there is daily life,” Hisham al-Hashemi, an Iraqi government adviser and an expert on ISIS, told the Post. “There is food in the markets and electricity. It’s like normal.”
You have to separate the memes pushed by media and the politically loyal, and what actually is happening. Street to street fighting through a city to gain territory isn’t the same as singular terrorist attacks by non-state actors. Same with both sides in Ukraine calling each other terrorists but they’re engaged in conventional warfare.
The point I’m making is that if IS were a state there indeed would be treaty and organizational memberships it would be eligable for, if not automatically entitled to.
Do you think anyone wants to screw around thinking, what, say, fishing rights IS is entitled to? If not, what was the point making them a state?
But constructs and labels are exactly what you’re arguing for.
Right now, we know how much of a threat IS is, and how many people they have control over. Calling them a state would do precisely nothing to change that. A rose by any other name.
(missed edit window)
The crucial thing too, is that while no-one respects IS sovereignty over its borders, it’s not a state. And no-one does, because basically everyone wants IS to cease to exist.
Note that this is a different thing to whether IS is capable of defending its borders.
Nah, lawyers don’t determine which is a state and which isn’t, guns do. Except in their own minds. A lawyer without armed men to tell him what to do is just a guy impotently waving a law book of wishful thinking around. The law misrepresents all sorts of shit, depending on who pays the lawyers and for what purpose. IS could be a state for a hundred years without anyone finding it in their self interest to acknowledge it.