To answer a question from above, no, a journalist’s opinion is not material in whether ISIS is a State. There is a significant difference between one State recognizing another and one journalist recognizing a State. Part of the reason in IR theory external legitimacy is one of the key defining factors of whether something is a state or not is because it works under the concept that “if entities everyone agrees are states, members of the ‘club of Statehood’, start to recognize this thing as a State, then that has weight because they’re basically inviting this guy to the club and since being one of ‘them’ is the only criteria for membership these guys are the ones best positioned to know when that criteria has been met.”
I’ll also reject coning money as any meaningful indicator that something is a state. That actually isn’t typically one of the “pillars of statehood.” Because lots of things we all recognize as States have actually devolved currency controls to sub-state entities to varying degrees, at one time or another. Further, lots of entities that aren’t states essentially create their own currencies all the time (casinos, amusement parks being one example.) Towns (usually technically illegal) in the United States and lone crackpots have printed money and minted coins before too, and it’s never regarded seriously. Further in say, the Eurozone states have actually surrendered individual currency control to a body of which a group of states are members.
FWIW the four simple definitions of statehood, that are pretty reasonable and are taught to college students are:
- Has land
- Has people that are largely stable in said land.
- Has a government the people who live in this land recognize.
- Is recognized by other states.
ISIS has maybe 1.5 of those.
I agree, but does that fellow, Patrick Cockburn, even make that claim that it IS a state? It seemed like his name was brought to validate the claim that Da-esh got some financial support from Saudi Arabia. Which has fuck-all to do with whether or not it’s a state.
You’re not a state as long as you are still at war with the other people who have claim to your region. For example, the U.S. did not actually become a state until the end of the Revolutionary War. Then its statehood was retroactively applied. Had it failed, like the Confederacy did, it would have never become a state.
North Korea exists because the armistice. It wasn’t a state in the Korean War. And ISIS isn’t a state, because it is still at war.
You don’t have to be recognized by everyone, but the people you are at war with need to at least acknowledge that your claim is valid–not legitimate, but valid. And they haven’t.
I’m not bothered about the textbook version, myself.
They’ve got the first three as far as I know.
But if not a state then what about a territory, society, country, Caliphate, kingdom, homeland, principality ?
But as to funding, it was demanded of me that I forthwith present proper governmental evidence.
Would the Vice President be government enough ?
Where did he get those ideas, does he read what the world’s biggest intel apparatus tells him, or does he just read Patrick Cockburn for a few minutes over his cornflakes every morning ?
Because he isn’t talking about ISIL. ISIL, Al Nusra, Ahrar al Sham, Khorasan, and many other groups are all Sunni extremists, but they are not interchangeable. They are no more interchangeable than the US and Germany and Turkey and Romania - all NATO members, but not the same.
You understand that Sunni extremists are not all the same, right?
ISIS has land, but even that isn’t stable. Their land has no stable borders. They have people, but many of their population flees the first chance they get and the people they control fluctuate with their control of the land. They lack any real government over most of their territory and they lack any external legitimacy.
You need all four to be considered a state, ISIS has at best 1.5.
The rest of those terms you listed aren’t worth addressing. If you want to go with your own personal definition of State, more power to you. I have the weight of scholarly opinion on my side and little concern over how a random person on a message board chooses to define words.
Sorta like what Florida will be after a few decades of rising seas.
See if this provides context
No I don’t. I don’t understand that Al Nusra have been joining ISIS, giving them weapons etc., or that Biden could have easily mentioned ISIS as well because actually the Saud’s have funded them.
You’re very determined to see no evil here. Hey, you’re not one of those bloggers employed in information warfare are you ?
No, I’m just a guy who knows that all Muslims aren’t the same.
Wikipedia says
“The act of defining the term can be seen as part of an ideological conflict, because different definitions lead to different theories of state function, and as a result validate different political strategies”
People see what they want to see.
[URL=“javascript:void(0)”]
Sometimes they fight, sometimes they cooperate
They both have the goal of establishing a caliphate, and they are or have been supported by Saudi, as Biden said, although he didn’t explicitly say ISIS that time.
So you say sometimes al Nusra fights ISIL, and sometime they don’t?
Which was my point, so, apology accepted.
There are a lot of misconceptions in this thread.
First of all, I’m assuming it’s a thread about international law. YMMV.
The Montevideo Convention from 1933 is a decent starting point. It is generally considered a codification of existing customary international law. The US is a signatory.
Does ISIS have a population? Yes.
Does ISIS have a territory? Yes. It doesn’t have to be undisputed. For example, Israel is clearly a state.
Does ISIS have a government. Yes. It has an army, taxes, laws and various government services.
The fourth criteria is perhaps better described as “independence”, as opposed to being under the control of another state, and overlaps somewhat with “government”.
Is ISIS independent? Again, I would say yes. It is not a puppet of some other existing state.
Recognition by other states is not a criteria for statehood.
From the Montevideo Convention again:
So, “capacity to enter into relations with the other states” does not depend on other states wanting “relations”.
Similarly, from the EU appointed Badinter Arbitration Committee:
People have suggested other criteria, such as long-term stability, for statehood. They’re not commonly accepted as far as I can see.
**So, ISIS is probably a “state” according to international law. **
(This thesis has more details about the legal issues if anyone’s interested: http://arno.uvt.nl/show.cgi?fid=121942 [from page 22] .)
Rather than debating your analysis point by point, let’s find the experts in IR who believe ISIL is a state. The most we’ve been able to come up with is “state-like,” which really means “not a state.”
What “capacity to engage in international relations” does ISIS have? Where do they have embassies? Where have they placed ambassadors? What treaties have they signed on to? How do I get a visa to visit?
There are partially recognized states, such as Somaliland and Taiwan, which have “representative centers” or “economic and cultural offices” that are functionally embassies. These are the kinds of unrecognized states that have actual diplomatic capacity. They look after citizens, engage in diplomatic activities, may provide visas and otherwise do what an embassy does.
“Capacity to engage in international relations” is not just saying they have at least one person in the country that could theoretically have a conversation with a person from another country. It means they actually have what is needed (relationships with other states, a diplomatic corps, ability to do things like manage visas) to function as a a state internationally.
You miss out the words “permanent” and “defined” from those definitions.
Does ISIS have a permanent population? No, huge sections of the population flee as refugees as soon as ISIS arrives. Meanwhile foreign fighters are constantly flooding in.
Does ISIS have defined territory? No, they control a rapidly changing patchwork of strongholds. Eg see this animation: Operation Inherent Resolve: How ISIS Territory Has Changed Since the U.S. Bombing Campaign - The Atlantic
IMO, ISIS is a “proto-state”. If they still exist in 10 years time and still hold significant territory with defined borders and have a permanent population they would then be a state. Note the Taliban was only in control of Afghanistan for five years and were not recognised or accepted as a state by most observers.