« The Right and Duty to Revolt | Main | On the Other Side? »

July 18, 2006

A New Sovereignty and Lebanon

Last August I wrote about how the old understanding of sovereignty is no longer useful. In brief, my point is that we should move from the current de jure definition of sovereignty to a de facto definition of sovereignty, and that within areas where no state is de facto sovereign (regardless of de jure sovereignty), any state should be able to act with impunity. This would certainly apply to southern Lebanon, where de jure sovereignty belongs to Lebanon, but where Lebanon's army cannot go without being fought (and likely defeated) by Hizb'allah, which holds de facto sovereignty over the area.

Under the old understanding of sovereignty, it is ambiguous whether any entity committed an act of war by attacking into Israel and capturing Israeli soldiers. While Hizb'allah holds seats in the Lebanese parliament and portfolios in the Lebanese executive, neither Lebanon's executive nor their parliament authorized any strike on Israel. Yet while Hizb'allah has no de jure sovereignty (and thus no ability to commit acts of war in the Westphalian understanding), treating Hizb'allah's act as a crime is clearly not the correct framework: for one thing, Lebanon cannot enforce any decree against Hizb'allah, and for another, this was an attack across an international border by an armed force. It is this ambiguity on which Hizb'allah, Hamas, Iran acting in Iraq and many other terrorist organizations and states rely for their protection. After all, if Hamas attacks Israel, what right does Israel have to attack a (presumedly-) sovereign Palestine that did not attack Israel?

Under a de facto understanding of sovereignty, the ambiguity is eliminated, and both sides' rights and responsibilties are clearly defined. Hizb'allah, as de facto sovereign of southern Lebanon, committed an act of war. Lebanon as a whole, to the extent it harbors Hizb'allah installations and forces, is a legitimate enemy of Israel (though Israel would be wise not to treat it as such, even rhetorically) because they are not acting as a neutral, but as a co-belligerent of Hizb'allah. Thus Israel has the right to fight in areas controlled by Hizb'allah, and Hizb'allah has the responsibility for negotiating and enforcing any agreements with Israel to stop the fighting.

Similarly in Gaza, Hamas is de facto sovereign (and arguably de jure sovereign). As such, the attack into Israel in which Gilad Shalit was captured was a clear act of war, because Hamas could have prevented, or should have been able to prevent, the attack, but did not. The position in Gaza is analagous to the position in Lebanon, except for the absence of any widely-accepted de jure sovereignty over Gaza.

Note that this understanding of sovereignty would also clarify the situations in Afghanistan/northwest Pakistan, Iran and Syria in respect to supporting transnational terrorists, and northern Mexico in respect to drug smugglers.

In general, clarity is good, and ambiguity is bad, in international affairs. Giving transnational groups the ability to act criminally or even to fight wars, while preventing sovereign states from engaging those groups because under international law the groups don't quite exist, simply leads to more wars and cross-border criminal acts. I can't think of anyone who would argue that that outcome is a good one.

Posted by jeff at July 18, 2006 5:37 PM

Trackback Pings

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.caerdroia.org/MT/mt-tb.cgi/1060

Comments

Posted by: Dave Schuler at July 18, 2006 7:32 PM