Search results

What types of relationships do armed groups have with states? How do different levels of ties and power relations affect both armed group and government behavior? This article develops a spectrum across which armed group–state relationships can move, focusing on three key types of relationships—delegation, sponsorship, and autonomy. An armed group–state relationship may be classified depending on the degree to which the armed group receives material or security support from a state, whether it pursues the strategic aims of the state, and the balance of power between the armed group and the state. I examine cases and empirical examples of relationships between states and armed groups ranging from criminal organizations to Cold War-era rebels to pro-government and communal militias to the Lord's Resistance Army (LRA) and al-Qaeda. As lines between categories of armed groups and between state and non-state actors are increasingly blurred, the integrated framework enhances our ability to analyze the behavior and liabilities of both armed groups and states and to understand sources of leverage for protecting human rights and resolving conflicts.

AbstractWhat types of relationships do armed groups have with states? How do different levels of ties and power relations affect both armed group and government behavior? This article develops a spectrum across which armed group–state relationships can move, focusing on three key types of relationships—delegation, sponsorship, and autonomy. An armed group–state relationship may be classified depending on the degree to which the armed group receives material or security support from a state, whether it pursues the strategic aims of the state, and the balance of power between the armed group and the state. I examine cases and empirical examples of relationships between states and armed groups ranging from criminal organizations to Cold War-era rebels to pro-government and communal militias to the Lord's Resistance Army (LRA) and al-Qaeda. As lines between categories of armed groups and between state and non-state actors are increasingly blurred, the integrated framework enhances our ability to analyze the behavior and liabilities of both armed groups and states and to understand sources of leverage for protecting human rights and resolving conflicts.

Includes abstract. ; Includes bibliographical references (p. 162-182). ; High levels of crime and violence continue to plague South Africa after nearly two decades of peace and democratic rule. While collective violence continues to occur in the form of violent protests and community mob justice, the majority of violent incidents in South Africa are instances of individual, interpersonal violence.

Dans son grand récit historique sur les armées africaines, Edgerton (2004) affirme que les armées du continent sont passées de l'honneur à l'infamie. D'autres conceptions populaires qualifient les armées africaines de « non professionnelles », « non pertinentes » et « dangereuses » (Howe, 2005). Est-ce le cas ? Et si oui, pourquoi ? Aujourd'hui, près de soixante ans après les indépendances, que savons-nous de la nature des armées africaines, de leurs évolutions et de leur position à la croisée des intérêts des États, des dirigeants, de la société civile et de l'ensemble de la communauté internationale ? Nous examinons ici l'état des connaissances et des débats sur les armées africaines, en proposant une réflexion et des exemples concrets permettant de contextualiser.