From roving to stationary actors: Understanding the territorial logic of non-state armed actors

How do we understand the territorial logic of Non State Armed Actors (NSAAs? Non state armed actors are increasingly becoming more assertive in the contemporary conflict environment. They are undermining the Westphalia state structure, challenging Weberian sovereignty and providing an alternative territorial complex. The research study utilizes primary evidence from original sources to shade more light in the understanding of the territorial logic of the NSAAs. The study gives critical insights in the demarcation of both physical and imaginary space by the NSAAs. The three main components of NSAA territorial logic which include governance, relations with the local civilian population as well as ideology, tactics and strategies are comprehensively analyzed to develop a topology of understanding the territorial logic of NSAAs. Non-state armed actor governance is useful in understanding whether a NSAA is interested in territorial control. This is because the establishment of governance hierarchies and functions requires significant control of territory. In most cases, territory is required for the establishment of administrative orders and delivery of public goods and services such as health, education, finance (tax), security, public works, law and order. Non-state armed actors interested in consolidating and solidifying territorial hold engage in deliberate efforts to win the hearts and minds of the local civilian populations. To some extend they encourage civilian participation in their governance by creating structures of civilian involvement at different stages of the conflict. They also attempt to modify civilian behaviour (like homogenization) for legitimacy and effective control of the population and the territory. Non-state armed actor ideology, territorial tactics and strategies can also give critical insights into its territorial logic. Some NSAAs have a clearly defined ideology that points to their conceptualization and demarcation of space. For other NSAAs, territorial tacticsand strategies like employment of strategic violence towards minorities, who generally, pose little threat to the insurgency goals as well as mass sexual violence of females may be attempts to determine future citizenry of the controlled territories. From the findings of control case studies, both Al Shabaab and Islamic State of Iraq and Syria qualify as territorial NSAAs with very different territorial conceptualizations and interpretations. Both utilize strategic violence and the strategic weakening of the state power and authority to expand their territorial quests. ISIS achieved significant territorial sophistication compared to Al Shabaab. All of them rolled out governance functions in the controlled territories and actively engaged in attempts to homogenize the populations for legitimacy and solidifying control over local people and territories. ISIS established much more elaborate administrative institutions compared to Al Shabaab and employed a lot more innovative and diversified territorial strategies and tactics compared to Al Shabaab. ISIS had a clear ideology well captured by its motto 'endure and expand' towards establishment of a caliphate. Al Shabaab's territorial conceptualization is divided between religion and tribe, between establishing Islamic caliphate in East Africa and establishing a greater Somalia.