Non-State Actors in Asymmetric Conflicts: What does It Mean and What Follows of It

The article examines the problem of the participation of non-state actors in armed conflicts in the post-war period. The study is based on the theory of asymmetric conflict, which offers hypotheses about the reasons for the paradoxical defeat of developed countries against relatively weak opponents, including non-state actors. The empirical basis of the study is armed conflict databases, which allow us to test sole observations and hypotheses about the characteristics of asymmetric armed conflicts. The study uses the databases of the Uppsala Conflict Data Program Project (Sweden) and the COSIMO Project (University of Heidelberg, Germany) as well as publications of the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI). The study shows that the phenomenon of asymmetric conflicts reflects several important patterns of armed conflicts in the post-war period: the predominance of intrastate over interstate conflicts; the internationalisation of armed conflicts through the involvement of other countries, international organisations or non-state actors; the direct or indirect involvement of great powers in such conflicts; and the majority of armed conflicts occurring in Asia, Africa and the Middle East. Post-war armed conflicts are often referred to as “proxy wars” because the direct participants in the conflict are supported by external actors –  states or non-state actors.  The issues in conflicts between states and non-state actors are often political in nature, and the fundamental distinction between domestic and foreign policy has been overcome. The post-war period shows a gradual change of attitude towards the participation of non-state actors in armed conflicts, which reflects the recognition of their legitimacy as participants in the conflict, the negotiation and conclusion of agreements on the cessation of hostilities. Non-state actors in armed conflicts are themselves legitimised as representing the interests of particular groups and the goals of their struggle. UN peacekeeping operations since the end of the Cold War confirm these changes. Research on the participation of non-state actors in armed conflict reveals a broadening of the agenda and methodology for the study of post-war armed conflict, reflecting significant changes in the practice of international relations. These changes concern who is recognised as a legitimate actor in international relations, what role non-state actors play in armed conflict, and how non-state actors are viewed by other actors in international relations – states, international governmental and non-governmental organisations.

1. Aron, R. Memuary. 50 let razmyshlenii o politike. M.: Ladomir, 2002 [In Russian].

2. Gasser, Kh.-P. Mezhdunarodnoe gumanitarnoe pravo. Vvedenie. M.: MKKK, 1995 [In Russian].

3. Gromyko, Alexey A. Mirovoi besporyadok i poisk novogo balansa sil. Proksi-voiny v yadernyi vek. SanktPeterburg: SPbGUP, 2022 [In Russian].

4. Deriglazova, Larisa V. Asimmetrichnye konfl ikty: uravnenie so mnogimi neizvestnymi. Tomsk, 2009 [In Russian].

5. Deriglazova, Larisa V. “Victories and Losses of the USA and Russia in Asymmetric Confl icts at 21st Century.” Journal of International Analytics 13, no. 2 (2022): 23–42 [In Russian]. https://doi.org/10.46272/2587-8476-2022-13-2-23-42.

6. Naumkin, Vitaly, and Vasiliy A. Kuznetsov. “On the Issue of Classifi cation of Non-State Actors in the Middle East.” World Eсonomy and International Relations 64, no. 6 (2020): 104–113 [In Russian].

7. Sorokin, Pitirim A. Sotsial’naya i kul’turnaya dinamika. St. Petersburg: Russian Christian Humanities Institute, 2000 [In Russian].

8. Stepanova, Ekaterina A. “Asymmetrical Confl ict as Power, Status, Ideological and Structural Asymmetry.” Voennaya Mysl’, no. 5 (2010): 47–54 [In Russian].

9. Teteryuk, Alexei, and Yan A. Chizhevskiy. “Air Drones in Asymmetrical Confl icts.” International Trends 14, no. 2 (2016): 189–201 [In Russian]. https://doi.org/10.17994/IT.2016.14.2.45/14.

10. Trenin, Dmitri. “Hybridity as a Central Feature of Contemporary International Confl icts.” Journal of International Analytics 13, no. 2 (2022):12-22 [In Russian]. https://doi.org/10.46272/2587-8476-2022-13-2-12-22.

11. Shawn, Davies, Garoun Engström, Therese Pettersson, and Magnus Öberg. “Organized Violence 1989–2023, and the Prevalence of Organized Crime Groups.” Journal of Peace Research 61, no. 4 (2024): 673–693. https://doi.org/10.1177/00223433241262912.

12. Deriglazova, Larisa. Great Powers, Small Wars: Asymmetric Confl ict Since 1945. Washington: Woodrow Wilson Center Press & Johns Hopkins University, 2014.

13. Zartman, William I., ed. Elusive Peace: Negotiating an End to Civil Wars. Wash., DC: The Brookings Institution, 1995.

14. Gowan, Richard. “Global Trends and Regional Developments in Armed Confl icts.” In SIPRI Yearbook 2024. Stockholm: SIPRI, 2024.

15. Gross, Michael L. Moral Dilemmas of Modern War: Torture, Assassination, and Blackmail in an Age of Asymmetric Confl ict. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2009.

16. Hofmann, Claudia, and Ulrich Schneckener. “Engaging Non-state Armed Actors in State and Peacebuilding: Options and Strategies.” International Review of the Red Cross 93, no. 883 (2011):603–621. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1816383112000148.

17. Hogbladh, Stina. “Peace Agreements in Armed Confl icts: Focusing on Finding a Solution to the Confl ict Incompatibility.” Pathways to Peace and Security, no. 2 (2021): 11–23. https://doi.org/10.20542/2307-1494-2021-2-11-23.

18. Neuman, Stephanie G., ed. International Relations Theory and the Third World. St. Martin’s press: NY, 1998.

19. Kaldor, Mary. New and Old Wars. Organized Violence in a Global Era. Cambridge: Polity, 2005.

20. Kruck, Andreas, and Andrea Schneiker, eds. Researching Non-state Actors in International Security: Theory and Practice. London: Routledge, 2017.

21. Last, Edward D. Strategic Culture and Violent NonState Actors. A Comparative Study of Salafi -Jihadist Groups. London: Routledge, 2021.

22. Lederach, John P. Building Peace: Sustainable Reconciliation in Divided Societies. Wash., DC, 1999.

23. Lieblich, Eliav, and Owen Alterman. Transnational Asymmetric Armed Confl ict under International Humanitarian Law: Key Contemporary Challenges. Tel Aviv: Institute for National Security Studies, 2015.

24. Mack, Andrew. “Why Big Nations Lose Small Wars: The Politics of Asymmetric Confl ict.” World Politics 2, no. 27 (1975): 175–200.

25. Matsuo, Masatsugu. Peace and Confl ict Studies. A Theoretical Introduction. Hiroshima: Keisuisha, 2005.

26. Meier, Vanessa, Niklas Karlén, Therese Pettersson, and Mihai Croicu. “External Support in Armed Confl icts: Introducing the UCDP External Support Dataset (ESD), 1975–2017.” Journal of Peace Research 60, no. 3 (2023): 545–554. https://doi.org/10.1177/00223433221079864.

27. Nicholson, Michael. International Relations. A Concise Introduction. Second Edition. N.Y.: Palgrave Macmillan, 2002.

28. Pfetsch, Frank R., and Christoph Rohloff . National and International Confl icts, 1945–1995. L.; N.Y.: Routledge, 2000.

29. Ryngaert, Сedric, and Marh Noortmann. Non-State Actor Dynamics in International Law from Law-Takers to Law-Makers. London: Rounteldge, 2010.

30. Spector, Bertram I. “Negotiating with Villains.” In International Negotiation: Actors, Structures/Process, Values, edited by Berton P., Kimura H., and W. Zartman. NY: St. Martin’s Press, 1999.

31. Tsygankov, Andrei. Russia and America: The Asymmetric Rivalry. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons, 2019.

32. Waltz, Kenneth N. “The Politics of Peace.” International Studies Quarterly 11, no. 3 (1967): 199–211.

33. Wezeman, Siemon T., and Pieter D. Wezeman. “International Arms Transfer.” In SIPRI Yearbook 2023. Stockholm: SIPRI, 2024.

34. Wright, Quincy. A Study of War. Chicago: Phoenix Books, 1964.