HOW JUST WAR THEORY CAN BE USED TO EVALUATE A CONCEPT OF

LEGITIMACY APPLIED TO THE OPERATIONS OF NON-STATE ACTORS IN

CONDITIONS OF CONFLICTS OR WAR, A CASE OF SOMALI PIRATES

by
Student’s Name

A Dissertation submitted in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the Masters in Political
Science in the School of [Insert Department] and in The University of [Insert Institute of
Affiliation], [Insert State]

Date
Instructor

1
 Table of Contents
Chapter 1..........................................................................................................................................3
Introduction......................................................................................................................................3
Research Question.......................................................................................................................6
Aim of Research and Rationale: Understanding Legitimacy......................................................7
Chapter 2..........................................................................................................................................8
Review of Literature........................................................................................................................8
Somali State Failure.....................................................................................................................8
Understanding of Just War Theory............................................................................................11
Works Cited...................................................................................................................................15

2
 Chapter 1

Introduction
Western concepts have significantly driven the formulation of International Law (Luban,
435). These concepts have been implemented worldwide as a consequence of continuous
hegemony of the global north. For that reason, what is considered as legitimate and illegitimate,
just and unjust in intercontinental interaction is influenced by these fixed conditions which have
been reified throughout history. Realist theorist lay emphasis on sovereign states, as being the
backbone of international relations (Morkevičius 15). The common-prime premises of realism is
based on lack of centralised leadership in the intercontinental system that is the prospect to
conflict. Different intercontinental relations advocates have contributed towards this literary
works in their efforts to discharge justifications, solutions and causes for war. Tangible
progression and guidelines of suitable status conduct in the quest of the resolution by the United
Nations Charter gives possibly the utmost, order and peace of conflicts (Mazarr 113).
Nonetheless, through the advancement of history, the dynamics of conflict within global
interaction has encountered numerous alterations. One of these modifications worth examining is
the drift from states as a solitary most significant character in a battle inclined to intercontinental
circumstance (Morkevičius 15). As a factual concept, the recent historical past of intercontinental
interaction has been designated through the surge of non-state actors (Christiansen, Drew and
Gerard 98). This research paper attempts to check out this change by going back to Just War
Theory versus non-state characters in a conflict in Africa. The key elements through which just
wars tend to be assessed in line with the theory consist of: last resort, discrimination as well as
non-combatant immunity, right intention, obedience of international weapon laws, just cause,
public assertion and appropriate authority proportionality, no reprisals, benevolent isolation for
felons of war, prospect for success, rights vindication, no means mala in se, rehabilitation and
compensation (Christiansen, Drew and Gerard 99).
With the growing debates associated with universal human rights in international
legislation, fostered by Western dominions, international relations’ status quo has been to
administer Western guidelines on other republics across the globe. The legality as well as
legitimacy linked to specific behaviors are based on those which stipulate the dynamics of
international legislation (Parry 177). The standards for just wars, for instance, are driven by the
worldwide hegemony. For that reason, the validation or legitimization of conflict at degrees not
within this domination are viewed as null in case they do not collimate with the prominent ones.
The outcome is the idea of legitimacy to be disputatious as a result of subjectivity linked to the
mental representation of the meaning or significance of what is and is not to be regarded as
legitimate (Parry 178).
In view of this, the legitimacy notion tends to be contentious because of subjectivity
included in the knowledge of what to or not to be considered as authentic (Parry 178). The
United Nations (UN) is commonly considered as the most vital intergovernmental organisation
worldwide that is beneficial in taking 'world governmental' role presumed as an anarchic
condition of the international system. However, the protocols, conventions and articles of the
United Nations tend to be practical in offering a set of 'universal' regulations by which guides the
states, the corporation's possibly most significant drawback is that these are centered on consent
instead of keeping the power of being lawfully binding. In addition, the idea of universality in
the side of UN set codes of principles and practice and in Intercontinental Law is also contested
(Pattison 635). At this point, cultural relativism, the issue frequently turns into a challenge of

3
Western principles getting utilized in instances where they could not always fit (McKeogh 22).
Creation of tensions from this express’s determination of legitimate opposed to illegitimate
measures and to whose criteria. In the scenario in the subsequent chapters of the Somali pirates
shall be looked into, this antagonism certainly occurs where these justificatory of the non-state
actors’ dialogue in turmoil are overthrown by the brands of banditry by the intercontinental
community that challenge their legitimacy (Piskunova 192). Therefore, the insurgency group in
its situation bring about justificatory explanations regarding their violent actions, justifiable
means according to these teams may not line up with what is legitimate in accordance to Western
set principles that control international relations
It is of great essence for formulating an understanding of the hegemonic control
justifiable means and their operations. In accordance to the universality of laws literary works,
quite a few accounts dispute that the dominating Western proclamation of the generality of
intercontinental law has actively omitted those falling outside the European group by the legal-
juridical idioms and doctrines that have surfaced (Pattison 636). In these accounts, the
explanation of European and other relations is vividly explained and centred on Western ideas
surfacing from the Western powers impacting the articles of law as an outcome of the
Enlightenment. The manner in which such legislation is employed has diverse among the
European, between regions and the others, continually benefiting the European. The Western
norms, traditions and ideals have been deemed as global, which in turn motivates the 'othering' of
non-Europeans and the recant of indigenous acculturations who had initiated civilisations prior to
colonialism (Morkevičius 15). The idioms and notions of local people were forcefully substituted
with those of their colonisers and the approach of alterity permitted for the legitimate
objectification of others against the European self (Morkevičius 15).
Therefore, it is necessary to analyse the concern of legitimisation of war making use of
concepts, for instance, those portrayed in the theory against the sophisticated instances of chaotic
non-state actors in Somalia (Way 82). This research consequently expects to nourish into the
debate on the legitimacy of turmoil by evaluating conventional notions of legitimacy along with
the justificatory discourses in the two selected cases. As legitimacy is debatably an opinion-
based on purpose of ideology or politics, Just War Theory may present a podium by which
legitimacy may be led. In the undertaking, this research paper tries to evaluate this through an
position that contains insights into the inspirations of the chaotic non-state actors that perpetuate
disputes that are adversely deemed in light of owning Western media and discourse. That is, not
the justification of chaotic acts on non-state actors, but instead to get into their reasons to
evaluate the notion of legitimacy based on the key elements of the theory. The relevancy of Just
War Theory in the continued Western imperialism as well as modern-day intercontinental
relations, 'correct' notions of legitimacy in wide-spread accounts of non-state actor violence is
deeply elaborated at the end of this paper.
Research Question
Focusing on Just War Theory mainly in states as major actors involved in warfare, this
paper seeks to review the theory through positioning of non-state actors in African disputes
around it, hence using the hypothesis outside of its home turf. Thus, this research offers a
solution to the following question:
 How can the theory of just war assist in the evaluation of the belief of legitimacy
applied to the operations of non-state actors in conflict situations?
This research paper tries to examine the scenario of the Somali pirates in responding to
the preceding query. For these scenarios, we will notice the surge in violent non-state actors

4
committing violent criminal acts like theft, raids and killings which are widely considered as
unjust on a national and international level, as highlighted in United Nations' norms, where
morals and ethics are emphasized. However, the two cases, the violent non-state actors provide
legitimisation and justification for their acts of violence, with the protection of their sea/land
stated as their primary motive.
Aim of Research and Rationale: Understanding Legitimacy
This study seeks to explore on the tensions involving legitimacy as well as legality with
regards to the function of non-state actors in conflict, concentrating particularly on the Somali
Pirates in the Gulf of Aden. In accomplishing this, the justificatory themes along with the
insights into the accounts of the Somali pirates in light of Just War Principle are going to be
researched.

5
 Chapter 2

Review of Literature
This section highlights some of the most notable concepts in the accounts associated with
the dynamics involving the Somali conflicts within the literary works. The chapter therefore
seeks to present a review of the context whereby this case is based (to be looked into in depth
within the subsequent chapters). In doing so, a few of the well-known voices (authors as well as
organizations) are going to be recognized in as influencers within the spreading of the image of
this non-state group as villains participating in behaviors involving banditry along with senseless
violence. It is this dominant perspective or impression which will ultimately be examined and
argued within the subsequent sections in centering on the understanding as well as arguments
around justification in conflict. The chapter is going to end by discussing the idea of state failure
within the materials associated with these conflicts.
Somali State Failure
After the 1991 state failure, Somalia has constantly faced a continuous crisis of piracy.
The operations of hijacking as well as ransoming foreign fishing ships by Somali pirates has
triggered significant consternation within the international setting as the lawlessness in the nation
has made the problem of piracy progressively challenging to contain. The operations of Somali
pirates are self-proclaimed to be legit given that they assert to be defenders of their oceanic
territories from the unlawful dumping as well as overfishing within their waters by external
vessels. Some pirates actually deny this brand, ideally referring to themselves as Somali Coast
Guards (Fakhoury, 39). Within their disaffirmation of the legitimacy involving individuals
attempting to control what they consider to be their waters; Somali pirates situate their value to
protect their seas as a way of survival (Fakhoury, 40).
According to Biggar (2015) war appertains to an actual, intentional as well as prevalent
armed conflict between political interests. The authors' definition further includes
"governmental pressure organizations” as political concerns, within which this study identifies
vehement non-state parties in the selected case study. For that reason, it is therefore important to
investigate the advancement of piracy as the ways of violence determined to evaluate by the
analysis of Sonali piracy to evaluate exactly how Just War Theory can assess their legitimacy
and legality as well as ultimately enable one to concentrate on the understanding along with
conundrums around conflict justification. In delving into the discussion of just wars by
evaluating this unique case in international relations, this research seeks to assert that Western
informed international beliefs of legitimacy (due to international legislation developed on
Western values) possesses a substantial influence in either reinvigorating or weakening
justificatory discourses associated with non-state actors in conflict. Basically, this research seeks
to evaluate the way the chosen theory can assist in evaluating notions involving legitimacy even
when employed beyond its setting in applying it to disputes operated by non-state actors, which
has grown to be more prevalent in modern-day international relations. The paper does not seek to
rationalize their behaviors, but instead to investigate the way the theory can be helpful in
identifying legitimacy within the justificatory discussions associated with the Somali pirates.
Singh and Arjun (2016) argued that since 2005, the discourses surrounding international security
have puzzled marine piracy off the Gulf of Aden with terrorist attacks. European and American
financiers as well as policymaker have drawn on a susceptible public fictional to overstate
Somali pirates as maritime extremists affiliated with Al-Qaeda and Al-Shabaab, propelling the
legitimate and militarization obfuscation associated with operations of counter-piracy.
6
Regardless of common agreement that setting up the rule of law is key to effectively working
financial systems, little is recognized concerning the expense of the breakdowns regarding law
and order. Nevertheless, the acts of piracy are viewed by Verhoeven (2015) as a peril to
international security and peace by agencies like the United Nations and as an apparent danger to
economic progression by Western organizations that send their ships. Besley et al. (2015)
examined a specific framework of this by quantifying the consequence of Somali piracy strikes
on the expenditures of shipping by utilizing data on shipping deals within the dry bulk industry.
For that reason, Somali pirates have been the topic of much contestation by the global
communities. They have been belittled for engaging in operations of piracy to constantly gain
monetary profits via their ransom demands which continuously heightens and their raids on
external fishing ships (Piskunova, 192). Additionally, reports by organizations such as World
Food Programme as well as Defence Web furthermore view the Somali pirates as sea criminals
on account of their strikes on the ships which serve as a support and aid to them in the events of
humanitarian crises (La'Nita 19).
Consequent to these extensively discussed and documented opinions, the operations of
the Somali Pirates as banditry acts enlightened by typical discourse is the dominant impression
portrayed in worldwide media (Way 82). The portrayal has brought about their reasons behind
their chaotic acts to be outweighed by their wrong doings, which in due course results in their
waging of violent discord to be often promulgated as unjust. Nevertheless, behind these
perspectives lies a framework of interpersonal inequality, political instability as well as colonial
history which brought about these erratic conditions that are frequently overlooked by those
reporting.
As previously mentioned, the selected case study is Somalia, which experiences severe
human rights crises and listed as failed states based on the Failed States Index presented by
La'Nita (2015). Vehement non-state parties have come forth in this nation, articulating different
justifications within this particular case. As a result of its weak or missing administrative powers,
Somalia has had chaotic non-state actors showcasing themselves in a feat to take command
where its governing administration has failed to do so. Albeit the concept of state failure is
inevitable when addressing this case, this perception is not going to be the focus in this research
considering that it is beyond the scope of this analysis.
Nevertheless, the concept of the failed state as investigated by authors such as Mazarr
(2014) in this case is going to be utilized to draw parallels, trends or patterns which can be
employed to guide the evaluation of the case study (i.e. assertions of non-state parties emerging
where the administration has failed to do so).
Understanding of Just War Theory
According to O'Driscoll (2015), just war theory deals with the validation regarding how
and why wars are fought. The reason can be either historical or theoretical. The hypothetical
element is involved with morally justifying war along with the forms in which warfare may or
may not acquire. The historical element, or the "just war convention," relates to the traditional
body associated with regulations or contracts which have applied in different wars throughout
the ages. For example, global agreements such as the Hague as well as Geneva conventions are
historical guidelines targeted at restricting specific forms of warfare which legal professionals
may make reference to in prosecuting criminals, but it is the purpose of ethical values to evaluate
these institutional contracts for their philosophical cohesiveness and to make inquiries into
whether facets of the conventions should be modified. In support to O'Driscoll (2015), Mbuya
(2015) opined that the just war convention may furthermore take into account the models of

7
several lawyers and philosophers throughout the ages as well as analyze both their philosophical
perspectives of the moral limits of war (or absence of) and whether or not their views have
played a role in the convention's body which have advanced to guide warfare and war.
Lazar (2017) presented the contemporary background with regards to analytical just war
concept, from the roots of modern-day traditionalist just war principle in Michael Walzer's
(2017) work to the revisionist review of Walzer (2017) along with the succeeding resurgence of
traditionalism. Modern-day theory of just war is divided into two extensive camps: traditionalists
and revisionists. However, according to McKeogh (2016), traditionalists seek to present ethical
basis for anything close to existing international legislation, and in particular the legal guidelines
of armed conflict. Despite the fact that they offer developments, they do so meticulously.
Revisionists such as O'Driscoll (2015) assert that international legislation is at best a practical
fiction since it does not have deeper ethical foundations.
Luban (2017) evaluated the similarities as well as the dissimilarities, involving
(nonrevisionist) just war hypothesis along with the laws of war. The resemblances are apparent:
both just war theory as well as the laws of war distinguish jus in bello from jus ad bellum, and
integrate the principles of distinction, prerequisite as well as proportionality (Uniacke 42). The
differences derive from the unique individuality of legislation. Law requires binary, yes-no
criteria for drawing lines, for instance between armed conflict along with lesser types of assault.
Legal guidelines come in bundles (regimes), to ensure that altering a single legislation is not
often practicable; and legal propositions, as opposed to philosophical propositions, in many cases
are detachable from their justifications and employed in unforeseen and unwelcome means
(Christiansen 14). This is particularly essential in the tensions of conflict, when policies of
warfare have to be functional by middle- or lower-ranked people with no chance for custom
deliberation.
The Just War Theory is a framework of evaluation of this research which is going to be
used to analyze the relationship of non-state actors, violent acts along with its legitimate conduct
in concentrating on the understanding of justification, together with a Realist world perspective
which postulates that war is inevitable (McKeogh 23). However, as viewed with the rise of non-
state actors whereby in some instances apply a power exceedingly strong for the state to manage,
the governing administration is debatably no longer the exclusive significant actor in
international relations (Pattison 18). Furthermore, wars have started embodying different styles,
between as well as within state governments and for diverse motives. Nevertheless, legitimate
wars cannot be fought devoid of sticking to standards as stated in the Geneva Conventions, the
UN Charter, International Human Rights Law and as defined in Just War Theory. Scholars such
as Lang (2016) postulate the Just War Theory in human rights as a significant principle. For
Morkevičius (2015), human rights are entitlements which can be reasonably required by social
corporations and others. Territorial sovereignty and integrity are traditional state rights that are
additionally grounded on universal and foundational ethical rights. This perspective once more
echoes a Western informed comprehension associated with Just War Theory directed by Western
rules (Frowe 85).
Other scholars such as Mbuya (2015) and O'Driscoll (2015) suggest that the employment
of Just War Principle can be profoundly challenging. They argue for reconfigurations of the
hypothesis, specifically around 'just intention' a tenet, put in to challenge the concept of
legitimacy, problematize the principle along with its paradoxes and necessitate the theory to be
reshaped and reevaluated in a way that makes it better conceptually. The demand of a
reconceptualization of the Just War Concept by the scholars to the materials is a sign of the

8
contradictions in the points of views on Just War theory within its conventional system which
ultimately generates trepidation in employing the theory to evaluate or establish legitimacy
within contemporary conflicts (O'Driscoll 32).
In line with these viewpoints which put into question conventional Just War Theory in its
employment and requisite for its reevaluation in viability, the theory in the setting of non-state
actors is going to therefore be a valuable tool to investigate. Based on the theory, just wars are
generally caused by the state in accordance with established guidelines/pillars (Dolan, 61).
However, in the conditions of nonstate actors who initiate or take part in violent conflict, it is
worth examining how the theory can be used or possibly modified in this case. The following
categorizations which contain the pillars of Just War Theory are going to be researched in this
paper: justice of resorting to war (jus ad bellum), justice of conduct during war (jus in bello) and
justice of agreements of peace towards the end of war (jus post bellum). In so doing, concerns
associated with right intention; appropriate authority; proportionality; intercontinental law;
weaponry and approaches; reprisals; as well as rights vindication will be looked into in
examining justification of violent non-state actors' involvement in conflict.

9
 Works Cited
Besley, Timothy, Thiemo Fetzer, and Hannes Mueller. "The welfare cost of lawlessness:
evidence from Somali piracy." Journal of the European Economic Association 13.2
(2015): 203-239.
Biggar, Nigel. "In defence of war." New Blackfriars 96.1062 (2015): 192-205.
Christiansen, Drew SJ, and Gerard F. Powers. "Economic sanctions and the just-war doctrine."
Economic Sanctions. Routledge, 2018. 97-117.
Dolan, Chris J. In war we trust: the Bush doctrine and the pursuit of just war. Routledge, 2018.
Fakhoury, Amer. "International Legal Regime Against Maritime Piracy Piracy off the coast of
Somalia." Journal of Law/Magallat al-Huquq 39.1 (2015).
Frowe, Helen. The ethics of war and peace: an introduction. Routledge, 2015.
Jackson, Mary Kathryn, and Jonathan Matusitz. "Understanding Somali piracy through cognitive
resources theory." Africa Review 9.1 (2017): 1-12.
La'Nita, M. Johnson. "The Consequences of Somali Piracy on International Trade." (2014).
Lazar, Seth. "Just war theory: Revisionists versus traditionalists." Annual Review of Political
Science 20 (2017): 37-54.
Luban, David. "Just War Theory and the Laws of War as Nonidentical Twins." Ethics &
International Affairs 31.4 (2017): 433-440.
Mazarr, Michael J. "The rise and fall of the failed-state paradigm: Requiem for a decade of
distraction." Foreign Aff. 93 (2014): 113.
Mbuya, Nkulu Joelle. How can Just War Theory help us assess a notion of legitimacy applied to
the actions of non-state actors in conflict situations?. Diss. 2015.
McKeogh, Colm. The political realism of Reinhold Niebuhr: a pragmatic approach to just war.
Springer, 2016.
Morkevičius, Valerie. "Power and order: the shared logics of realism and just war Theory."
International Studies Quarterly 59.1 (2015): 11-22.
O'Driscoll, Cian. "Rewriting the just war tradition: Just war in classical Greek political thought
and practice." International Studies Quarterly 59.1 (2015): 1-10.
Parry, Jonathan. "Just war theory, legitimate authority, and irregular belligerency." Philosophia
43.1 (2015): 175-196.
Pattison, James. "Justa piratica: the ethics of piracy." Review of International Studies 40.4
(2014): 631-656.
Piskunova, Natalia. "Pirates of Aden: A Threat beyond Somalia’s Shores?." Central European
Journal of International and Security Studies 9.2 (2015): 191-203.
Singh, Currun, and Arjun Singh Bedi. "War on Piracy: The conflation of Somali piracy with
terrorism in discourse, tactic, and law." Security Dialogue 47.5 (2016): 440-458.
Uniacke, Suzanne. "Self-Defence, Just War, and a Reasonable Prospect of Success." (2014).
Verhoeven, Harry. "The new pirates: modern global piracy from Somalia to the South China Sea.
By Andrew Palmer." (2015): 202-203.
Walzer, Michael. "The triumph of just war theory (and the dangers of success)." Empowering
Our Military Conscience. Routledge, 2017. 27-44.
Way, Lyndon CS. "Discourses on Somali Piracy: Intervention and Legitimacy." Journalism
Practice 8.1 (2014): 80-95.

10