Legitimacy as the Center of Gravity: Irregular Warfare and State Authority in Fragmented Conflict Zones Case Study: Syria.

Abstract

The article examines the issue of legitimacy as a major focus of an irregular warfare's "center of gravity" using Syria as a test case for examining government authority in a fragmentary zone of conflict. It suggests that in today's wars, authority is determined more by conflicting legitimacy claims at the local, national and international level than by physical control over territory. Using qualitative methods, including the analysis of policy papers, speeches, practices of governance and historical data, the research demonstrates how states and non-states create legitimacy through their delivery of services, engagement with civilians, narrative framing and international recognition. The research indicates that legitimacy serves as both a resource for strategy and a foundation for norms in establishing authority, which influences both the ability of governments to maintain governance in conflict zones and the dynamic of the conflict itself, and the trajectory of politics after the conflict. The article contributes to IR scholarship, by illustrating the connection between local governance legitimacy and international recognition mechanisms in irregular warfare environments.

Keywords

• legitimacy
• irregular warfare
• Syria
• state authority
• fragmented governance
• international relations
• conflict zones

Supporting Institution

Old Dominion University

Project Number

1

Ethical Statement

DECLARATION ETHICAL APPROVAL: This article does not contain any studies with human participants performed by any of the authors. INFORMED CONSENT: This article does not contain any studies with human participants performed by any of the authors. CONFLICT OF INTEREST: The author declares no conflict of interest. FUNDING: The Author declares no funding was provided. DATA AVAILABILITY STATEMENT: This study used only qualitative data from publicly available information such as peer-reviewed articles, government and international organizations' reports, and case studies. No primary or new, restricted data was collected or analyzed by the researchers; all sources referenced can be located through the publisher's website, repository or database of the institution where it resides. Purpose: This description of the methodology in the study is descriptive of the systematic literature review, policy analysis and an interpretative synthesis of peer-reviewed articles, government and international organizations reports, and case studies. In addition, the study clearly states that "the primary data in this study include articles, textbooks, public speeches and public archives"; therefore, the study was limited by using "secondary data". A statement verifying that the study utilized publicly available data and no primary or new, restricted or quantitative data sets were developed, is necessary and appropriate for transparency. The data was available on public repository such as google scholar

References

1. Ahram, A. I. (2014). Proxy warriors: The rise and fall of state-sponsored militias. Stanford University Press.
2. Alkhalil, M., Turkmani, R., Gharibah, M., Patel, P., & Mehchy, Z. (2024). “Capturing sources of health system legitimacy in fragmented conflict zones under different governance models: A case study of northwest Syria.” Globalization and Health, 20(71).
3. Arjona, A. (2016). Rebelocracy: Social order in the Colombian civil war. Cambridge University Press.
4. Arjona, A., Kasfir, N., & Mampilly, Z. C. (Eds.). (2015). Rebel governance in civil war. Cambridge University Press.
5. Arreguín-Toft, I. (2005). How the weak win wars: A theory of asymmetric conflict. Cambridge University Press.
6. Barnett, M. (2005). “Humanitarianism transformed.” Perspectives on Politics, 3(4), 723–740.
7. Bell, C. (2017). “Navigating inclusion in transitions from conflict: The formalised political unsettlement.” Journal of International Development, 29(5), 576–593.
8. Cunningham, D. E. (2013). “Actor fragmentation and civil war bargaining.” American Journal of Political Science, 57(3), 659–672.

9. Galula, D. (2006). Counterinsurgency warfare: Theory and practice. Praeger Security International. (Original work published 1964).
10. Gunter, M. M. (2019). The Kurds in Syria: Political parties and identity in the Middle East. I.B. Tauris.
11. Hokayem, E. (2013). Syria’s uprising and the fracturing of the Levant. Routledge.
12. Ismail, S. (2018). The rule of violence: Subjectivity, memory and government in Syria. Cambridge University Press.
13. Jackson, R. H. (2000). The global covenant: Human conduct in a world of states. Oxford University Press.
14. Kalyvas, S. N. (2006). The logic of violence in civil war. Cambridge University Press.
15. Khaddour, K. (2017). “Local war and the chance for decentralization in Syria.” Carnegie Middle East Center.
16. Kilcullen, D. (2010). Counterinsurgency. Oxford University Press.
17. Lister, C. (2015). The Syrian jihad: Al-Qaeda, the Islamic State and the evolution of an insurgency. Oxford University Press.
18. Lund, A. (2018). From Cold War to civil war: 75 years of Syrian politics and military. Hurst. Mampilly, Z. C. (2011). Rebel rulers: Insurgent governance and civilian life during war. Cornell University Press.
19. Paris, R. (2004). At war’s end: Building peace after civil conflict. Cambridge University Press.
20. Paris, R., & Sisk, T. D. (Eds.). (2009). The dilemmas of statebuilding: Confronting the contradictions of postwar peace operations. Routledge.
21. Phillips, C. (2020). The battle for Syria: International rivalry in the new Middle East. Yale University Press.
22. Reno, W. (2011). Warfare in independent Africa. Cambridge University Press.
23. Weinstein, J. M. (2007). Inside rebellion: The politics of insurgent violence. Cambridge University Press.
24. Wimmen, H. (2016). Syria’s path from civic uprising to civil war. Carnegie Middle East Center.
25. Zürcher, C. (2017). “What do we (not) know about development aid and violence? A systematic review.” World Development, 98, 506–522.