|
Chair(s)
|
Christopher
Daase
christopher.daase@lrz.uni-muenchen.de
MÜNCHEN, Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität
Thomas
Biersteker
thomas.biersteker@graduateinstitute.ch
Graduate Institute of International Studies
|
|
Discussant(s)
|
Carolin
Goerzig
carogoerzig@yahoo.de
UPPSALA Universitet
|
Abstract
In the past few years violent actors have proliferated on the global scene. Locally embedded but transnationally connected groups often achieve results that are disproportionate to their initial capabilities and disaggregated from their original cause. This is particularly the case in areas of limited statehood, regions of civil war or modern protectorates. A particular challenge concerning these actors´ activities is the blurring of constitutive distinctions between internal and external security, private and political violence, warfare and crime. Recent diagnoses have pointed to a misfit between the innovations of networked clandestine groups on the one hand, and the problem-solving capacity of state and interstate agencies on the other.
Identifying patterns of organization and analyzing innovation strategies of clandestine groups is a promising task if we are to explain their emergence and change as well as to yield insights for security policy. How do information and communication technologies together with diversified and distributed modes of organization lead to the formation of new actors? Which are the conditions that facilitate violent experts´ knowledge and finance transfer? How do multiple interactions among state and non-state actors give rise to unprecedented cooperation and conflict interfaces? How are such interfaces the topoi of change for the actors´ motives, goals, and strategies? Which are the systemic differences of state and non-state actors´ mechanisms of innovation? How should scarce resources be selected and efficiently allocated in order to avoid rigidification and lock-in of countermeasures into obsolete strategic frames? How do designations but also self-understandings affect the legalization/illegalization and the politicization/depoliticization of the clandestine groups and their actions? Last but not least, we seek to problematize established notions of order and stability on the background of adapting to and gaining resilience within fast-shifting security environments.
|
