What is ISIL? ISIL or ISIS is acronym for Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (2013). It has been branded by the U.S., the U.N. and her allies as an unrecognized state and a Sunni jihadist terrorist group. The group itself however claim to be a caliphate, which claims religious authority over all Muslims in the world. At the present, it has some political authority over territories in Iraq and Syria.
The question I am proposing is, is ISIL a state? and does it have sovereignty over the people and properties within their control?
Let’s first examine the political system of ISIL. On
Jun 29, 2014, ISIL proclaimed their first caliph Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi. A caliph is the political and
religious leader of the Islamic state. It is basically a king and a pope. Caliph
Abu Bakr is the commander in chief of ISIL’s military forces, head of ISIL’s
executive and legislative branch of government as well as head of the Muslim
clergy within the State. The priority of ISIL is to force on establishing its
own rule on conquered territory. Unlike other organizations such as Al-Qaeda or
the anti-Assad group al-Nusra which focuses mainly on committing military
operations to overthrow or hurt their enemies.
ISIL’s legal system
is consisted of the Sharia laws which comes from the Quran and the Muslim
traditions and values, unlike the laws of the West which comes from the will of
the people. Their statehood is recognized
by some Arab organization; The Free Syrian Army recently on Sept 12th,
2014 signed a Non-Aggression Pact with ISIL.
So ISIL has a
government and a leader, a system of laws, a state religion, a military to
defend itself, and outside organizations that recognizes ISIL having these
things. So is it a state?
I argue that it is,
to some extent. If one compare ISIL to the Continental Army and the 13 Colonies
of America in the beginning of the Revolutionary War, there are significant
similarities. From the British’s point of view at those times, the American Continental
Army was a terrorist army. The rebelling colonies were not recognized as states
by any of the European states, except by France later on. But the Americans had
a government, the Continental Congress with representatives of local governments
throughout the colonies. The Americans had a system of laws which was very
similar to the British system of law back then. And the people who lived in
those colonies recognizes the authority of the laws created by these
governments. And finally, the colonies were able to field state militias and a
grand army to defend these things.
ISIL can become a state and might eventually will if
they succeed in completing their agendas. At the current state, it is still a
rebellion military group with all the potentials but have not yet to win the
loyalty of the populace living with its territories. Without law abiding citizens,
a country cannot be a state. It’ll just be a Prussian Army possessing a state. The properties, weapons and vehicles, and recruits of the ISIL are still produced and enlisted from other states outside of ISIL controlled territories. This is the main ingredient that they are missing to declare itself a true state, the ability to self sustain itself.
I really enjoyed reading this post. It was certainly thought provoking and relevant. As a follow up point, I think an interesting dynamic concerning the potential statehood of ISIL is how it more closely resembles, at this point, a modern state than a market state. What will be interesting to see over the next few years, provided the U.S.-led coalition does not completely wipe them out, is how ISIL will evolve, progress and succeed in changing times while maintaining a law and order system originally enacted in the distant past.
ReplyDeleteI enjoyed reading this point as well. It is interesting to see how much ISIL has evolved since President Obama once called ISIL a JV team in the ring of terrorist groups. I like how you pointed out what components of a state ISIL does possess already, but also what it needs to gain to become a state. Fortunately, I do not think ISIL has the power to win the loyalty of the population living in its rule. I also think that ISIL would not have the power to permanently take away land from another state to call its own.
ReplyDeleteInteresting post. See the link below for an ISIL traffic ticket. They are even doing some of the more mundane aspects of governing!
ReplyDeleteHowever, I am not sure that the Free Syrian Army is a very good "outside organization" to have recognize you if you want to be a state.
http://www.businessinsider.com/is-traffic-ticket-2014-9
First of all, the British did not see the Colonists as a terrorist army, but were seen as a bunch of pesky rebels. There's a difference between a rebel and a terrorist. Second, most European countries did not like Britain and did consider us a state. France recognized us as did Spain and the Dutch who were also our allies during the Revolutionary War. I don't see ISIS becoming a state because I don't think Iraq and Syria are willing to suddenly give up their individual power and merge into one state. It was different when the colonies wanted to be unified as one state. No one is going to recognize a terrorist group as a state.
ReplyDelete