In the international system, ISIS and Hezbollah are non-state actors involved in the power struggle characterizing the Middle East, and they found themselves opposed in the Syrian Civil War since...Show moreIn the international system, ISIS and Hezbollah are non-state actors involved in the power struggle characterizing the Middle East, and they found themselves opposed in the Syrian Civil War since 2011. Although they are different by virtue of their confessional identity, they share multiple similarities. Both are the product of the international intervention in Iraq/Syria and Lebanon; both share, until recently, a powerful military apparatus as well as a functional organizational system; both are recognised as terrorist or criminal organization by part of the international community. They share another characteristic too: the pursuit of the Islamic State, a utopia rooted in the teachings of the Qu’ran and Mohammad that calls for the demise of the Western-type of state in the Middle East. Nevertheless, their ideals of Islamic State are essentially different, and different are their historical and political contexts as well as their ideological motivations. One group has declared the Islamic State whereas the other has not. This work aims to unravel under what conditions non-state armed groups claim territorial sovereignty. Consequently, ISIS and Hezbollah are two cases subjected to deep analysis. Building on the concept of rebel governance, I argue that rebel’s strategies are affected respectively by the place and time-frame but mostly by the group’s relationship with the population, other armed groups, and the international community. Notwithstanding, ideology is still the building block of the rebel’s approach. I sustain that historical and political developments have structured the actors’ ideologies which in turn have affected their approaches and consequently the self-determination claim. The difference in the outputs then lies in the ideological and socio-political divide between ISIS and Hezbollah. The contrasting developments of these groups, which replied differently to national and international menaces, and their different regional priorities, as well as their distant ideas of Islamic State, allow us to understand what led to the creation of the “Islamic State of Iraq and Syria” and the “Party of God”. Inter alia, how the refusal of any compromise and the creation of a new Sunni identity rejecting the nation-state favoured the self-determination, whereas the entry into politics to gain resilience from a plethora of confessional realities has suggested the suspension of the Islamic State.Show less
The Falklands War of 1982 was a historical anachronism, a territorial dispute from the 17th century that became an interstate conflict fought with modern weaponry. The War was brief and resulted in...Show moreThe Falklands War of 1982 was a historical anachronism, a territorial dispute from the 17th century that became an interstate conflict fought with modern weaponry. The War was brief and resulted in a decisive British victory, leading many to assume that it was an isolated incident, a flash in the pan that would fade into history, carrying little wider significance. In the modern day, 14 territories, including the Falkland Islands, remain constitutionally linked to the United Kingdom. They are now known as the UK or British Overseas Territories. These are relics of the colonial era that have not achieved independence either by choice or matters of practicality. This thesis proves that the 1982 Falklands War was a conflict of wider significance for the British Overseas Territories in several key areas affecting life and politics in these territories and in the UK itself. This is in contrast to writers who have argued the contrary, that the Falklands War was of no wider significance to Britain's interests overseas.Show less
