Non-state armed groups operating as 'states within states' challenge the Westphalian order in West Asia. Examine with examples.
New · District CollectorCan you hold the district for 72 hours?Floods, a heatwave, an outbreak, a grievance queue. Take the decisions, see the consequences.Play →The Westphalian order rests on sovereign states that control their own territory and borders and hold a monopoly over the use of force. In West Asia, armed non-state groups now govern territory, fight wars and conduct their own foreign policy regardless of the state they sit in. They are effectively 'states within states', and they wear sovereignty away from inside.
How they hollow out sovereignty: examples
- Hezbollah (Lebanon): UNSC Resolution 1559 (2004) called for the disbanding and disarmament of all militias and for Lebanese government control over all of Lebanon's territory [1]. Hezbollah's armed wing still operates outside state command.
- Houthis (Yemen): they seized the capital Sana'a. Resolution 2216 (2015) demanded they withdraw and stop exercising powers that belong to the legitimate government [2]. Their Red Sea attacks on merchant ships led to Resolution 2722 (2024) [3], which shows a non-state actor disrupting global trade.
- Popular Mobilisation Forces (Iraq): these Iran-backed Shia militias have grown into a parallel armed structure alongside the regular army. This blurs who actually controls force in Iraq.
- Islamic State (Iraq–Syria): it erased the Iraq–Syria border and ruled territory across both countries. This was the most direct rejection of Westphalian territorial limits.
Why they emerge
- State collapse: Iraq's state institutions were dismantled after the 2003 invasion. That war was itself called "not in conformity with the UN Charter" [4], which weakened the rules-based order at its source.
- Sectarian fault lines and weak governance: militias win support by providing security and welfare where the state fails.
- Proxy competition: regional powers arm these groups to gain strategic depth at low cost. Iran's backing of militias across several countries is the main example.
Implications
- Security: two centres of authority in one state. Host states get dragged into wars they never chose.
- Diplomacy: it is unclear who can negotiate and enforce agreements, and UNSC resolutions largely remain unimplemented [1][2].
- India: Iraq supplied 21.46% of India's crude import bill in FY 2023-24. India also had to evacuate its citizens in 2014 as IS advanced [5]. Red Sea insecurity raises freight costs on India's trade with Europe.
Overall, these groups thrive where states are hollow and outside powers sponsor them. The way forward is inclusive governance, phased disarmament and integration of militias into accountable state forces, strict enforcement of UN arms embargoes, and regional dialogue between the GCC states and Iran. Restoring the state's monopoly over force within the UN Charter framework, which India has consistently supported, is the surest path to lasting stability and to SDG 16 (peace, justice and strong institutions).
Sources
- 1UN Security Council Press Release SC/8181 – Resolution 1559 (2004)call to disband and disarm all Lebanese and non-Lebanese militias and extend government control
- 2UN Security Council Press Release SC/11859 – Resolution 2216 (2015) on YemenHouthis told to withdraw from Sana'a and stop exercising government powers
- 3UN Security Council Press Release SC/15561 – Resolution 2722 (2024)Houthi attacks on merchant and commercial ships in the Red Sea
- 4UN News – "Lessons of Iraq war underscore importance of UN Charter – Annan" (2004)Iraq war "not in conformity with the UN Charter"
- 5MEA – India–Iraq Bilateral Brief, Embassy of India, BaghdadIraq's 21.46% share of India's crude import bill in FY 2023-24; 2014 evacuation of Indians