La legítima defensa como causa de justificación

This section analyses the escalatory and de-escalatory role of the factors in the four cases, Israel, Lebanon, Namibia, and Sri Lanka, to illustrate the similar and different drivers found in these conflicts. The analysis is structured along the developed framework.

5.1 Context Social cleavages

In all four cases, social cleavages can be seen as a highly significant causal mechanism leading to the formation of the conflict. In the case of Sri Lanka, the social cleavage between the Tamils and the Sinhalese is the most important. However, the caste system created a hierarchical cleavage within each community, which also contributes to the onset of the conflict. On the other hand, in the case of Namibia social cleavage manifested itself in the form of political and centre-periphery divisions, originating from the South African oppressive apartheid-policies. Ideological division strongly influenced the social cleavage in the case of Israel, as there were two blocks with conflicting ideologies. In the case of Lebanon, ethno-religious sectarian cleavages existed between the numerous Christian and Muslim denominations. Additionally, the urban-rural cleavage created tensions within the Lebanese society. It can be observed that social cleavages played a significant role in all four cases facilitating the outbreak of the conflicts. In three cases, Lebanon, Namibia and Sri Lanka, the social cleavage also had an impact the conflict dynamics, in driving at least some of the (de)escalation of the conflicts. In Namibia social cleavages caused an internal power struggle within SWAPO between the younger and older generations. A similar trend occurred at the end of the Sri Lankan conflict, in which a social cleavage existed between the eastern and northern Tamil community. In Lebanon social cleavages escalated the conflict due to communal mobilisation along sectarian lines, which resulted in higher levels of inter- and intra-sectarian violence at several times.

Popular support

In all four cases popular support seems to be related to the conflict dynamics. However, popular support mostly appears to be an indirect influence, since changing levels of popular support did not necessarily lead to changing levels of violence. In three cases, Israel, Lebanon and Sri Lanka, the central government commanded a general low popular support (within a certain community), while the main oppositional actors enjoyed a high level of popular support. In Sri Lanka, the popular support of the non-Tamil population was not necessarily

low, but the population voted and supported along party lines, due to the rivalry between the two most important political parties. The idea of a central government was not challenged, but the policy concerning the insurgency was. This resulted in a lack of popular support for the actions of the state, sometimes resulting in anti-government riots. In the case of Lebanon, society was highly divided on the organisation of the state apparatus, but the idea of a central government was supported throughout the conflict. Militias did not call into question the legitimacy of the government. The conflict was more about the division of power within the government. In Israel, the central government lacked legitimacy due to British presence preventing the formation of an Israeli or Arab state. In contrary to the case of Namibia, whereas the central government of South Africa did enjoy popular support from the white voting electorate both in South Africa and Namibia. In the case of Namibia, South Africa´s occupation over Namibia was seen by white ruling minority as historical continuation.

Popular support for non-state actors could be argued to be a contributing factor to both the commencement and continuation of the conflict. In the case of Sri Lanka, the state-building project of the LTTE created a high level of popular support because of the provision of security. However, the majority believed their strategies to be too violent. A similar observation can be made in the case of Lebanon, where militias enjoyed popular support due to the protection they offered to their respective communities. Several militias pleaded for the division of Lebanon in different cantons, which was only supported by a small minority of the Lebanese people. In the case of Israel, all non-state actors enjoyed popular support amongst their constituencies. In contrary to Namibia, where the SWAPO did not offer any protection to communities, partly due to its limited military capacity, and mostly enjoyed popular support because of its non-biaze, all including nation-wide independence strife.

The direction of the relation between the two variables works both ways. On the one hand, high levels of violence can lead to lower levels of popular support. On the other hand, high levels of popular support for non-state actors can result in escalation of the conflict, while low levels can de-escalate the conflict.

Grievances

In all the four cases, grievances fuelled the motivation of non-state actors to escalate the conflict. Economic, political and social grievances played a role in the conflicts. Therefore, it had an enormous escalatory impact, mainly in the beginning of the conflict.

In Namibia grievances can be linked to the apartheid. Oppression of the black population and their poor social and economic conditions caused political grievance. In the case of Israel, the main grievance involved with the escalation of violence was the obstruction by the central authority to comply with prior political commitments on power transfer. In Sri Lanka, the grievances mostly derived from discriminatory policies of the state against the Tamils, which resulted in political, economic and social grievances. For example, the Tamil language was not recognised as an official language. Even though the Tamils were seated in parliament, they had de facto a lack of influence. In the case of Lebanon, political and economic grievances existed amongst the Muslim denominations. The Lebanese confessional system had formalised the division of power, which caused political grievances. The Christian community was granted most political power, which seems to have also resulted in better economic positions, thereby, causing political and economic grievances amongst the Sunni Muslim community.

It can be observed that within communities, feelings of grievances can prevail. In Lebanon, the Shia Muslim community suffered from a low socio-economic status in comparison to the Sunni Muslim community. This is reflected in Sri Lanka by the caste system, which created differences and grievances within the Tamil community.

In Sri Lanka, Lebanon and Israel, grievances continued to be one of the main drivers of escalation and use of violence for the insurgent(s) throughout the conflict. In contrast to Namibia, where grievance lost its high impact on conflict dynamics, although new grievances arose, for instance, because of poor conditions in refugee camps, which resulted in internal power struggle within SWAPO. In Sri Lanka, for instance, the LTTE was excluded from peace negotiations, which intensified the feelings of exclusion. Additionally, the grievances were so high that decentralisation solutions were not believed to be possible, and they continued devoted to a separate state solution. In the case of Lebanon, the political grievances were deep-rooted and the confessional system hindered political reforms. The Muslim-leftist parties went to great lengths to change the political system. Additionally, the militias were not invited to the negotiation table for a long time, which fuelled their feelings of grievance. Another aspect is the cycle of retaliation, which continued to cause grievances and heighten the level of violence. In Israel, acts of retaliation and inflicted harm caused grievances amongst all actors driving further escalation of the conflict. Interestingly, in all cases acts of retaliation seems to have played a significant role in the escalation of the conflict.

Local politics

Local politics can be linked to the onset of the conflict in three cases. In the case of Namibia, local politics in the northern region supported the emergence of the SWAPO´s liberation struggle, but it would not impact the conflict dynamics as SWAPO disregarded the local political dimension. Similarly, local politics in Sri Lanka can be regarded as an escalating factor in the beginning, since the rivalry between groups and local leaders resulted in a high level of violence. The LTTE turned out to be the strongest and became the only Tamil militant group for years. Their local political system enhanced public support from the community. Eventually, local political dynamics escalated the conflict again when a new leader started to participate. Likewise, in Lebanon local leaders played a significant role in the onset of the conflict, in terms of communal mobilisation. Lebanese community leaders continued to contribute to the escalation of violence as the conflict progressed by supporting and deploying their respective militia. With the collapse of the central government, communities increasingly relied on the traditional clan structures, in which the local community or clan leader controlled the local police or militia. In all three cases, local politics were highly interrelated with the existence of social cleavages, grievances and the level of popular support. The fourth case, Israel, showed less conclusive results on the specifics of local politics. This might have resulted from the fact that the conflict occurred in a region that is small in many respects, intertwining local and national politics. The Jewish actors maintained a centralised government, while the Arabs were divided more prominently along clan lines. The relevance of either the central government or the clan structures might explain the relative absence of historical accounts on local politics.

National politics

It can be argued that national politics played a role in all conflicts. In all four cases, the nature of the political system functions as a causal mechanism of conflict. In the case of Sri Lanka and Namibia, the national governments ignored the demands of the non-state parties and continued with their original problematic policies, leading to the outbreak of the conflict. In contrary to Israel and Lebanon, where the non-state actors were not ignored. In some instances, the government even cooperated with the non-state actors. In the Israeli case, for example, during the hunting season, the Hagana militia cooperated with the British in suppressing the other Jewish militias. In the case of Lebanon, the militias functioned as paramilitary wings of political parties. Militias of both the Christian-rightist and the Muslim-

leftist parties supported the Lebanese Army at different times in the conflict. The complexity derived from the fact that the militias' leaders could be involved in an armed struggle, while the political leaders were part of the same government. Both political and militias' leaders incited the use of mass violence. In the case of Sri Lanka, it seems that the national politics through national elections de-escalated the conflict due to changing policy in most of the times. Similarly, in Israel, the election of a perceived pro-Zionist government in London during the 1945 elections, influenced de-escalation of the conflict, as political goals could be achieved by cooperation. In contrary to Lebanon and Namibia, where national elections and a change of government mainly escalated the conflict. In Lebanon, political assassinations occurred after a new government had been formed, in order to destabilise the political situation.

Regional politics

All cases had a strong external dimension, in which the regional balance of power played a significant role in the dynamics of the conflict. In the case of Israel, regional politics resulted in a large scale military intervention in the conflict by regional actors. During 1948, the political objectives under consideration by various Arab governments regarding intervention in Palestine, were as much or more dominated by regional political considerations than the destruction of Israel. These regional considerations included maintaining popular support amongst the broader Arab public and increasing political standing, in a bid to become the leader of a Pan-Arab world. Positive considerations were combined with negative regional political considerations, such as preventing other regional actors from expanding territorially, or gaining influence. Regional politics resulting in large scale military interventions is an example of how regional politics can drive escalation. In the same way, foreign invasions of Lebanese territory caused escalation of the conflict. Both Syria and Israel invaded Lebanon multiple times, causing substantial higher levels of violence. Additionally, both states offered financial and material support to the militias, which contributed to prolonging the conflict. Likewise, in the case of Namibia, the Cuban intervention was seen as a major threat by South Africa, leading to its involvement. The South African government also tried to destabilise neighbouring countries, which were supporting and/or hosting SWAPO. Lastly, the support of India for the Tamil militants contributed to escalation of the conflict. Notwithstanding the escalatory role of regional politics, in Namibia, Lebanon and Sri Lanka, a foreign military intervention would eventually lead to de-escalation of the conflict. More specifically, India stopped the military campaign of the Sri Lankan government, which resulted in a three-year

ceasefire. However, escalation ensued the withdrawal of the Indian forces. In Lebanon, Syria launched a full-fledged military operation against General Aoun. After his removal, the Lebanese government could implement the Taif agreement, which ended the war.

International politics

International actors proved to be a major factor influencing the conflict dynamics in all four cases. Although, in all cases, international politics contributed to reaching a settlement, international politics often led to or contributed to escalation throughout the conflicts. This occurred as a result of direct military interventions or exercising pressure on the actors to join peace negotiations. In the case of Sri Lanka, the UN tried to pressure the government to find a diplomatic solution towards the end of the conflict, which failed. In the other cases, international negotiations were initiated by the international community. However, the impact of negotiations was dependent on local receptiveness. For example, in the case of Lebanon, militias who were not invited to the negotiations table, responded to international peace negotiations with fighting. This was not the case in Namibia, where SWAPO was also not included in the leading negotiation. However, they did not even take into account or responded to the international peace negotiations. Eventually, UN recognition for SWAPO as the sole and authentic representative of Namibian people would consolidate its national position.

In two cases, Israel and Lebanon, escalation occurred as a result of withdrawal of the foreign actor. In the case of Lebanon, the Multinational Forces supported the Lebanese government in the expulsion of the PLO. The withdrawal of the MNF would lead to severe attacks on several Palestinian refugee camps, as they no longer enjoyed protection from either the PLO or foreign troops. In the case of Israel, the withdrawal of Central British Authority caused escalation, as all parties started fighting to take control. Indirect involvement in the form of diaspora populations supporting specific actors occurred in all four conflicts. This contributed directly and significantly to the strength and capabilities of the supported actors.

Cold War dynamics played a major role in three conflicts. In the case of Namibia, it influenced the conflict dynamics by preventing the peace-building efforts and negotiations. SWAPO was dragged into the fight for communist backed by Angola. In general, it was caught in the middle of U.S. led war against Communism. In Lebanon, the Cold War dynamics became most apparent in the foreign support for militias. The nations offering support were clearly divided along Cold War lines. In the case of Israel, Cold War dynamics

are resembled in three different ways. First, British considerations included the strategic need for relations in the region, as being close to strategic supply routes, but also under consideration was the Arab oil, necessary for winning the coming war with the Soviet Union. Secondly, on a political level Soviet opportunism played a role, as British and American policies on the issue of Palestine differed, the Soviets actively pursued a strategy to increase friction on the issue between the two major western allies. Third, as much of the middle east was under British control, creation of the state of Israel, could serve to both impair British relations with the Arab countries. If Israel would successfully claim independence and statehood, this could possibly create a Soviet ally in the Middle-East possessing strategic Mediterranean ports, something the Soviet Union identified as a strategic necessity. In the case of Lebanon, cold war dynamics are mostly resembled in the foreign support militias received. The Christian-rightist camp sided with the West, while the Muslim-leftist camp sided with Soviet-aligned Arab states. In this way, the cold war dynamics accelerated the process of polarisation. In the case of Sri Lanka, other international developments, such as the war on terror, influenced the dynamics of the conflict. The international narrative framed the Tamil Tigers as terrorist, and supported the governmental coercive action against these 'terrorists'. It also declined the financial support of Tamil diaspora, which had a negative impact of the capacity of the LTTE.

In Sri Lanka, Norway led peace negotiations, which seem to have de-escalated the conflict at first. However, they failed to bring all the parties together, which resulted in escalation of the conflict. Likewise, in Namibia peace negotiations were held without SWAPO by the Western Contact Group, which led to escalation of the conflict. In the case of Lebanon, several foreign powers initiated peace negotiations. However, the attempts failed utterly, which resulted in higher levels of violence, and pushed the Lebanese government even more to the sidelines. In the last phase, foreign mediation led by Saudi Arabia led to the Taif agreement, which formally ended the civil war. In Israel, foreign mediation influenced the negotiations in the first phases, in order to gain a position of strength. In the last phase, foreign mediation resulted in three truces. However, the truces were misused to regroup for combat operations. Natural disaster

Two of the four cases experienced a natural disaster during the conflict. Namibia had a serious drought and Sri Lanka was struck by a tsunami. However, the impact of the natural disasters differed. In Namibia, the drought changed the circumstances of the conflict. For

instance, the drought forced some tribes to work for the South African Defense Forces. Still, the drought is not considered to be a causal mechanism for escalation or de-escalation of the