EVALUATING THE CONCEPT OF UNGOVERNED SPACES: THE LIMITATIONS OF A TWO DIMENSIONAL WORLDVIEW.

• Author: De Teo, Shu
• Position: Report

In policy circles, the concept of ungoverned spaces has become increasingly salient as policymakers have sought to identify and root out the sources of security threats. Despite the burgeoning literature on that subject, however, there remains considerable disagreement about the validity and utility of the concept. This paper sets out to evaluate the concept of ungoverned spaces in the context of U.S. policies towards terrorist organizations. I argue that the concept adopts a two-dimensional worldview that focuses too much on the extent of state control and, as such, is limited in its value as an analytical and policymaking instrument.

I begin by outlining the various positions in the literature regarding the concept of ungoverned spaces, and argue that the paradigm is likely not well-suited to characterizing the conditions that favor transnational terrorism. Second, I analyze two distinct cases in which the United States confronted terrorist organizations to assess the validity of the above conjecture. In each case, I also examine how, if at all, different contexts might vary in the challenges that they pose for policymakers. Third, I discuss the insights gleaned from the cases examined. I conclude that the ungoverned spaces paradigm is of limited value due to its narrow focus on the degree of state control. Finally, I comment on the implications of these findings for policymakers and identify some possible avenues for further research.

Ungoverned Spaces: A Misnomer

The concept of ungoverned spaces presents the notion of territories unreached by the state apparatus in a given country and seeks to problematize that state of affairs. For example, the CIA has singled out for close observation safe havens where terrorists can operate beyond the reach of the national government and use such spaces for organizing attacks against the United States and its allies. (1) Accordingly, a suitable solution would entail striking at the terrorists directly using military force, thus denying them a place to operate unimpeded. In a similar vein, Marc Lynch uses the term ungoverned spaces to refer to those areas within "failed states"--such as Syria, Yemen and Libya--where the national government's reach does not extend, and where terrorist groups can set up shop to expand their influence in relative safety. (2) More generally, it has been observed that U.S. government agencies and their partners tend to evaluate ungoverned spaces in terms of the degree to which the central government's control is absent. (3) The manner in which diminished state control is cast as a problem to be rectified highlights the pre-eminence of Westphalian thinking in the minds of such policymakers. (4) The concept of ungoverned spaces therefore takes a strong, sovereign state as the gold standard against which governance arrangements are to be measured.

Others have disputed the validity of the concept. According to the UK Foreign and Commonwealth Office, the state-centric concept of ungoverned spaces has a number of obvious flaws, which include, but are not limited to, the following. First, many spaces described as ungoverned are not actually in a state of anarchy, but rather, are managed by non-state actors; the state-centric notion of ungoverned spaces simply fails to recognize this. Second, security threats such as terrorists often cannot flourish in genuinely ungoverned areas; they need infrastructure such as roads and financial institutions to function effectively. (5) Likewise, Stewart M. Patrick argues that "truly anarchic environments can pose insuperable obstacles to terrorists," and that "most so-called ungoverned spaces are in fact alternatively governed." (6) Furthermore, Patrick argues that densely populated areas such as cities can in fact provide good refuge for terrorists as it is easier for them to operate unknown in such environments, as compared to more sparsely populated environments. (7)

These arguments suggest two key problems with the ungoverned spaces paradigm. First, ungoverned spaces are not actually ungoverned per se. Rather, various non-state actors wield some form of authority in the territories in question and do not conform to the United States' preferred, state-centric world order, so they are therefore not recognized as legitimate authorities. Second, security threats not only persist, but sometimes thrive in areas where central government control is clearly in force. (8) The presence or absence of security threats, such as terrorists, is unlikely to be determined by the degree of governance. Instead, it is more likely...