PRAXIS.

State capacity together with the rule of law determines armed conflict patterns in the Global South through the development of "stateless locations" which emerge when institutions fail to function properly. A state which fails to control violence and protect citizens from harm because of its colonial past will experience a power vacuum. People must solve their own problems because of the vacuum which leads to both insurgent activities and vigilantism. The path which emerges from this unstable situation does not follow a single direction because conflict pressure can actually drive state development when it unites political leaders into a unified force.

The main cause which connects insufficient state capabilities to violent outcomes stems from the state's inability to deliver security and justice services. In "metropolitan" criminology, a high level of internal peace and a functioning state are taken for granted. Southern criminology shows that throughout various areas the state either fails to exist or it creates violence which affects the population.

Amy Nivette uses the term "stateless locations" to describe social areas which official justice systems cannot regulate because these spaces exist beyond state control. The rule of law exists in disarray throughout these specific situations. Nivette shows through his study of Latin America that people become more supportive of vigilantism when they view their government as powerless and without authority. People choose violence as a solution to their security problems instead of following their personal taste for violence. People will use deadly force against perceived dangers when police fail to defend their community from gangs and sexual offenders. The state's control over violence which leads to armed conflict emerges from this analysis. People who lose faith in their government start supporting alternative organizations which include local watchgroups and military units and rebel forces.

To understand why these stateless locations persist, one must look to the colonial antecedents of the state. State capacity depends on both present-day financial support and the institutional framework which developed throughout history. The specific style of colonial rule dictates modern state capacity and national cohesion.

British "indirect rule," which empowered local chiefs and segregated populations along ethnic lines, left a legacy of weaker state centralisation compared to French "direct rule". In Anglophone Africa, this legacy has resulted in citizens who are less likely to identify with the nation and more likely to identify with their ethnic group. The state loses its ability to enforce the rule of law because people see it as an outside power which fights against their ethnic community ties. Consequently, Anglophone countries display weaker state capacity regarding taxation and security, and a higher prevalence of armed conflict. The way power has been distributed between states throughout history created an essential structural problem which allows "stateless locations" to emerge according to Nivette.

Justice Tankebe examines Ghanaian policing through his research which demonstrates how colonial institutions continue to affect modern police operations. The police forces in numerous post-colonial nations operated as institutions which maintained control over citizens through methods of violence and fear-based tactics and intimidation. Police legitimacy in these situations emerges from their ability to achieve results rather than from their adherence to fair procedures which people in the Global North typically expect. The state loses its right to legitimacy when it fails to deliver effective crime control and security protection because people then seek violent solutions for order maintenance.

Weak capacity creates conditions which lead to civil war but the connection between these elements does not follow a direct path. The state faces two possible outcomes when conflict serves as a testing process because it either leads to state collapse or leads to state development. Diana Rodríguez-Franco presents evidence which contradicts the widely accepted belief that internal conflicts between states will result in their complete collapse. She proves through Colombia's experience that domestic conflicts enable governments to develop their institutions because they can establish tax collection systems.

The causal mechanism functions by means of elite solidarity. In Colombia, the escalation of the conflict with the FARC guerrillas threatened the economic elites to such a degree that they were willing to accept higher taxation (the "Wealth Tax") to strengthen the state’s military and judicial capacity. The elites recognized the threat as genuine and they saw the state under President Uribe as their exclusive defense against threats so they supported the war which led to expanded state control and increased territorial influence.

The system which Rodríguez-Franco describes faces multiple stability risks according to his analysis. The elite population must deal with fighting between insurgents and paramilitaries who battle for dominance in their resource extraction operations. The state will not obtain payment from these actors because they believe their power is insufficient or because elites select paramilitary forces to protect their assets. The allocation of resources toward these programs results in state power reduction because warlords and criminals maintain their authority, which produces state collapse instead of development. State capacity determines its relationship with conflict because the state needs to provide security protection that exceeds what non-state actors can offer.

The state damages the rule of law when it tries to regain control through random acts of violence because such actions create conditions that lead to armed conflict. Jocelyn Viterna’s analysis of female mobilization in El Salvador illustrates this. She identifies "Reluctant Guerrillas" women who joined the insurgency not out of ideology, but because state repression left them "with no other options". The state's attempt to demonstrate its capacity through forceful methods which Tankebe describes as colonial in nature actually strengthens insurgent support because people see the state as illegitimate thus they join the insurgency for survival. State violence creates a cycle which leads to insurgent group formation because of which the state loses its ability to enforce law and maintain control.

State capacity exists in a circular relationship with the rule of law and civil conflict in Global South countries because it depends on how well the state upholds its authority to use force. The colonial era introduced indirect rule and police operations which created states without functional administrative structures and containing multiple national identity groups. The lack of rule of law in these areas produces "stateless locations" which force citizens to back either vigilantism or insurgency because they believe these actions will help them survive.

The absence of state control leads to civil wars and international criminal activities but the state will increase its financial resources and administrative power when elite members unite. The state will experience rule of law collapse because it chooses to use unrestricted suppression instead of proper defense measures against emerging threats. The prevention of armed conflict requires more than violence suppression because it demands the elimination of "stateless locations" through state development which citizens will find both functional and trustworthy.