How do states justify the use of violence against domestic targets?

States often justify the use of violence against domestic targets by claiming it as a necessity for security. This justification is rooted in the idea that the state has a primary responsibility to protect its citizens and maintain public order. By framing violence as a security measure, states can argue that such actions are essential to prevent threats, ensure stability, and uphold the rule of law. This rationale can be particularly prevalent in scenarios involving terrorism, civil unrest, or perceived internal threats, where governments assert that they must take decisive action to safeguard national security interests.

This security-based justification can resonate strongly with the public and other political entities, as it taps into societal fears and the desire for safety. It can also allow states to gain legitimacy for actions that might otherwise be viewed as repressive or excessive, often prompting support or at least acquiescence from the populace.

In contrast, public opinion, while a factor, may not be the primary justification for violence. It can fluctuate and sometimes opposes state actions, making it a less stable basis for justifying violence. Promoting international relations and relying on diplomatic agreements are typically focused on external interactions and do not directly address the internal rationale for domestic violence.