IS controls the territory, but they don't actually control the citizens on that territory. This attack had as far as I can see it two immediate goals: to make it harder for people to flee from IS by provoking western countries to close their borders to refugees (which goal they appear to have achieved) and to serve as a recruiting poster for the future wave of terrorists by striking an opponent right in the heart of their country to serve as a show of capability.
IS controls the territory, but they don't actually control the citizens on that territory.
However, the same could be said of the current, US recognized Iraqi government. In common parlance it essentially comes down to whether the Western powers that be recognize you as a state, and as Hollande has claimed France is at war with IS, there is certainly a case to be made.
France would still be subjected to international law. So let's watch where this concept of war with non-state actors breaks down.
1. IS is responsible for the use of armed force violating France's territorial integrity.
2. France responded with use of force (bombing) against IS targets in Syria, violating Syria's territorial integrity.
You see there is no IS territorial integrity, that is the problem with being a non-state actor. Although France was attacked by IS, France can not follow IS any where it likes.
So the legal question is:
1. Did France have a lawful right respond with the use of force against IS in Syria?
Likely yes, because: a.) some of the individuals most responsible for the acts in Paris and potentially planning future attacks are operating in Syria; and b.) Syria is not likely to stop IS attacks from originating within its own borders.
Now lets take the extreme example of a potential IS teenage recruit in the US, do you think France will lawfully be able to bomb the IS recruit in US borders under those facts? Not likely.
Take the middle of the road real life response in Belgium, where some of the Paris attack planning may have originated, notice France did not bomb in Belgium like in Syria and instead worked with Belgium to do police style raids.
2. Was France's response (bombing) proportionate to IS's use of force?
I don't think there will be many who argue France's use of armed force was disproportionate to the Paris attacks (someone will), but in the case of IS you see where it could be a slippery slope. Hypothetical: the mastermind could be hidden among an otherwise entirely civilian population, and if it were shown bombing killed thousands of civilians to get 1 IS member there may be some issues of proportionality.
> However, the same could be said of the current, US recognized Iraqi government.
Lots of people have said that the current, US recognized government of Iraq is a make-believe state, and that the strongest claim to actually being an effective state in that area is the notionally-subordinate government of the Kurdish region within Iraq.
So, yeah, the same is often said about the current, US recognized government of Iraq.
> as Hollande has claimed France is at war with IS, there is certainly a case to be made.
War between states and non-state actors is not new, though the most common case is between a state and an internal non-state actor. Perhaps the defining attribute of the modern "wars against terrorism" is that they are wars between states and external non-state actors (or, at least, non-state actors that have a substantial external component relative to many of the states that are fighting them.)
That's true, but the Iraqi government isn't trying to stop their citizens from fleeing to other countries and IS has done just that by using good old FUD to taint the refugees by association.
IS is more like North-Korea or the former USSR in this particular respect.
Given the exclusive control of territory, even with contested edges, it looks like a state to me...
Obviously other states don't recognize it as one, which is generally considered the litmus test, but has always seemed to circular to me.