scholarly journals Ethnonationalist Triads: Assessing the Influence of Kin Groups on Civil Wars

2009 ◽  
Vol 61 (3) ◽  
pp. 403-437 ◽  
Author(s):  
Lars-Erik Cederman ◽  
Luc Girardin ◽  
Kristian Skrede Gleditsch
Keyword(s):  
Civil War ◽  
Ethnic Groups ◽  
Civil Wars ◽  
Strong Support ◽  
Country Level ◽  
Quantitative Studies ◽  
Kin Support ◽  
Geocoded Data ◽  
The Empirical Analysis

Although the case-based literature suggests that kin groups are prominent in ethnonationalist conflicts, quantitative studies of civil war onset have both overaggregated and underaggregated the role of ethnicity, by looking at civil war at the country level instead of among specific groups and by treating individual countries as closed units, ignoring groups' transnational links. In this article the authors integrate transnational links into a dyadic perspective on conflict between marginalized ethnic groups and governments. They argue that transnational links can increase the risk of conflict as transnational kin support can facilitate insurgencies and are difficult for governments to target or deter. The empirical analysis, using new geocoded data on ethnic groups on a transnational basis, indicates that the risk of conflict is high when large, excluded ethnic groups have transnational kin in neighboring countries, and it provides strong support for the authors' propositions on the importance of transnational ties in ethnonationalist conflict.

Why share? An analysis of the sources of post-conflict power-sharing

2020 ◽  
pp. 002234332092973
Author(s):  
William G Nomikos
Keyword(s):  
Civil War ◽  
Ethnic Groups ◽  
Power Sharing ◽  
Institutional Choice ◽  
Country Level ◽  
Post Conflict ◽  
Original Dataset ◽  
Governance Institutions ◽  
National Analysis ◽  
The Empirical Analysis

Why do former belligerents institutionalize power-sharing arrangements after a civil war ends? The choice of power-sharing institutions shapes the nature of governance in many post-conflict settings. A better understanding of how belligerents come to choose institutionalized forms of power-sharing would thus help us explain how belligerents come to make a seemingly simple institutional choice that may have immense consequences. Existing scholarship emphasizes the nature of the conflict preceding negotiations, international actors, or state institutional capacity as critical factors for determining whether former belligerents will agree to share power or not. Yet these accounts overlook the importance of political considerations between and within ethnic groups. This article argues that elites create power-sharing institutions when the most significant threat to their political power comes from an outside group as opposed to from within their own group. That is, forward-looking and power-minded leaders of former belligerents push for the type of power-sharing at the negotiating table that affords them the greatest opportunity to influence country-level politics after the conflict has concluded in full. For elites facing competition from outside, this means securing power-sharing through institutional rules and guidelines in the settlement of the civil war to ensure that they are included in the governance of the state. By contrast, for elites fearing in-group rivals, complex governance institutions are at best unnecessary and, at worst, a significant concession to weaker opponents. I test the argument with a cross-national analysis of an original dataset of 186 power-sharing negotiations from 1945–2011. The empirical analysis suggests that elites are most likely to institutionalize power-sharing when no single ethnic group dominates politics and when most ethnic groups are unified. The quantitative analysis is complemented with illustrative examples from cases of power-sharing negotiations that offer insight into the proposed theoretical mechanisms.

scholarly journals Horizontal Inequalities and Ethnonationalist Civil War: A Global Comparison

2011 ◽  
Vol 105 (3) ◽  
pp. 478-495 ◽  
Author(s):  
LARS-ERIK CEDERMAN ◽  
NILS B. WEIDMANN ◽  
KRISTIAN SKREDE GLEDITSCH
Keyword(s):  
Civil War ◽  
Ethnic Groups ◽  
Global Comparison ◽  
Spatial Method ◽  
Entire World ◽  
Geocoded Data ◽  
The Relationship ◽  
Horizontal Inequalities ◽  
Settlement Areas

Contemporary research on civil war has largely dismissed the role of political and economic grievances, focusing instead on opportunities for conflict. However, these strong claims rest on questionable theoretical and empirical grounds. Whereas scholars have examined primarily the relationship between individual inequality and conflict, we argue that horizontal inequalities between politically relevant ethnic groups and states at large can promote ethnonationalist conflict. Extending the empirical scope to the entire world, this article introduces a new spatial method that combines our newly geocoded data on ethnic groups’ settlement areas with spatial wealth estimates. Based on these methodological advances, we find that, in highly unequal societies, both rich and poor groups fight more often than those groups whose wealth lies closer to the country average. Our results remain robust to a number of alternative sample definitions and specifications.

The Geopolitics of Major Power Interventions in Civil Wars

2020 ◽  
pp. 106591292097691
Author(s):  
Joe Clare ◽  
Vesna Danilovic
Keyword(s):  
Civil War ◽  
Civil Wars ◽  
Strong Support ◽  
Past Research ◽  
Major Power ◽  
Civil Conflicts ◽  
Major Powers ◽  
Humanitarian Interventions ◽  
Strategic Approach ◽  
The Government

What factors influence third parties to intervene in civil wars? Our focus on major powers, which are disproportionately more likely than other states to intervene in civil conflicts, directs us to the factors that uniquely shape their interests. While our study does not rule out humanitarian interventions by collective security international institutions and individual states, we do not find that humanitarian concerns motivate major powers. We argue and demonstrate that their decisions to intervene are principally motivated by their drive to establish, consolidate, or expand influence in different geopolitical regions. Past research with the strategic approach stressed the importance of an intervener’s prior ties with a civil war state for this decision. Though important, we show the effect of these ties is subordinate to other factors. In our argument, their role is primarily relevant for determining whether an intervener will be on the side of the government or opposition. The key issue of whether major powers are likely to intervene in the first place, however, is contingent on how much the entire region is strategically relevant to warrant intervention. The empirical analysis of civil war interventions over nearly fifty years lends strong support to our theoretical expectations.

Reputation and the occurrence and success of mediation in civil wars

2019 ◽  
Vol 56 (3) ◽  
pp. 410-424 ◽  
Author(s):  
Eric Keels ◽  
J Michael Greig
Keyword(s):  
Civil War ◽  
Ethnic Groups ◽  
Civil Wars ◽  
Political Process ◽  
The Political ◽  
Intrastate Conflict ◽  
Ethnic Exclusion ◽  
Negotiated Settlement ◽  
Future Challenges

In this article, we argue that because governments fear that accepting mediation and reaching agreements with opponents may signal weakness to other potential challengers, civil war governments tend to resist mediation as a means of demonstrating their resolve. Building on current theories of reputation in civil war, we argue that the threat of future challenges from other groups is likely to be particularly acute in states with multiple ethnic groups, especially states with high levels of ethnic exclusion. We therefore expect that civil wars in these states will be less likely to see mediation and to produce agreements when they do. By examining all instances of mediation in intrastate conflict from 1990 to 2008, we test this argument empirically and find that mediation is more likely to emerge in civil wars where there are a large number of ethnic groups, but is less likely to occur when many of those ethnic groups are excluded from the political process. Once mediation is underway, however, it is less likely to yield a negotiated settlement when there are a large number of ethnic groups, but more likely to end in a negotiated settlement when many of the ethnic groups are excluded from the political process.

Desertion, Terrain, and Control of the Home Front in Civil Wars

2014 ◽  
Vol 58 (8) ◽  
pp. 1419-1444 ◽  
Author(s):  
Theodore McLauchlin
Keyword(s):  
Civil War ◽  
Civil Wars ◽  
Spanish Civil War ◽  
Individual Characteristics ◽  
Home Front ◽  
Rough Terrain ◽  
Hill Country ◽  
Structural Variables ◽  
And Control

This article examines desertion in civil wars, focusing on the role of combatants’ hometowns in facilitating desertion. Analyzing data from the Spanish Civil War, the article demonstrates that combatants who come from hill country are considerably more likely to desert than combatants whose hometowns are on flat ground. This is because evasion is easier in rough terrain. The finding implies that the cohesion of armed groups depends on control, not just positive incentives, and that control of territory in civil wars goes beyond rebel–government contestation, and consists also of control behind the lines. The article bridges micro and macro approaches to civil wars by indicating the multiple uses to which individuals can put structural conditions like rough terrain. This helps to clarify the macro-level link between rough terrain and civil war. It also shows that micro-level research can profitably examine structural variables alongside individual characteristics and endogenous conflict dynamics.

scholarly journals Perceptions about civil war in Central Africa: Can war be justified or solve problems?

2009 ◽  
Vol 30 (2) ◽  
Author(s):  
Kitambala Lumbu ◽  
Peet Van Dyk ◽  
Alta Van Dyk
Keyword(s):  
Civil War ◽  
Civil Wars ◽  
Central Africa ◽  
Ethnic Violence ◽  
Religious Leaders ◽  
Tertiary Institutions ◽  
Republic Of The Congo ◽  
The Church ◽  
Structured Questionnaire

Civil war and ethnic violence are major problems in Central Africa and have caused the death and displacement of millions of people over the years. The aim of this study was to investigate the perceptions of religious leaders, lecturers and students in theology at various tertiary institutions in Central Africa with regard to civil war in the region. A structured questionnaire was used to investigate participants� perceptions about and attitudes towards civil war. The questionnaire was completed by 1 364 participants who originated or lived in the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC) and Rwanda. The results of the study illustrated the severe effect that civil wars had on the participants or their families and further indicated that Rwandans, Tutsis and males were more inclined toward justifying wars and seeing them as solutions for problems. The role of the Church in countering these perceptions is discussed.

Third-party knowledge and success in civil war mediation

2020 ◽  
pp. 136914812093067
Author(s):  
Krista Wiegand ◽  
Erin Rowland ◽  
Eric Keels
Keyword(s):  
Civil War ◽  
Strong Support ◽  
Probit Model ◽  
Third Party ◽  
Primary Role ◽  
Contextual Knowledge ◽  
Bivariate Probit Model ◽  
Negotiated Settlements ◽  
Peace Agreements

Within this article, we explore how third-party knowledge of ongoing conflicts shapes the ability of mediators to successfully end conflicts through negotiated settlements. Since the primary role of mediators is to share information, and combatants have incentives to misrepresent information, contextual knowledge about the conflict and actors is critical. We argue that experienced diplomats with greater knowledge of the civil war state, close knowledge of the combatants, and connections with civil society are less vulnerable and more effective in mediation efforts. We propose that third parties seeking a diplomatic solution to ongoing conflicts may be more successful when they maintain strong diplomatic knowledge of the disputants as well as knowledge of the processes by which previous mediation efforts have attempted to resolve the dispute. Using a seemingly unrelated bivariate probit model on peace agreements from 1989 to 2005, we find strong support that diplomatic knowledge matters significantly.

Pathways to Violence in Civil Wars: Combatant Socialization and the Drivers of Participation in Civilian Targeting

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Marc-Olivier Cantin
Keyword(s):  
Civil War ◽  
Civil Wars ◽  
Social Needs ◽  
Civil War Literature ◽  
Violence Against Civilians ◽  
The Individual ◽  
Key Pathways ◽  
Individual Participation

Abstract Recent research has drawn attention to the role of socialization in shaping the behaviors of rebel combatants during civil wars. In particular, scholars have highlighted how vertical and horizontal socialization dynamics can bring combatants to engage in a range of wartime practices, including the use of violence against civilians. This article synthesizes existing theories of combatant socialization and combines them into an integrated framework, which casts the focus on individual pathways toward civilian targeting and specifies the underlying sociopsychological mechanisms through which socializing influences motivate participation in violence. Specifically, the article charts five key pathways that operate through different mechanisms and that are based upon varying degrees of internalization regarding the legitimacy of civilian targeting. In each case, I also identify a number of unit-level factors that are likely to make a given pathway particularly prevalent among combatants. The article then illustrates how these pathways map onto the actual experiences of civil war combatants by examining the drivers of individual participation in violence against civilians among low-ranking members of the Revolutionary United Front in Sierra Leone. The case study evidence highlights the equifinal nature of violence perpetration during civil wars, shedding light on the different social needs, influences, sanctions, and constraints that may motivate involvement in violence. By analyzing rebel behavior through the prism of perpetrator studies, this article thus seeks to establish the civil war literature on firmer theoretical grounds, providing a synthetic account of the individual experiences, motives, and trajectories that are often left unaddressed in this body of research.

scholarly journals Why Do Ethnic Groups Rebel? New Data and Analysis

2009 ◽  
Vol 62 (1) ◽  
pp. 87-119 ◽  
Author(s):  
Lars-Erik Cederman ◽  
Andreas Wimmer ◽  
Brian Min
Keyword(s):  
Ethnic Groups ◽  
Civil Wars ◽  
Political Competition ◽  
State Power ◽  
The State ◽  
Central State ◽  
Data Set ◽  
Role Of The State ◽  
The Government

Much of the quantitative literature on civil wars and ethnic conflict ignores the role of the state or treats it as a mere arena for political competition among ethnic groups. Other studies analyze how the state grants or withholds minority rights and faces ethnic protest and rebellion accordingly, while largely overlooking the ethnic power configurations at the state's center. Drawing on a new data set on Ethnic Power Relations (EPR) that identifies all politically relevant ethnic groups and their access to central state power around the world from 1946 through 2005, the authors analyze outbreaks of armed conflict as the result of competing ethnonationalist claims to state power. The findings indicate that representatives of ethnic groups are more likely to initiate conflict with the government (1) the more excluded from state power they are, especially if they have recently lost power, (2) the higher their mobilizational capacity, and (3) the more they have experienced conflict in the past.

Getting Religion? The Puzzling Case of Islam and Civil War

2007 ◽  
Vol 31 (4) ◽  
pp. 97-131 ◽  
Author(s):  
Monica Duffy Toft
Keyword(s):  
Civil War ◽  
Statistical Analysis ◽  
Civil Wars ◽  
Political Elites ◽  
Role Of Religion ◽  
Petroleum Reserves ◽  
Religious Obligation

From 1940 to 2000, Islam was involved in a disproportionately high number of civil wars compared with other religions, such as Christianity or Hinduism. To help explain the overrepresentation of Islam in these wars, this article introduces a theory of “religious outbidding.” The theory holds that embattled political elites will tender religious bids when they calculate that increasing their religious legitimacy will strengthen their chances of survival. In combination with three overlapping factors—the historical absence of an internecine religious civil war similar to the Thirty Years’ War in Europe, proximity of Islam's holiest sites to Israel and large petroleum reserves, and jihad (i.e., defense of Islam as a religious obligation), religious outbidding accounts for Islam's higher representation in religious civil wars. The article includes a statistical analysis of the role of religion in civil wars and tests the logic of the argument of religious outbidding in the case of Sudan's two civil wars.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document