Introduction: Political Violence and Armed Conflict in Africa: People, Places, Processes, Effects

2011 ◽  
Vol 30 (1) ◽  
pp. 5-13
Author(s):  
Kevin M. DeJesus
2017 ◽  
Vol 26 (4) ◽  
pp. 351-374 ◽  
Author(s):  
Laura Freeman

How should we understand the interconnections between environmental change, migration, and conflict in Africa? Should the rise of Islamic terrorism and Boko Haram in northeast Nigeria be directly linked to the drying of Lake Chad? Should cattle raiding in Kenya be seen as a result of drought across East Africa? Does the constrained migration of the pastoral Tuareg in the Sahel causally connect to desertification and their rebellion against governmental forces? Despite the compelling and often persuasive case for directly connecting environmental change to migration and conflict, there is a growing agreement in both the environment-migration and climate-conflict spheres that intervening variables determine if and how environmental change causes population movements and political violence. This article presents a case for migration as an intermediary and bidirectional causal variable. The article argues that close attention needs to be paid to local-level manifestations of conflict and (mal)adaptive forms of migration to understand the potential propensity of environmental change to lead to conflict in Africa.


2016 ◽  
Vol 29 (1) ◽  
pp. 79-84 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ann S. Masten

AbstractArticles in this timely Special Section represent an important milestone in the developmental science on children and youth involved in political violence and armed conflict. With millions of children worldwide affected by past and present wars and conflicts, there is an urgent and growing need for research to inform efforts to understand, prevent, and mitigate the possible harm of such violence to individual children, families, communities, and societies, for present as well as future generations. The four programs of research highlighted in this Special Section illustrate key advances and challenges in contemporary development research on young people growing up in the midst or aftermath of political violence. These studies are longitudinal, methodologically sophisticated, and grounded in socioecological systems models that align well with current models of risk and resilience in developmental psychopathology. These studies collectively mark a critically important shift to process-focused research that holds great promise for translational applications. Nonetheless, given the scope of the international crisis of children and youth affected by political violence and its sequelae, there is an urgent global need for greater mobilization of resources to support translational science and effective evidence-based action.


2008 ◽  
Vol 22 (3) ◽  
pp. 309-329 ◽  
Author(s):  
Paul D. Williams

Since the early 1990s, a variety of African and Western governments alike have often suggested that finding “African solutions to African problems” represents the best approach to keeping the peace in Africa. Not only does the empirical evidence from post-Cold War Africa suggest that there are some fundamental problems with this approach, it also rests upon some problematic normative commitments. Specifically in relation to the problem of armed conflict, the “African solutions” logic would have at least three negative consequences: it would undermine the UN; it would provide a convenient excuse for powerful Western states that wished to avoid sending their own soldiers to peace operations in Africa; and it would help African autocrats fend off international, especially Western, criticism of their policies. After providing an overview of the constituent elements of the “African solutions” approach, this article sets out in general terms the central problems with it before turning to a specific illustration of how these problems affected the international responses to the ongoing war in Darfur, Sudan. Instead of searching for “African solutions”, policymakers should focus on developing effective solutions for the complex challenges raised by the issue of armed conflict in Africa. To this end, Western states in general and the P-3 in particular should give greater support to conflict management activities undertaken by the United Nations, develop clearer guidelines for how these should relate to regional initiatives, and facilitate the efforts of civic associations to build the foundations for stable peace in the continent's war zones.


2017 ◽  
Vol 112 (2) ◽  
pp. 358-375 ◽  
Author(s):  
HANNES MUELLER ◽  
CHRISTOPHER RAUH

This article provides a new methodology to predict armed conflict by using newspaper text. Through machine learning, vast quantities of newspaper text are reduced to interpretable topics. These topics are then used in panel regressions to predict the onset of conflict. We propose the use of the within-country variation of these topics to predict the timing of conflict. This allows us to avoid the tendency of predicting conflict only in countries where it occurred before. We show that the within-country variation of topics is a good predictor of conflict and becomes particularly useful when risk in previously peaceful countries arises. Two aspects seem to be responsible for these features. Topics provide depth because they consist of changing, long lists of terms that make them able to capture the changing context of conflict. At the same time, topics provide width because they are summaries of the full text, including stabilizing factors.


Author(s):  
Cathal Nolan

Modern war is often defined as armed conflict within, between, or among states, although other political communities partake of war: ethnic and religious groups, ideological movements, terrorist organizations, large drug gangs, and other “non-state actors.” The narrowest meaning used by historians is war as the art and science and record of military operations. More general discourse sub-classifies war according to an ascending scale of participation—rebellion, insurrection, insurgency, guerrilla war, civil war, and regional war—culminating in three synonyms for armed conflict at the largest scale: systemic war, global war, and world war. War is also categorized by the types of weapons used to conduct it, as in the terms “conventional war” and “unconventional war.” A controversial distinction is made between limited war and total war, in which wars are typed by scope, the declared or discerned objectives of participants, and the degree to which militaries target civilians, enemy morale, or economic infrastructure. Social science literature defines a minimal threshold of mass political violence as war, as opposed to riot or other communal use of force, if deaths reach one thousand. That is an arbitrary definition, not universally accepted or normally employed by historians.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document