A price worth fighting for? Natural resources and conflict recurrence

Rustad, Siri Aas; Binningsbø, Helga Malmin

doi:10.1177/0022343312444942

Cited by 97 publications

(76 citation statements)

References 37 publications

(61 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…See Rustad and Binningsbø 2012. 83. These contradictory findings may result from measurement error because the indicator used here captures only whether lootable resources were present in the conflict area and not whether the rebel group actually used them to fund its resources.…”

Section: Model and Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

External Rebel Sponsorship and Civilian Abuse: A Principal-Agent Analysis of Wartime Atrocities

Salehyan¹,

Siroky²,

Wood³

2014

Int Org

194

113

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Although some rebel groups work hard to foster collaborative ties with civilians, others engage in egregious abuses and war crimes. We argue that foreign state funding for rebel organizations greatly reduces incentives to "win the hearts and minds" of civilians because it diminishes the need to collect resources from the population. However, unlike other lucrative resources, foreign funding of rebel groups must be understood in principal-agent terms. Some external principals-namely, democracies and states with strong human rights lobbies-are more concerned with atrocities in the conflict zone than others. Multiple state principals also lead to abuse because no single state can effectively restrain the organization. We test these conjectures with new data on foreign support for rebel groups and data on one-sided violence against civilians. Most notably, we find strong evidence that principal characteristics help influence agent actions.Wartime atrocities are often portrayed as irrational, depraved, and senseless. However, recent research in this area has increasingly viewed violence as strategic, adopting Arendt's argument that violence is rational to the extent it assists actors in attaining their goals. 2 Scholars have suggested that actors resort to victimizing civilians to improve their bargaining position over their adversary's, expedite war termination, and generate resources. 3 This vein of research also claims that attacks on civilians are intended to alter the behavior of the targeted groups 4 and to eliminate disloyal or threatening populations. 5 We focus on the manner in which rebel groups obtain resources and how this influences their behavior toward civilians. All rebel organizations, regardless of their ideology and putative grievances, need to secure resources to finance their operations. 6 Guns, uniforms, and other war supplies are expensive to procure. However, as Weinstein has shown, rebel organizations differ greatly with respect to the resource environments in which they operate, and this often shapes their behavior toward civilian populations. 7 Resource-poor rebels without easy access to commodities such as drugs and gemstones must rely on the goodwill of the population. By fostering deep local ties and protecting the interests of ordinary people, rebel organizations can both secure goods and ensure "moral commitments and emotional engagements" to their cause. 8 By contrast, resource-rich rebels are less dependent on civilians for their needs and their survival-a condition that may lead to abuse and mistreatment of civilians.

show abstract

Section: Model and Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

External Rebel Sponsorship and Civilian Abuse: A Principal-Agent Analysis of Wartime Atrocities

Salehyan¹,

Siroky²,

Wood³

2014

Int Org

194

113

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Finally, to consider the possibility that economic factors contribute to recovery from the war, two economic control variables regarding the country where the civil war takes place are included: the amount of primary commodity exports (Collier & Hoeffler, 2004;Doyle & Sambanis, 2006) and the level of development (Quinn, Mason & Gurses, 2007), as indicated by the amount of electricity used (Doyle & Sambanis, 2006). Similar variables for many of these controls are also included in the Rustad & Binningsbø (2012) dataset, including a variable for United Nations peacekeeping operations, whether or not the war ended in military victory, and a variable that estimates primary commodity exports as a percentage of gross domestic product, similar to Collier & Hoeffler (2004). In addition, we used the list of participants to create a list of the number of rebel groups involved in the conflict by summing the list of named rebel group participants (Rustad & Binningsbø, 2012).…”

Section: Independent Variablesmentioning

confidence: 99%

The downstream effects of combatant fragmentation on civil war recurrence

Rudloff

Findley

2016

Journal of Peace Research

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We consider whether the fragmentation of combatants during civil war has downstream effects on the durability of peace following civil wars. We contend that the splintering of combatant groups, a primary manifestation of rebel group fragmentation, produces potential spoiler groups that are neither incidental nor unimportant in the process of civil war resolution. Making connections to the spoiling and credible commitment literatures, we hypothesize that rebel splintering hastens the recurrence of civil wars. Using event history modeling and propensity score matching to analyze two different civil war datasets, we examine whether the occurrence of fragmentation during a civil war influences the length of peace after the civil war. The empirical analysis of fragmentation events during civil wars since World War II offers support for the hypothesis that splintering decreases the duration of post-civil war peace. The results suggest the need to pay closer attention to the dynamics of fragmentation, and particularly how these dynamics lead to future consequences -even when those consequences take place after the war has concluded. For example, governments that attempt to splinter groups or to use existing fragmentations within rebel groups to end a civil war may encourage the unintended consequence of shorter peace duration.

show abstract

“…205 While humanitarian concerns necessarily outweigh environmental issues during the urgent depths of armed conflict and recovery, there is increasing consensus that healthy, biodiverse environments support human populations more resilient to war. 155,196,206 Given their vulnerability and the potential to affect positive change during transitions to peace, high biodiversity conflict areas have been identified as a priority for spending limited conservation funding. 207 Research into links between armed conflict and biodiversity therefore holds real promise for reducing environmental harm and promoting peace and security.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Biodiversity conservation and armed conflict: a warfare ecology perspective

Hanson

2018

Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The activities involved in preparing for, executing, and recovering from armed conflict are globally pervasive and consequential, with significant impacts on natural systems. Effects on biodiversity are predominantly negative, produced by direct and indirect battlefield impacts, as well as the general breakdown of social, economic, and governance systems during wartime. Certain conservation opportunities do occur, however, particularly on lands set aside for training exercises, buffer zones, and peace parks. Here, the relationship between armed conflict and biodiversity is reviewed using the temporal framework of warfare ecology, which defines warfare as an ongoing process of three overlapping stages: preparations, war (armed conflict), and postwar activities. Several themes emerge from recent studies, including a heightened awareness of biodiversity conservation on military lands, the potential for scientific and conservation engagement to mitigate negative biodiversity impacts in war zones, and the importance of the postwar period for incorporating biodiversity priorities into reconstruction and recovery efforts. Research limitations and knowledge gaps are also discussed.

show abstract

A price worth fighting for? Natural resources and conflict recurrence

Cited by 97 publications

References 37 publications

External Rebel Sponsorship and Civilian Abuse: A Principal-Agent Analysis of Wartime Atrocities

External Rebel Sponsorship and Civilian Abuse: A Principal-Agent Analysis of Wartime Atrocities

The downstream effects of combatant fragmentation on civil war recurrence

Biodiversity conservation and armed conflict: a warfare ecology perspective

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About