Relative Capability and Rebel Objective in Civil War
Relative Capability and Rebel Objective in Civil War
复制标题
内战中的相对能力和叛乱目标
DOI：
--
复制
发表时间：
2006
期刊：
影响因子：
--
通讯作者：
Halvard Buhaug
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Halvard Buhaug
当所有其他手段都失败时，受屈的社会团体往往诉诸暴力来平息他们的不满--要么试图推翻执政政府，要么试图分裂出去。反叛组织相对于国家的力量决定了冲突的方向。在制度和经济上有能力的国家，任何反对派团体都可能不如政府。这些群体将把脱离欧盟视为改善生活条件的最可行的策略。不一致、贫穷和依赖资源的政权通常相当不稳定，因此更有可能引发政变和革命。此外，幅员辽阔、种族多样的国家包含更多的边缘群体和可能被边缘化的群体，以及偏远和难以进入的地形，预计这两个国家都会支持分离主义叛乱。相比之下，较小的国家几乎没有提供分离主义主张的机会，但在这些国家，夺取国家也可能是一个更现实的目标。本文通过评估几个流行的解释因素对1946-99年领土和政府冲突风险的影响，首次对这些假设进行了检验。该分析提供了相当大的支持，并表明，领土和政府冲突在很大程度上是由不同的因果机制造成的。所谓的民主与内战风险之间的抛物线关系只与以国家为中心的冲突有关，而民主对领土叛乱的风险具有积极和近乎线性的影响。此外，分析强烈表明，在几个著名研究中令人费解的没有发现种族是因为它们无法解释内战中的叛军目标。
When all else fails, aggrieved groups of society often resort to violence to redress their grievance - either by seeking to overthrow the ruling government or by attempting to secede. The strength of the rebel group relative to the state determines what direction the conflict will take. In institutionally and economically capable countries, any opposition group is likely to be inferior to the government. These groups will see secession as the most viable strategy to improve living conditions. Inconsistent, poor, and resource-dependent regimes are typically quite unstable and should therefore be more likely to attract coups and revolutions. In addition, large and ethnically diverse countries contain a higher number of peripheral and possibly marginalized groups, as well as remote and inaccessible terrain, both of which are expected to favor secessionist insurgency. Smaller countries, in contrast, offer few opportunities for separatist claims but, in such countries, capturing the state might also be a more realistic objective. This article provides a first test of these presumptions by estimating the effect of several popular explanatory factors separately on the risk of territorial and governmental conflict, 1946-99. The analysis offers considerable support and demonstrates that territorial and governmental conflicts are shaped, in large part, by different causal mechanisms. The reputed parabolic relationship between democracy and risk of civil war only pertains to state-centered conflicts, whereas democracy has a positive and near-linear effect on the risk of territorial rebellion. Moreover, the analysis strongly suggests that the puzzling no-finding of ethnicity in several prominent studies is affected by their inability to account for rebel objective in civil war.