Domestic Terrorism & Political Violence: Empirical Models of Government & Dissident Tactics and Strategies in South & Southeast Asia

本研究探讨了国内恐怖主义的原因和后果以及政府的应对措施。国内恐怖主义是指非国家行为者对非战斗人员实施的土生土长的政治暴力，这些行为者希望在更广泛的受众中制造恐惧，以实现政治目标。虽然国内恐怖主义包括约91%的所有恐怖主义事件（1998-2006年期间），很少有系统的实证研究，这一现象填充恐怖主义文献。该项目的核心目的是评估政府的反措施对国内恐怖主义袭击的频率和致命性的后果。该项目利用有争议的政治和跨国恐怖主义文献，应用和发展关于持不同政见领导人不同战术选择的时机和影响的理论（例如，爆炸与武装袭击）和目标选择（例如，国家目标或平民目标;攻击市场或火车站）。然后，该研究对隐含的假设进行了严格的实证检验。初步研究结果表明，经验数据与理论预期一致，即某些类型的政策对持不同政见者运动造成不同的成本，导致领导人以成本较低的策略取代成本较高的策略。这项研究首次系统地研究了多个国家国内恐怖主义事件的频率和严重程度。这也是第一套统计研究，以审查国内恐怖主义战术和一系列其他非恐怖主义，非暴力和促进战术之间的相互关系。最后，这是第一套系统的实证研究，以检查政府的战术，政策和战略对国内恐怖主义战术和战略的影响。以往的研究主要关注（1）跨国恐怖主义和/或（2）研究政治暴力或恐怖主义，而不是在同一理论和经验框架内。那些在同一模式下研究恐怖主义和非恐怖主义行为的人忽视了恐怖主义？袭击平民可能不同于其他形式的政治暴力，比如游击队伏击军事人员。本研究的主要目标之一是分析这些区别是否可以和应该进行。它们的不同因果过程是否导致一些团体使用恐怖主义方法来实现其目标，而另一些团体不使用恐怖主义方法来实现其目标？到目前为止，国内恐怖主义和政治暴力的研究一直阻碍了缺乏系统的数据，实证检验命题的选择和时机的政府和持不同政见者的战术，包括恐怖主义战术，在有争议的斗争过程中。通过收集有关国内恐怖主义，非恐怖主义，暴力，非暴力，以及由多个行为者所犯下的合作事件的信息，17个南亚和东南亚国家的政府对策，最近的数据产生的内乱项目（PCS）能够克服这些局限性。利用这些数据，不同的模型确定了一系列其他暴力（但不是恐怖主义），非暴力和合作策略中不同国内恐怖主义策略的趋势和变化。 然后，统计模型被用来预测南亚和东南亚不同国家的模式和趋势。 该项目在学术和政策领域都做出了贡献，从提高学术界对政府和持不同政见领导人在国内冲突中的战术决策的理解，到为参与应对国内挑战的从业人员的努力提供信息。目前，学术界对政府打击国内恐怖主义的实际建议很少。该项目对如何约束和限制世界各地，特别是南亚和东南亚的国内恐怖主义具有影响。

This research explores the causes and consequences of domestic terrorism and government counter-measures. Domestic terrorism refers to home-grown political violence against non-combatants by non-state actors who wish to generate fear in a larger audience in order to achieve political objectives. Though domestic terrorism consists of about 91% of all terrorism events (for the period of 1998-2006), few systematic empirical studies of this phenomenon populate the terrorism literature. The core purpose of the project is to evaluate the consequences of government countermeasures on the frequency and lethality of domestic terrorist attacks. The project draws on the contentious politics and transnational terrorism literatures to apply and develop theories about the timing and effects of dissident leaders' different tactical choices (e.g., bombings v. armed attacks) and target selections (e.g., state targets or civilian targets; attack marketplaces or rail stations) over the course of a political struggle. The study then subjects the implied hypotheses to rigorous empirical testing. Preliminary findings suggest that empirical data are consistent with the theoretical expectations that certain types of policies impose different costs on dissident movements causing leaders to substitute costly tactics for less costly tactics. This research is the first to systematically examine the frequency and severity of domestic terrorism incidents across multiple countries. It is also the first set of statistical studies to examine the interrelationships among domestic terrorist tactics and an array of other non-terrorist, non-violent, and facilitative tactics. Finally, it is the first set of systematic empirical studies to examine the effects of government tactics, policies, and strategies on domestic terrorist tactics and strategies. Previous studies mostly concerned themselves with (1) transnational terrorism and/or (2) studied political violence or terrorism, as opposed to both within the same theoretical and empirical framework. Those that did study terrorist and non-terrorist acts within the same model ignored that terrorism ? attacking civilians ? might be different than other forms of political violence, like guerrilla ambushes on military personnel. One of the main goals of this research is to analyze whether or not these distinctions can and should be made. Are their different causal processes that lead some groups to employ terrorist methods to achieve their goals and others not to use terrorist methods to achieve their goals? Until now, previous research on domestic terrorism and political violence has been impeded by a lack of systematic data for empirical testing of propositions about the choice and timing of government and dissident tactics, including terrorist tactics, over the course of a contentious struggle. By collecting information on domestic terrorism, non-terrorism, violent, non-violent, and cooperative events committed by a multiplicity of actors, government countermeasures in 17 South and Southeast Asian countries, recent data produced from Project Civil Strife (PCS) is able to overcome these limitations. Using these data, different models identify trends and variation in different domestic terrorist tactics among an array of other violent (but not terrorist), non-violent, and cooperative tactics. The statistical models are then used to forecast patterns and trends for different countries in South and Southeast Asia. The project makes contributions in both the academic and policy arenas ranging from improved academic understanding of government and dissident leaders' tactical decisions in domestic conflict to informing the efforts of practitioners involved in confronting domestic challenges. At the present time, the academic community has little to offer in the way of practical advice to governments fighting domestic terrorism. This project has implications for how to constrain and limit domestic terrorism around the world and particularly in South and Southeast Asia.