Search

A large quantitative literature examines the onset, duration, severity, and outcome of civil war. Specific coding criteria of civil wars differ, but the literature generally treats civil war as conflict involving (1) violence within a state's borders, (2) organized forces on both sides of the violence, and (3) the state as a participant in that violence. However, many of the theoretical arguments that are used to derive empirical predictions about civil war--including those that focus on frustration-aggression, relative deprivation, economic opportunity costs, and ethnic divisions--are primarily theoretical arguments about when violence will happen without a discussion of the other two elements of the definition. In this paper, we examine how variables commonly affect other forms of sub-state violence such as communal conflict, one-sided violence, and riots. We generally find that factors such as ethnic fractionalization, population, level of development and regime type have similar effects on different measures of sub-state violence and conflict. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

A large quantitative literature examines the onset, duration, severity, and outcome of civil war. The literature generally treats civil war as involving (1) violence within a state, (2) organized forces on both sides of the violence, and (3) the state as a participant. However, many of the theoretical arguments used to derive empirical predictions about civil war are primarily arguments about when violence will happen without addressing the other two elements. In this article, we examine how variables identified as causing civil war affect other forms of sub-state violence such as communal conflict, one-sided violence, and riots. We find that factors such as ethnic fractionalization, population, economic development and regime type have similar effects on different measures of sub-state violence. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

International Relations (IR) researchers study the interactions of states in the international system. Excluded from almost all such analyses is consideration of how those interacting states became members of the international system. Their existence is simply assumed. State Making (SM) researchers, in contrast, focus on the formation experiences of states and other autonomous political entities trying to become states. SM scholars anticipate that an entity's formation will influence subsequent experiences. In this paper I use SM insights to investigate whether IR behaviors of states are influenced by how they came into existence. I describe a measure of "birth legacy," which I then show influences war participation and outcomes, national growth and development, and state failure. While the measures and analyses offer a crude first-cut at combining IR and SM research, the paper concludes with discussion of the implications such combinations for future studies of state interactions in the international system. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]