Search

Citizens in multiple crime-ridden countries strongly support the militarization of security—that is, placing the military in charge of traditional policing duties. Yet, we know little about the determinants of such support. Do people approve of militarization even in the face of human fatalities? We explore this question in the context of Mexico's "war on drugs." In three experimental studies, we manipulate the presence of human costs in a military operation against a drug lord and present arguments either justifying or condemning these costs. We consistently find that, even in successful operations, support for militarization decreases when military operations cause civilian casualties, but not when the victims are members of drug cartels. This finding holds for both respondents who have been victims of cartel-related violence and those who have not. Arguments that justify these costs as helping to achieve the end goal of eradicating organized crime increase support. These findings shed light on the public opinion side of the militarization of security debate, and have important implications for security policy reform and democratic politics. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Interviews play a pivotal role in process tracing (PT) by allowing researchers to delve deep into the intricacies of agency, inter-agent interactions and relationships, and the processes underlying meaning and decision-making. These dimensions are essential for evaluating process theories connecting causes to outcomes in specific cases. Testing theoretical arguments via PT bears implications for how we conceive interviewing. We provide recommendations for scholars to design interview research aligned with PT best practices, focusing on sampling and the design of interview protocols, and being sensitive to differences between PT approaches. Aligning interviews with PT’s specific requirements strengthens the weight and inferential power of evidence. While the methodological foundations of PT and related data analysis techniques are well-documented in the literature, there is still a gap concerning data collection and generation. We aim to address this by encouraging process tracers to think systematically about their interviewing plans at the design stage. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Conflict scholars have increasingly stressed the importance of taking civilian agency seriously for understanding how conflicts operate on the ground and the social legacies they leave behind. Among the different expressions of civilian agency that this scholarship has studied, instances in which civilians refuse to collaborate with armed groups have captured particular attention. While this development is to be praised, the proliferation of neighboring terms (e.g. "voice," "autonomy," "civil action," "oppositional agency," "resilience," and "resistance") menaces the further progression of this intellectually stimulating and policy relevant field of inquiry. In dialogue with the growing literature on civilian agency, and drawing on an established literature on concept formation, I propose civilian noncooperation as the root concept to capture these instances and specify its meaning by identifying both necessary and accompanying attributes. I discuss the advantages of this concept and assess it vis á vis alternative terms and conceptualizations. Finally, I illustrate how these conceptual foundations provide a more solid basis for empirical research by introducing a descriptive typology and a database of civilian noncooperation campaigns in the Colombian civil war. Research on noncooperation holds great potential to improving existing theories of conflict, as well as to inform crucial policy debates, including the protection of civilians, peace-building, and post-conflict reconstruction. Conceptual rigor is central to fulfilling this potential. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Why do some communities overtly declare their opposition to violent groups, while others disguise it by engaging in seemingly unrelated activities? Why do some communities manifest their dissent using nonviolent methods instead of organizing violence of their own? I argue that ideational factors are crucial to answering these questions: normative commitments can restrict civilian contention to nonviolent forms of action, while exposure to oppositional ideologies can push civilians toward more confrontational forms of noncooperation with armed groups. Furthermore, I contend that the role of political entrepreneurs activating and mobilizing this ideational content is crucial for it to shape contention. I support this argument with a wealth of microlevel evidence collected in various warzones in Colombia, analyzed within a purposively designed comparative structure. My findings support the growing conflict scholarship that stresses that ideology matters in war, but extends its application beyond armed actors' behavior to that of civilian communities. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This article examines the logic of civilian targeting in the Turkish-Kurdish civil war. It analyzes two instances of PKK violence: against pro-state Village Guards' families in the 1980s and school-teachers in the 1990s. Against original data, we evaluate the extent to which the dominant conceptual tools available in civil war literature help us make sense of these instances and argue that there is a need to go beyond the established selective/indiscriminate distinction if we want to capture the logic of PKK's targeting. Consequently, we build on and specify further recent conceptual developments in the field and show that both cases are better understood as instances of collective targeting. We further show, however, that the collective nature of each differs in relevant ways: while the killing of the families of Village Guards constitutes an instance of collective targeting in the sense of "extended group association," in the case of school teachers there are indications of a secondary spatially differentiated selection criteria accompanying the collective logic. Our analysis emphasizes the field's need for stronger conceptual foundations underpinning our theories of violence against civilians, as well as the limitations of understandings rooted in an "ontological individualism" when applied without careful consideration to non-Western societies. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]