While theoretical models of conflict often treat actors as unitary, most self-determination groups are fragmented into a number of competing internal factions. This article presents a framework for understanding the “dual contests” that self-determination groups engage in—the first with their host state and the second between co-ethnic factions within groups. Using a new data set of the number of factions within a sample of self-determination groups from 1960 to 2008, the authors find that competition between co-ethnic factions is a key determinant of their conflict behavior. More competing factions are associated with higher instances of violence against the state as well as more factional fighting and attacks on co-ethnic civilians. More factions using violence increases the chances that other factions will do so, and the entry of a new faction prompts violence from existing factions in a within-group contest for political relevance. These findings have implications for both theory and policy.
AlesinaAlbertoSpolaoreEnrico. 2003. The Size of Nations. Boston, MA: MIT Press.
2.
BakkeKristin M. 2010. “The Turn to Violence in Chechnya and Punjab: Self-Determination Struggles in Decentralized States.” In Rethinking Violence: States and Non-State Actors in Conflict, edited byLawrenceAdriaChenowethErica. Cambridge, 221-240. MA: MIT Press.
3.
BeckNathanielKatzJonathan N.TuckerRichard (1998). “Taking Time Seriously in Binary Time-Series Cross-Section Analysis.”American Journal of Political Science42 (4): 1260–88.
4.
BeissingerMark R.2002. Nationalist Mobilization and the Collapse of the Soviet State. New York: Cambridge University Press.
5.
BennettD. Scott.. 2008. “Governments, Civilians, and the Evolution of Insurgency: Modeling the Early Dynamics of Insurgencies.”Journal of Artificial Societies and Social Simulation11 (4).
6.
BhavnaniRaviRossMichael. 2003. “Announcement, Credibility, and Turnout in Popular Rebellions.”Journal of Conflict Resolution47 (3): 340–66.
7.
BloomMia M.2004. “Palestinian Suicide Bombing: Public Support, Market Share, and Outbidding.”Political Science Quarterly119 (1): 61–88.
CedermanLars-Erik. 2008. “Articulating the Geo-Cultural Logic of Nationalist Insurgency.”In Order, Conflict, and Violence, edited by KalyvasStathisShapiro, IanMasoudTarek. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.
10.
CedermanLars-ErikHugSimonKrebsLutz F.. 2010. “Democratization and Civil War: Empirical Evidence.”Journal of Peace Research47 (4): 377–94.
11.
CedermanLars-ErikMinBrianWimmerAndreas. 2009. “Ethnic Power Relations dataset,”hdl:1902.1/11796 UNF:5:k4xxXC2ASI204QZ4jqvUrQ==.
12.
CollierPaulHoefflerAnke. 2004. “Greed and Grievance in Civil War.”Oxford Economic Papers56 (4): 563–95.
13.
CrescenziMark. 1999. “Violence and Uncertainty in Transitions.”Journal of Conflict Resolution43 (2): 192–212.
14.
CunninghamKathleen Gallagher2011. “Divide and Conquer or Divide and Concede: How Do States Respond to Internally Divided Separatists?”American Political Science Review105 (2): 275–297.
15.
de MarchiScott. 2005. Computational and Mathematical Modeling in the Social Sciences. New York: Cambridge University Press.
16.
FearonJames D.1995. “Rationalist Explanations for War.”International Organization49 (3): 379–414.
17.
FearonJames D.2004. “Why Do Some Civil Wars Last So Much Longer Than Others?”Journal of Peace Research41 (3): 275–301.
18.
FearonJames D.LaitinDavid D.. 2003. “Ethnicity, Insurgency, and Civil War.”American Political Science Review97 (1): 75–90.
19.
FilkinsDexter. 2008. The Forever War. New York: Knopf.
20.
FindleyMichaelPeterJ. Rudloff. Forthcoming. “Combatant Fragmentation and the Dynamics of Civil War.”British Journal of Political Science.
21.
GatesScottHegreHåvardJonesMark P.StrandHåvard. 2006. “Institutional Inconsistency and Political Instability: Polity Duration, 1800-2000.”American Journal of Political Science50 (4): 893–908.
22.
GurrTed R.2000. Peoples Versus States. Washington, DC: United States Institute of Peace Press.
23.
GurrTed R.MarshallMonty, eds. 2003. Peace and Conflict: A Global Survey of Armed Conflicts, Self-Determination Movements, and Democracy. College Park, MD: The Center for International Development and Conflict Management.
24.
HegreHåvardEllingsenTanjaGatesScottGleditschNils Petter. 2001. “Toward a Democratic Civil Peace? Democracy, Political Change, and Civil War, 1816–1992.”American Political Science Review95 (1): 33–48.
25.
HegreHåvardSambanisNicholas. 2006. “Sensitivity Analysis of Empirical Results on Civil War Onset.”Journal of Conflict Resolution50 (4): 508–35.
26.
HorowitzDonald. 1985. Ethnic Groups in Conflict. Berkeley: University of California Press.
27.
HumphreysMacartanWeinsteinJeremy. 2006. “Handling and Manhandling Civilians in Civil War.”American Political Science Review100 (3): 429–47.
28.
JohnstonPatrick. 2008. “The Geography of Insurgent Organization and its Consequences for Civil Wars: Evidence from Liberiaand Sierra Leone.”Security Studies17 (1): 107–237.
29.
JokJok M.HutchinsonSharon E.. 1999. “Sudan’s Prolonged Second Civil War and the Militarization of Nuer and Dinka Ethnic Identities.”African Studies Review42 (2): 125–45.
30.
JudgeParamjit Singh. 2005. Religion, Identity and Nationhood: The Sikh Militant Movement. New Delhi: Rawat.
31.
KalyvasStathis N.2003. “The Ontology of ‘Political Violence’: Action and Identity in Civil Wars.”Perspectives on Politics1 (3): 475–94.
32.
KalyvasStathis N.2006. The Logic of Violence in Civil War. New York, NY: CambridgeUniversity Press.
33.
KaufmanStuart J.1996. “Spiraling to Ethnic War: Elites, Masses and Moscow in Moldova's Civil War.”International Security21 (2): 108–138.
34.
KingCharles, 2004. “The Micropolitics of Social Violence.”World Politics56 (3): 431–55.
35.
KingGaryTomzMichaelWittenbergJason. 2000. “Making the Most of Statistical Analyses: Improving Interpretation and Presentation.”American Journal of Political Science44 (2): 347–61.
36.
LichbachMark I.1994. “What Makes Rational Peasants Revolutionary? Dilemma, Paradox, and Irony in Peasant Collective Action.”World Politics46 (3): 383–418.
37.
LyallJason. 2010. “Are Coethnics More Effective Counterinsurgents? Evidence from the Second Chechen War.”American Political Science Review104 (1): 1–20.
38.
MahoneyJamesGaryGoertz2004. “The Possibility Principle: Choosing Negative Cases in Qualitative Research.” American Political Science Review98 (4(: 653–670.
39.
MannMichael. 2005. The Dark Side of Democracy Explaining Ethnic Cleansing. New York: CambridgeUniversity Press.
40.
MansfieldEdwardSnyderJack. 2005. Electing to Fight: Why Emerging Democracies Go to War. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
41.
MAR (Minorities at Risk Project). 2005. Minorities at Risk Dataset. College Park, MD: Center for International Development and Conflict Management, http://www.cidcm.umd.edu/mar.
42.
MAR (Minorities at Risk Project). 2008. Minorities at Risk Organizational Behavior Dataset. College Park, MD: Center for International Development and Conflict Management, http://www.cidcm.umd.edu/mar.
43.
MarshallMontyJaggersKeith. 2008. Polity IV Project: Political Regime Characteristics and Transitions, 1800-2008. Center for Systemic Peace and George Mason University.
44.
NarangVipinNelsonRebecca. 2009. “Who are these Belligerent Democratizers? Reassessing the Impact of Democratization on War.”International Organization63 (2): 357–80.
45.
PearlmanWendy. 2008/2009. “Spoiling Inside and Out: Internal Political Contestation and the Middle East Peace Process.”International Security33 (3): 79–109.
46.
PopkinSamuel. 1988. “Political Entrepreneurs and Peasant Movements in Vietnam.”In Rationality and Revolution, edited by TaylorMichael, 9-62. New York: Cambridge University Press.
47.
PosnerEric. 2004. “The Political Salience of Cultural Difference: Why Chewas and Tumbukas are Allies in Zambia and Adversaries in Malawi.”American Political Science Review98 (4): 529–45.
48.
PowellRobert. 1999. In the Shadow of Power: States and Strategies in International Politics. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
49.
RabushkaAlvinShepsleKenneth. 1972. Politics in Plural Societies: A Theory of Democratic Instability. Columbus: Merrill.
50.
ReganPatrick M.NortonDaniel. 2005. “Greed, Grievance, and Mobilization in Civil Wars.”Journal of Conflict Resolution49 (3): 319–36.
51.
RothschildJoseph. 1981. Ethnopolitics, a Conceptual Framework. New York: Columbia University Press.
52.
SnyderJack. 2000. From Voting to Violence: Democratization and Nationalist Conflict. New York: Norton.
ToftMonica Duffy. 2003. The Geography of Ethnic Violence: Identity, Interests, and the Indivisibility of Territory. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
55.
ToftMonica Duffy.2007. “Getting Religion: The Puzzling Case of Islam and Civil War.”International Security31 (4): 97–131.
56.
TreierShawnJackmanSimon. 2008. “Democracy as a Latent Variable.”American Journal of Political Science52 (1): 201–17.
57.
VarshneyAshutosh. 2002. Ethnic Conflict and Civic Life. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
58.
VreelandJames Raymond. 2008. “The Effect of Political Regime on Civil War.”Journal of Conflict Resolution52 (3): 401–25.
59.
WalterBarbara F.2006. “Building Reputation: Why Governments Fight Some Separatists but Not Others.”American Journal of Political Science50 (2): 313–30.
60.
WalterBarbara F.KyddAndrew. 2002. “Sabotaging the Peace: The Politics of Extremist Violence.”International Organization56 (2): 263–96.
61.
WeinsteinJeremy. 2007. Inside Rebellion: The Politics of Insurgent Violence. New York: Cambridge University Press.
62.
WoodElizabeth. 2003. Insurgent Collective Action and Civil War in El Salvador. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
