Publication Type: Conference Paper/Unpublished Manuscript
Review Method: Peer Reviewed
Abstract: This paper presents a test of elements of Power Transition Theory (PTT) through an examination of types of demographic transitions against civil war. It divides population transitions into nine types and, from PTT logic, derives testable hypotheses. It also tests elements of PTT's rival, Balance of Power Theory (BPT). Although the logic of PTT seems appropriate to testing at the substate level, the results are mixed. Most states plagued by ethnic civil wars have stable populations (i.e. no transitions), yet three types of transitions stand out. Even here, however, PTT predicts violence in only one of these three types of transitions. BPT fares a bit better.

Publication Type: Conference Paper/Unpublished Manuscript
Abstract: The variety and frequency of analogical reasoning in the public discourse surrounding the invasion of Iraq is remarkable. Perhaps most remarkable is the comparison that has been made between the U.S. Civil War and the Iraq civil war. The purposes of this paper are to show why the American Civil War analogy was deployed by advocates of “staying the course” in Iraq, consider what effect this discursive strategy may have had on American policy in Iraq, and finally to compare the U.S. Civil War and Iraq civil war using an analytical framework derived from civil war theory. In moving toward achieving these goals, I employ cognitive and constructivist theories on the role of ideas in foreign policy, as well as theories of the causes of civil wars. The central findings have both academic and policy relevance. First, several Bush administration officials and certain public intellectuals have used the American Civil War analogy (and other rhetorical devices) to shape policy in the short-run and American collective identity in the long-run. Second, the U.S. Civil War analogy does not provide useful guidance for American policy in Iraq. Policy makers and analysts should not allow the memory of the American experience with internal conflict affect their understanding of current and future civil wars. Third, current theories of internal war can provide a useful lens for understanding both ‘old’ and ‘new’ civil wars, but are much better suited to explaining recent civil wars. This finding suggests that unlike international relations theory, internal war theories are time-bound. It is striking that modern theories of internal war cannot explain one of the most important civil wars of the past 200 years.

Publication Type: Proceeding
Abstract: Conceptions of civil society based on the experience of industrialized societies are problematic for understanding society in the developing world. I suggest that a return to older conceptions of civil society as the condition of society under a functional, law-governed state are more helpful. A position inspired by Kant is developed and applied to the case of Somalia.

Publication Type: Conference Paper/Unpublished Manuscript
Abstract: Civil society has been active in peacebuilding efforts in Cyprus since 1980s. Civil society played an important role during the campaign for the Annan Plan in 2004. However, the activities of civil society in Cyprus have remained relatively weak compared to the rival civil society that rallied against the Annan Plan together with the nationalists. Despite the abundance of bi-communal social activities and problem-solving workshops, civil society has not been very effective so far in peacebuilding efforts in Cyprus. This paper explores various explanations for this situation. First the paper explores the nature of the conflict and civil society in Cyprus. Second, following the theoretical framework developed by Paffenholz –Spurk the paper will elaborate on how and which civil society functions are used and to what extent the different civil society functions are fulfilled by peacebuilding initiatives. Finally, the paper will present the results of the empirical research with regard to the relevance and effectiveness of these functions.

Publication Type: Conference Paper/Unpublished Manuscript
Abstract: Food is a basic human need that when in short supply undermines the legitimacy of governments. Our study builds on existing data and theory. We test our arguments by looking at the effect of food supply on civil war duration, and the length of peace between civil war spells. In previous research, we showed that food scarcity increases the risk of civil war onset. Literature from many disciplines including anthropology, economics, and history suggest that those spells before and during civil war are affected by the severity of food scarcity in a nonlinear fashion, where deep into a famine the ability to revolt against a government declines quickly. We particularly show in this paper that food deprivation, as a source of grievance, is a stronger motivation to continuing civil war against a government, as opposed to a proposition that greed over loot-able resources is the prime cause. However, our results show that while food deprivation is a source of grievance that sustains civil war, the ability of guerilla forces to fund insurgency by looting resources also increases civil war duration.