Publication Type: Conference Paper/Unpublished Manuscript
Abstract: Nonviolent insurrections and revolutions have become increasingly attractive topics of research for social scientists in the last few years. However, most of the research has focused on the practical and strategic concerns and difficulties faced by nonviolent activists and movements. Theoretical problems and questions related to nonviolent revolutions have oftentimes been ignored by researchers. This essay introduces the concept of nonviolence-receptive ideologies (NRIs) and its importance for nonviolent movements. NRIs are secondary commitments to nonviolence that occur through more salient ideologies of a particular movement. I argue that a commitment to nonviolence can take place within a movement even if the commitment is not to nonviolent values specifically. The concept of NRIs is used to explain why some revolutions and movements turn out nonviolent while others do not.

Publication Type: Conference Paper/Unpublished Manuscript
Review Method: Peer Reviewed
Abstract: Recent scholarship has highlighted the ability of nonviolent struggle to bring about substantive political and social change. But what about the use of nonviolent action for more basic humanitarian purposes—to disable, or protect people from, violence?

Publication Type: Conference Paper/Unpublished Manuscript
Review Method: Peer Reviewed
Abstract: My paper will explore the theoretical foundations of and practical uses of nonviolent direct action (NVDA) as a functional alternative to violence in acute conflicts. The Gandhi-led movement in India, the '89 civilian-led struggles in Central and Eastern Europe, the anti-apartheid movement in South Africa, and the 2004 Rose Revolution in Georgia are only a few cases in which nonviolent tactics and strategies have been used effectively by groups resisting tyranny, dictatorship, and occupation. NVDA is a battle option and form of popular insurgency that can be used effectively, under certain conditions, against a diverse range of opponents. My central research question is as follows: What are the potential and limits of nonviolent struggle in conflicts between state and non-state actors (popular movements) over the same territory? The research design of my paper is a comparative case study analysis involving three self-determination conflicts: the first Palestinian Intifada (1987-93), the civilian-led struggle in Kosovo (1988-98), and the East Timorese independence movement (1988-2000). Using data collected during field visits to these three places (including interviews with key civil society leaders, politicians, media) I will test the relationship between my independent variables related to strategy that include leadership, organization, and the tactical use of non-violent weapons (protests, strikes, boycotts, civil disobedience, non-cooperation), and my dependent variable - effectiveness - or the attainment of group goals. Using process tracing I will explore the relationship between the violent and nonviolent parts of my three movements. How do former terrorists and guerillas become leaders of nonviolent resistance movements and vice-versa? The paper will conclude by discussing the relevance of my findings for policy-makers, leaders of NGOs, and members of the media. The international community can either help or hinder nonviolent movements based on how its actors intervene during various phases of self-determination movements. Developing a better understanding of how nonviolent direct action works (or fails) to transform power relationships should help advance the study of deterrence and violent conflict prevention.

Publication Type: Conference Paper/Unpublished Manuscript
Abstract: Nonviolent action is according to Gene Sharp not passive. "It is not inaction. It is action that is nonviolent." The terrible casualty figures of war in the twentieth century and the proliferation of terrorism in the twenty first century have called for approaches that address a world challenged by negative attitudes and escalating violence both religious and social to what has been termed "the other".The other is often perceived as a fallacious or hostile threat to one's own security, whether in the form of a belief, a nation, or a culture. Legislation such as the Declaration of Human Rights calls for dignity, respect, and tolerance towards others, and yet since its inception human rights continue to be denied to many groups particularly those in the South. Comprehensive human rights training through the medium of active learning is able to instill ethical and moral support and focus on threats to security, tolerance, mutuality, and justice. By highlighting case studies of injustice and intolerance and encouraging restraint and responsibility through such citizen-based nonviolent concepts as human security, active learning, utilizing such methodology as role-play and constructive controversy inquiry, can show citizens ways to combat inequality and intolerance towards others.

Supporting Publications:
Supporting Document

Publication Type: Conference Paper/Unpublished Manuscript
Abstract: This study extends the work of the 2005 Freedom House Study, "How Freedom is Won: From Civic Resistance to Durable Democracy" by examining the aftermath of the transitions to see if transitions driven by civic nonviolent action are more resilient than those driven by elites or by violence. We assess mechanisms of action since the transition year as measured by auto-coded events data to assess the durability and potential lethality of the transitions. This extension offers an assessment of the transition cases' aftermaths independent of the democracy measures used in the original study, and it will help establish the extent to which nonviolent conflict is associated with the Freedom House democracy measures. We suggest that although overall post-transition conflict activity may remain high for some time following the transitions, it will also tend to be less lethal and more durable. Our reasoning is that no less than voting, lobbying, or any other political action, nonviolent direct action works through the wills and interests of others, that is, through social power.