Human Rights Violations, Weak States, and Civil War

Rost, Nicolas

doi:10.1007/s12142-011-0196-9

Cited by 8 publications

(5 citation statements)

References 69 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In addition, when cross-border M&A are motivated by the desire of foreign firms to exploit local firms' complementary capabilities including technical know-how, patent rights and undervalued assets caused by in particular financial crises [3], this investment is often followed by transfer of technologies and managerial skills from local firms to foreign firms, radical restructuring, mass layoffs and “asset stripping” [4] (Chang, 2008; Meyer and Estrin, 2001). Accordingly, cross-border M&A are frequently associated with rising unemployment rates, increasing deterioration of working conditions (Lougui and Broström, 2021) and income or human capital inequality (Basu and Guariglia, 2007; Reuveny and Li, 2003; Tsai, 1995), which may boost the level of grievances in the society and the probability of domestic violence (Gissinger and Gleditsch, 1999; Rost, 2011).…”

Section: Fdi Cross-border Manda and Intrastate Conflictmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…By generating negative effects on economic growth (Calder on et al, 2004;Chaudhury et al, 2020) or income inequality (Reuveny and Li, 2003;Tsai, 1995), FDI can boost social discontent and the probability of domestic violence (Gissinger and Gleditsch, 1999). FDI can also weaken state control of the economy vis-a-vis multinational corporations (MNCs), cause market concentration and high rents (Pinto and Zhu, 2022), and increase political instability (John, 2005) and human rights violations, which enhances the risk of an escalation of low-level conflict to civil war (Rost, 2011).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Cross-border M&A, greenfield FDI and the onset of intrastate conflict, 1990–2015

Beuck

Shuaibi

Hwang

2022

ITPD

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

PurposeBy examining the link between the two types of FDI and intrastate conflict from 1990 to 2015 in 138 countries, this paper intends to test the peace-through-FDI thesis.Design/methodology/approachTo empirically test the hypotheses, this study examines county-year observations from 1990 to 2015 for 138 countries. An instrumental variable method is utilized to this end.FindingsThis paper shows that, while greenfield FDI generates pacifying effects on intrastate conflict, M&A investment is likely to promote the onset of intrastate conflict.Originality/valueDespite the extensive literature on FDI and the onset of intrastate conflict, many have approached FDI as a singular phenomenon, and have not broken it down into its constituent parts of greenfield and brownfield investment types. Theorizing that this practice had oversimplified and blurred the relationship of FDI on intrastate conflict onset, the authors pursued the collection of novel data in order to more completely distinguish between the two types of FDI. With this novel approach dividing FDI into its component parts, the authors break open the black box of FDI to empirically find out the extent of its diverse influence on the onset of intrastate conflict.

show abstract

Section: Fdi Cross-border Manda and Intrastate Conflictmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Cross-border M&A, greenfield FDI and the onset of intrastate conflict, 1990–2015

Beuck

Shuaibi

Hwang

2022

ITPD

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Departing from the status quo and escalating violence can have negative consequences for the government domestically and internationally. Domestically, escalation may reduce public support for the government and strengthen resistance (Carey, 2006; Mason and Krane, 1989; Moore and Davis, 1998; Opp and Roehl, 1990; Rasler, 1996; Rost, 2011). For example, in Northern Ireland harsh British counterinsurgency measures triggered further protest and violence between 1969 and 1992 (Francisco, 1996; LaFree et al, 2009).…”

Section: Escalating State-sponsored Violence: a Risky Strategymentioning

confidence: 99%

Media Freedom and the Escalation of State Violence

2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

When governments face severe political violence, they regularly respond with violence. Yet not all governments escalate repression under such circumstances. We argue that to understand the escalation of state violence, we need to pay attention to the potential costs leaders might face in doing so. We expect that the decision to escalate state violence is conditional on being faced with heightened threats and on possessing an information advantage that mitigates the expected cost of increasing state violence. In an environment where media freedom is constrained, leaders can deny or reframe an escalation of violations and so expect to reduce potential domestic and international costs attached to that decision. Using a global dataset from 1981 to 2006, we show that state violence is likely to escalate in response to increasing violent threats to the state when media freedom is curtailed – but not when the media are free from state intervention. A media environment that the government knows is free to sound the alarm is associated with higher political costs of repression and effectively reduces the risk of escalating state violence, even in the face of mounting armed threats.

show abstract

“…This study has important policy implications. First, understanding drivers of postwar repression is crucial to reduce the risk of conflict re-escalation as repression directly affects the stability of peace, especially in weak states (Keels and Nichols, 2018; Rost, 2011; Young, 2013). Second, by focusing on how the government treats fundamental rights to physical security we assess the quality of postwar peace as experienced by the population.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The legacy of war: The effect of militias on postwar repression

Carey

González

2020

Conflict Management and Peace Science

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

How do wartime legacies affect repression after the conflict ends? Irregular forces support the government in many civil wars. We argue that if this link continues after the war, respect for human rights declines. As ''tried and tested'' agents they are less likely to shirk when given the order to repress. Governments might also keep the militias as a ''fall-back option'', which results in more repression. Analyzing data from 1981 to 2014 shows that pro-government militias that were inherited from the previous conflict are consistently associated with worse repression, but newly created ones are not. Wartime pro-government militias target a broader spectrum of the population and are linked to worse state violence. New militias usually supplement wartime ones and use violence primarily against political opponents. This study highlights the detrimental impact of war legacies.

show abstract

Human Rights Violations, Weak States, and Civil War

Cited by 8 publications

References 69 publications

Cross-border M&A, greenfield FDI and the onset of intrastate conflict, 1990–2015

Cross-border M&A, greenfield FDI and the onset of intrastate conflict, 1990–2015

Media Freedom and the Escalation of State Violence

The legacy of war: The effect of militias on postwar repression

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About