Victims or Aggressors? Ethno-Political Rebellion and Use of Force in Militarized Interstate Disputes

Abstract

Current scholarship on the international relations of ethnic conflict holds that such domestic‐level conflict can spread to become interstate conflict. Empirical research, theoretical discussions, and case studies have concluded that states suffering from violent ethnic conflict, specifically ethno‐political rebellion, can be either the victims of aggression or themselves the aggressors when ethnic conflict spreads to the international level. From both a scholarly perspective and the standpoint of policymaking it is important to know which possibility is more likely. This paper examines the behavior of states involved in militarized interstate disputes to test two possibilities: first, that states contending with ethnic rebellion are more likely to be the victims of aggression by outside actors. Alternatively, that states contending with ethnic rebellion are more likely to take aggressive action against outside states. Statistical analysis of ethnic rebellion data and militarized interstate dispute data covering the period 1980–1992 finds that states suffering from ethnic rebellion are more likely to use force and use force first when involved in international disputes than states without similar insurgency problems.

Polarization and Ethnic Conflict in a Widened Strategic Setting

“…Several studies have emphasized the salience of bonds between transnational groups in predicting intervention (Carment & James, 2004;Carment, James & Taydas, 2006;Saideman, 2001Saideman, , 2002 or as a trigger of international dispute (Carment & James, 1997;Davis, Jaggers & Moore, 1997;Gartzke & Gleditsch, 2006;Moore & Davis, 1998;Trumbore, 2003). There are also studies that discuss the role of kin groups for contagion of internal ethnic conflict (see, for example, Lake & Rothchild, 1998); indeed, Buhaug & Gleditsch (2005) call attention to the need for examining this link more thoroughly.…”

The Internationalization of Ethnic Conflict: State, Society, and Synthesis

“…The fact that these latter variables only now are integrated meaningfully into mainstream research on international ethnic conflict is not deliberate but instead arises from “paradigmatic blind spots” (Stavenhagen 1987; Ryan 1998) induced by a system‐oriented focus (Marshall 1997). 9 This problem becomes particularly acute when existing knowledge about domestically generated ethnic conflict is brought to bear on the study of interstate conflict—a relatively unexplored area for international relations (Taras and Ganguly 1998, 2002; Trumbore 2003).…”

“…Explanations of the role played by the state as interlocutor to an internal ethnic conflict are given primary consideration (Taras and Ganguly 1998). Another important aspect of this approach is that the mix of instrumental and affective motivations will determine the substance and level of third‐party involvement (Trumbore 2003). External states help either the state‐center or the separatist movement on the basis of such orientations.…”

Ethnic Actors and International Crises: Theory and Findings, 1918–2001

“…9 On ethnic minorities and groups see: Gurr, 1993b;Gurr and Harff, 1994; see also Heraclides, 1989, who presented a useful typology of ethnonationalist movements and Horowitz, 1991. 10 Among the studies on these ethnic-interstate confrontations are: Carment and James, 1995;Carment and James, 1997;Chazan, 1991;Duncan, Jancar-Webster and Switky, 2003;Gurr and Harff, 1994;Maoz, 1997;Midlarski, 1992;Quinn and Gurr, 2003;Sarkees, 2003;Smith, 1981;Trumbore, 2003;Woodwell, 2004;Zartman, 1992. because we are interested in exploring the entire escalation process (i.e., the crisis period, not the internal war alone). 11 Our study differs from former studies on crisis and ethnicity in outlook, framework, and findings.…”