violent non-state actors in world politics

216 Pages·2006·0.44 MB·English

The Pennsylvania State University

The Graduate School

College of the Liberal Arts

VIOLENT NON-STATE ACTORS IN WORLD POLITICS:

THEIR FORMATION, ACTIONS, AND EFFECTS

A Thesis in

Political Science

By

Diane L. Dutka

Submitted in Partial Fulfillment
of the Requirements
for the Degree of

Doctor of Philosophy

May 2006
The thesis of Diane L. Dutka was reviewed and approved* by the following:

Glenn Palmer
Associate Professor of Political Science
Thesis Adviser
Chair of Committee

D. Scott Bennett
Professor of Political Science

Navin Bapat
Assistant Professor of Political Science

Catherine Wanner
Assistant Professor of History and Religious Studies

Marie Hojnacki
Graduate Director, Department of Political Science

*Signatures are on file in the Graduate School.
ii
Abstract

In the recent past, terrorism has come to the fore as a major international problem.
In addition, other violent non-state actors, such as insurgents or freedom fighters, have
played an increasingly visible role in world affairs. A look at history, however, reveals
that such actors have played an important part in world affairs for quite some time. Their
role(s), however, have never been studied systematically. Instead, they are generally
filtered out of studies on conflict; not even appearing on the radar screen of the typical
scholar of international affairs. In this dissertation, I introduce a data set which I have
compiled on such actors, and I perform some preliminary tests to determine the extent of
their influence. I also discuss questions for future research on this topic.
iii
Table of Contents

List of Tables………………………………………………………………..Page v

Chapter 1: Introduction and Literature Review ……………………………Page 1

Chapter 2: Data Collection …………………………………………………Page 21

Chapter 3: Summary of Data ………………………………………………Page 51

Chapter 4: Research Design and Hypotheses ………………………………Page 107

Chapter 5: Results..…………………………………………………………Page 140

Chapter 6: Conclusions and Questions for Further Study …………………Page 173

Bibliography………………………………………………………………...Page 190
iv
List of Tables

Table 3.1 Number of APAGs Present ……………………………………….Page 104

Table 3.2 APAG Formation Years…………………………………………..Page 104

Table 3.3 APAG Fate………………………………………………………..Page 105

Table 3.4 Years of Existence………………………………………………...Page 105

Table 3.5 APAG Size………………………………………………………..Page 106

Table 3.6 APAG Goals……………………………………………………....Page 106

Table 4.1 Correlation Matrix of Control Variables for Full Sample………...Page 139

Table 4.2 Correlation Matrix of Control Variables for Escalation Sample….Page 139

Table 4.3 Correlation Matrix of Control Variables for 1890-1914 Period Only

………………………………………………………………..Page 139

Table 4.4 Correlation Matrix of Control Variables for 1990-2001 Period Only

………………………………………………………………..Page 139

Table 5.1 Correlation Matrix of Explanatory Variables for Full Sample…….Page 164

Table 5.2 Correlation Matrix of Explanatory Variables for 1890-1914 Period Only

………………………………………………………………...Page 164

Table 5.3 Correlation Matrix of Explanatory Variables for 1990-2001 Period Only

………………………………………………………………..Page 165

Table 5.4 Models of APAG Presence and Dispute Onset……………………Page 166

Table 5.5 Correlation Matrix of Explanatory Variables for Full Sample…….Page 167

Table 5.6 Correlation Matrix of Explanatory Variables for 1890-1914 Period Only

v
…………………………………………………………………Page 167

Table 5.7 Correlation Matrix of Explanatory Variables for 1990-2001 Period Only

…………………………………………………………………Page 168

Table 5.8 Models of APAG Number and Dispute Onset………………………Page 169

Table 5.9 Correlation Matrix of Explanatory Variables for Full Sample……...Page 170

Table 5.10 Models of APAG Presence and Dispute Escalation……………….Page 171
vi
Chapter 1

Introduction & Literature Review

Introduction

In recent years, political violence performed by non-state actors has come to the
forefront of international relations. Terrorist groups have engaged in increasingly
provocative activities, and in some cases, these activities have been the catalyst for
interstate wars. The United States, in particular, has committed its military forces to
defeating terrorism, in other words, to fighting a non-state, rather than a state, enemy.
Intrastate conflict, which often does not involve regular military forces, has also
proliferated during the past fifteen years. With the breakup of the Soviet Union, conflicts
have broken out in the Caucasus and Central Asia. Some of these, such as at least part of
the conflict between Armenia and Azerbaijan, can be characterized as interstate conflicts
between newly independent states. Most of these conflicts, however, include a large non-
state component. The conflict between Armenia and Azerbaijan, for example, began as
an internal Soviet conflict in which the primary participants were non-state militias. This
eventually grew into an interstate conflict, after Armenia and Azerbaijan achieved
independence. Paramilitary forces continued to play a large part on both sides, however.
The breakup of Yugoslavia is another instance in which non-state actors played an
important role. Conditions in Bosnia were widely described throughout the media as a
“war”, although few regular military forces participated. Instead, various paramilitaries,
sometimes supported by state allies, prosecuted the “war” entirely on their own.
The presence of non-state actors, be they terrorists, paramilitaries, insurgents, or
some other type, has long been a part of international conflict, but this phenomenon has
1
traditionally been understudied. Realism, the traditionally dominant paradigm in
international relations, looks exclusively at state actors, assuming that non-state actors do
not have an impact on international relations. While Thucydides (1993), considered to be
the father of both international relations and the realist paradigm, does consider the role
of domestic institutions and cultural differences in the states that he studies, his study
assumes that the main actors in conflict are states (or in his case, city-states). Later
realists, such as Machiavelli (1995), and Hobbes (2000) emphasized the role of the state
and advocated strong states as a bulwark against chaos. Later realists focused their
analysis on the balance of power (see Claude 1962, Haas 1953, Bremer & Mihalka 1977,
Wagner 1986), but that balance was always assumed to be maintained between states. It
was taken for granted that no non-state actor could possibly act as a balancer against a
state, and so non-state actors could effectively be ignored. Morgenthau (various years)
discusses the concept of the national interest, which is by definition the interest of the
state.
In later years, neo-realists made important changes to the paradigm, but they
continued to focus their explanations on the state. Waltz (1979) is particularly concerned
with the centrality of the state. He argues against the idea that non-state actors (in this
case corporations and other economic actors) have gained enough power in the
international system to rival states. While non-state actors may have some importance, in
the last analysis, it is states that really matter. Waltz does not even discuss the role of
violent non-state actors in international relations, probably because such actors remained
marginal at the time that he wrote.
2
Competing non-realist paradigms, such as liberalism or idealism, do consider the
role of actors other than states. These paradigms, however, tend to emphasize the role of
non-violent international organizations, as well as looking at the behavior of democratic
governments in international affairs. The darker side of non-state actors in international
relations, therefore, remains under-theorized.
Liberal thinkers such as Locke, Kant and Wilson (see Walter 1996, Weinstein
2000, Williams & Booth 1996) concerned themselves with domestic and international
institutions and how these institutions could be developed to prevent conflict (both
domestic and international). In this view, non-state institutions are seen as mitigating
conflict rather than causing additional conflict. Contemporary liberal thinkers look at the
role of domestic politics and regime type in states’ international behavior (see Zacher &
Matthew 1995, Moravcsik 1997, Keohane & Nye 2001), but they are more focused on
how domestic audiences can mitigate conflict than on how certain types of non-state
actors may increase conflict. In addition, liberals often look at democracies and at how
the views of the majority of citizens influence the state’s international behavior. The
scholar of terrorist, guerrilla, or insurgent movements, however, looks at how a very
small group of people within a much larger state may have a disproportionate influence
on the foreign policy and international behavior of that state.
In addition to theoretical biases, historical biases also explain why the role of non-
state actors in international relations is not well-understood. Most histories of wars and
major conflicts between states emphasize the role of state actors to the exclusion of other
actors. Considering World War II, for example, most historians concentrate entirely on
the role of politicians, diplomats, and regular soldiers. Few historians of World War II
3
discuss the resistance movements that spread throughout occupied Europe and that even
had strong followings in Germany and Italy. What role, if any, the members of these
organizations, who were clearly not regular soldiers or representatives of an established
government, played in the outcome of the war is not even discussed, except in a few
specialized histories that concentrate almost exclusively on resistance movements.
A third reason that non-state actors are under-studied is the difficulty of collecting
data on them. It is relatively easy to gather data on states in terms of the size and strength
of their militaries, whereas it is much harder to determine the number of members that a
terrorist group or insurgent movement has. Uncovering patterns of state support for
violent non-state actors, which could be expected to be associated with more traditional
forms of interstate conflict, is extremely difficult, because these ties are in most cases
deliberately obscured.
Despite the obstacles associated with studying the impact of non-state actors on
international relations, it has important implications for understanding interstate conflict
both in the contemporary world and in the past. In cases where terrorist groups are
active, they have the opportunity to affect policy, both that of their sponsor state and that
of their target state. Indeed, the very purpose of terrorism is to affect policy in a desired
direction. It would be logical to assume that terrorist groups would have success in
influencing the security policy of the states with which they interact, since successful
terrorist groups have the ability to mount a credible threat to the lives and property of the
citizens of these states.
Terrorist groups and other types of non-state actors (insurgents, participants in
civil wars, etc.) have played an important role in interstate conflict throughout history. I
4