Pub Date : 2021-04-03DOI: 10.1080/13523260.2020.1868836
Ryan Shandler, M. L. Gross, Daphna Canetti
ABSTRACT To what extent does the public support the use of cyber weapons? We propose that public exposure to the destructive potential of cyber-attacks will dispel the clear cross-national preference for cyber strikes. To test this, we conducted two survey experiments (n = 2,585) that examine support for cyber versus conventional military strikes in the United States, United Kingdom, and Israel. In study 1, we exposed respondents to television news reports depicting various forms of terror attacks, and then measured the subsequent support for retaliatory options. Findings indicate that the high public support for deploying cyber weapons dissipated entirely among respondents exposed to lethal cyber-attacks. In study 2, we probed this vanishing support, finding that exposure to destructive cyber-attacks undercuts the perception of cyber as a less lethal domain, therefore diminishing its appeal. We conclude by discussing how the fragile public preference for cyber weapons encourages military escalation in the short-term.
{"title":"A fragile public preference for cyber strikes: Evidence from survey experiments in the United States, United Kingdom, and Israel","authors":"Ryan Shandler, M. L. Gross, Daphna Canetti","doi":"10.1080/13523260.2020.1868836","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/13523260.2020.1868836","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT To what extent does the public support the use of cyber weapons? We propose that public exposure to the destructive potential of cyber-attacks will dispel the clear cross-national preference for cyber strikes. To test this, we conducted two survey experiments (n = 2,585) that examine support for cyber versus conventional military strikes in the United States, United Kingdom, and Israel. In study 1, we exposed respondents to television news reports depicting various forms of terror attacks, and then measured the subsequent support for retaliatory options. Findings indicate that the high public support for deploying cyber weapons dissipated entirely among respondents exposed to lethal cyber-attacks. In study 2, we probed this vanishing support, finding that exposure to destructive cyber-attacks undercuts the perception of cyber as a less lethal domain, therefore diminishing its appeal. We conclude by discussing how the fragile public preference for cyber weapons encourages military escalation in the short-term.","PeriodicalId":46729,"journal":{"name":"Contemporary Security Policy","volume":"42 1","pages":"135 - 162"},"PeriodicalIF":5.9,"publicationDate":"2021-04-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/13523260.2020.1868836","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"41677809","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2021-04-03DOI: 10.1080/13523260.2021.1883276
K. Kenkel
ABSTRACT This article highlights the domestic effects of the ongoing changes in United Nations peacekeeping practice on troop contributing states from the Global South. It juxtaposes scholarship on stabilization, the specific motivations of Global South troop contributing countries, and in particular the effects on civilian control of armed forces of peacekeeping participation. It argues that the “diversionary peace” hypothesis—which posits beneficial effects on civilian control for peacekeeping—has not obtained, and that current developments in United Nations peace operations will negatively affect civil–military relations in postcolonial sending countries. The text suggests avenues for future inquiry. One is the notion that stabilization may lead to a net negative effect on civilian control in unconsolidated democracies. This is due to stabilization's increased militarization, and its turn towards objectives that mimic the counterinsurgency mandates associated with military rule in the Global South, rather than a focus on the socioeconomic well-being of local populations.
{"title":"Stability abroad, instability at home? Changing UN peace operations and civil–military relations in Global South troop contributing countries","authors":"K. Kenkel","doi":"10.1080/13523260.2021.1883276","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/13523260.2021.1883276","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT This article highlights the domestic effects of the ongoing changes in United Nations peacekeeping practice on troop contributing states from the Global South. It juxtaposes scholarship on stabilization, the specific motivations of Global South troop contributing countries, and in particular the effects on civilian control of armed forces of peacekeeping participation. It argues that the “diversionary peace” hypothesis—which posits beneficial effects on civilian control for peacekeeping—has not obtained, and that current developments in United Nations peace operations will negatively affect civil–military relations in postcolonial sending countries. The text suggests avenues for future inquiry. One is the notion that stabilization may lead to a net negative effect on civilian control in unconsolidated democracies. This is due to stabilization's increased militarization, and its turn towards objectives that mimic the counterinsurgency mandates associated with military rule in the Global South, rather than a focus on the socioeconomic well-being of local populations.","PeriodicalId":46729,"journal":{"name":"Contemporary Security Policy","volume":"42 1","pages":"225 - 240"},"PeriodicalIF":5.9,"publicationDate":"2021-04-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/13523260.2021.1883276","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"48141351","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2021-04-03DOI: 10.1080/13523260.2021.1899543
K. Kenkel, C. Foley
ABSTRACT This special forum discusses the future trajectory of UN peace operations at a time many stakeholders and analysts consider to be one of crisis, contestation, or at the very least transition. The UN is facing difficulties in responding effectively to many of the world’s worst recent conflicts, even where it has (or until recently had) operations. Even before COVID-19, the blue helmets were facing a period of serious retrenchment and budgetary constraints. Mission mandates have experienced a transformation, from the recent “robust turn” to the incorporation of stabilization mandates grounded in counterinsurgency/counterterrorism doctrine. The crossroads of economic downturn, geopolitical realignment and continuous adaptation of peacekeeping practice provides the backdrop of the contributions to the special forum that follows. The analyses presented here not only accompany the ongoing evolution of the nexus of issues that constitute peacekeeping studies but also reflect the breadth and depth of the extensive attendant academic literature.
{"title":"Responding to the crisis in United Nations peace operations","authors":"K. Kenkel, C. Foley","doi":"10.1080/13523260.2021.1899543","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/13523260.2021.1899543","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT This special forum discusses the future trajectory of UN peace operations at a time many stakeholders and analysts consider to be one of crisis, contestation, or at the very least transition. The UN is facing difficulties in responding effectively to many of the world’s worst recent conflicts, even where it has (or until recently had) operations. Even before COVID-19, the blue helmets were facing a period of serious retrenchment and budgetary constraints. Mission mandates have experienced a transformation, from the recent “robust turn” to the incorporation of stabilization mandates grounded in counterinsurgency/counterterrorism doctrine. The crossroads of economic downturn, geopolitical realignment and continuous adaptation of peacekeeping practice provides the backdrop of the contributions to the special forum that follows. The analyses presented here not only accompany the ongoing evolution of the nexus of issues that constitute peacekeeping studies but also reflect the breadth and depth of the extensive attendant academic literature.","PeriodicalId":46729,"journal":{"name":"Contemporary Security Policy","volume":"42 1","pages":"189 - 196"},"PeriodicalIF":5.9,"publicationDate":"2021-04-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/13523260.2021.1899543","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"48060762","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2021-04-03DOI: 10.1080/13523260.2021.1898166
Kari M. Osland, Mateja Peter
ABSTRACT UN peace operations need a new peacebuilding agenda that acknowledges both the transboundary nature of conflict drivers and the multipolar nature of the global order. This means casting aside the current stabilization approach, but also abandoning the pursuit of liberal peacebuilding of the unipolar era. Such a conflict transformation agenda would require UN peace operations to prioritize the rule of law and bottom-up approaches, thus creating the potential to be embraced by a much broader range of member states. In this article, we bring liberal peacebuilding critiques into a discussion with debates on the nature of the global order. Liberal peacebuilding critiques are rooted in the bottom-up problematization of international interventions and show what kind of peacebuilding is desirable. Conversely, the debates on the multipolar nature of the global order expose the top-down constraints as to what kind of peacebuilding is feasible.
{"title":"UN peace operations in a multipolar order: Building peace through the rule of law and bottom-up approaches","authors":"Kari M. Osland, Mateja Peter","doi":"10.1080/13523260.2021.1898166","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/13523260.2021.1898166","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT UN peace operations need a new peacebuilding agenda that acknowledges both the transboundary nature of conflict drivers and the multipolar nature of the global order. This means casting aside the current stabilization approach, but also abandoning the pursuit of liberal peacebuilding of the unipolar era. Such a conflict transformation agenda would require UN peace operations to prioritize the rule of law and bottom-up approaches, thus creating the potential to be embraced by a much broader range of member states. In this article, we bring liberal peacebuilding critiques into a discussion with debates on the nature of the global order. Liberal peacebuilding critiques are rooted in the bottom-up problematization of international interventions and show what kind of peacebuilding is desirable. Conversely, the debates on the multipolar nature of the global order expose the top-down constraints as to what kind of peacebuilding is feasible.","PeriodicalId":46729,"journal":{"name":"Contemporary Security Policy","volume":"42 1","pages":"197 - 210"},"PeriodicalIF":5.9,"publicationDate":"2021-04-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/13523260.2021.1898166","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"44714285","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2021-04-03DOI: 10.1080/13523260.2021.1894021
Cedric de Coning
ABSTRACT This article considers the future of UN peace operations through a complexity theory lens. In the short-term peacekeeping will have to adapt to the consequences of the COVID-19 pandemic and the fall-out of the Trump presidency. In the medium-term peacekeeping will go through a phase of uncertainty and turbulence due to geopolitical power shifts in the global order. In the longer-term peacekeeping will have to adapt to a new multipolar global order characterized by coexistence, and a changing security landscape shaped by, among others, climate change, urbanization, and new technologies. Throughout these contraction, moderation, and adjustment phases, UN peacekeeping is likely to be guided by a principled adaptive approach, that allows it to adapt to the realities of the moment whilst staying true to its core form and identity. As a result, UN peacekeeping is likely to remain one of the most visible symbols of global governance and international cooperation.
{"title":"The future of UN peace operations: Principled adaptation through phases of contraction, moderation, and renewal","authors":"Cedric de Coning","doi":"10.1080/13523260.2021.1894021","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/13523260.2021.1894021","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT This article considers the future of UN peace operations through a complexity theory lens. In the short-term peacekeeping will have to adapt to the consequences of the COVID-19 pandemic and the fall-out of the Trump presidency. In the medium-term peacekeeping will go through a phase of uncertainty and turbulence due to geopolitical power shifts in the global order. In the longer-term peacekeeping will have to adapt to a new multipolar global order characterized by coexistence, and a changing security landscape shaped by, among others, climate change, urbanization, and new technologies. Throughout these contraction, moderation, and adjustment phases, UN peacekeeping is likely to be guided by a principled adaptive approach, that allows it to adapt to the realities of the moment whilst staying true to its core form and identity. As a result, UN peacekeeping is likely to remain one of the most visible symbols of global governance and international cooperation.","PeriodicalId":46729,"journal":{"name":"Contemporary Security Policy","volume":"42 1","pages":"211 - 224"},"PeriodicalIF":5.9,"publicationDate":"2021-04-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/13523260.2021.1894021","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"45147890","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2021-03-29DOI: 10.1080/13523260.2021.1907129
Christian Bueger, Tobias Liebetrau
ABSTRACT Undersea communication cables are the core critical infrastructure of the digital age. 99% of all transoceanic digital communication—financial transactions, emails, or voice messaging—is transported through undersea fiber-optic cables. The global submarine cable network is a critical infrastructure that does not receive the analytical attention it deserves. We argue that cable security is a core dimension of current and future international security governance. We present the first systematic survey of the academic discourses that investigate the politics, governance, and protection of submarine data cables. Three rather narrow literatures study the cables (1) as under threat from hybrid warfare and terrorism, or treat the cable network narrowly as a (2) technical or (3) regulatory problem. We demonstrate the need for broadening out the research agenda and addressing key questions of security governance and geopolitics of this increasingly critical infrastructure.
{"title":"Protecting hidden infrastructure: The security politics of the global submarine data cable network","authors":"Christian Bueger, Tobias Liebetrau","doi":"10.1080/13523260.2021.1907129","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/13523260.2021.1907129","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT Undersea communication cables are the core critical infrastructure of the digital age. 99% of all transoceanic digital communication—financial transactions, emails, or voice messaging—is transported through undersea fiber-optic cables. The global submarine cable network is a critical infrastructure that does not receive the analytical attention it deserves. We argue that cable security is a core dimension of current and future international security governance. We present the first systematic survey of the academic discourses that investigate the politics, governance, and protection of submarine data cables. Three rather narrow literatures study the cables (1) as under threat from hybrid warfare and terrorism, or treat the cable network narrowly as a (2) technical or (3) regulatory problem. We demonstrate the need for broadening out the research agenda and addressing key questions of security governance and geopolitics of this increasingly critical infrastructure.","PeriodicalId":46729,"journal":{"name":"Contemporary Security Policy","volume":"42 1","pages":"391 - 413"},"PeriodicalIF":5.9,"publicationDate":"2021-03-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/13523260.2021.1907129","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"45065496","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2021-03-05DOI: 10.1080/13523260.2021.1897225
B. Prem
ABSTRACT This article studies the limitations of multi-stakeholder initiatives (MSIs) relating to Private Military and Security Companies (PMSCs). It draws attention to three distinct ways in which power operates in and around MSIs: rules, structural positions, and discourses. Based on an analysis of two MSIs, it shows that these governance initiatives strengthen the perspectives of stakeholders that consider PMSCs as normal and legitimate security actors. Western governments and like-minded actors have used the Swiss Initiative and the International Code of Conduct for Security Service Providers to bypass the less privatization-friendly process in the United Nations. MSIs equally perform an important legitimizing function for PMSCs through their discourses and practices. Finally, participants of the MSIs have relegated critical voices, weakening their ability to partake in governing the PMSC industry. By studying the limitations of MSIs through a power-analytical lens, this article therefore points at an important but overlooked dimension.
{"title":"The regulation of private military and security companies: Analyzing power in multi-stakeholder initiatives","authors":"B. Prem","doi":"10.1080/13523260.2021.1897225","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/13523260.2021.1897225","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT This article studies the limitations of multi-stakeholder initiatives (MSIs) relating to Private Military and Security Companies (PMSCs). It draws attention to three distinct ways in which power operates in and around MSIs: rules, structural positions, and discourses. Based on an analysis of two MSIs, it shows that these governance initiatives strengthen the perspectives of stakeholders that consider PMSCs as normal and legitimate security actors. Western governments and like-minded actors have used the Swiss Initiative and the International Code of Conduct for Security Service Providers to bypass the less privatization-friendly process in the United Nations. MSIs equally perform an important legitimizing function for PMSCs through their discourses and practices. Finally, participants of the MSIs have relegated critical voices, weakening their ability to partake in governing the PMSC industry. By studying the limitations of MSIs through a power-analytical lens, this article therefore points at an important but overlooked dimension.","PeriodicalId":46729,"journal":{"name":"Contemporary Security Policy","volume":"42 1","pages":"345 - 370"},"PeriodicalIF":5.9,"publicationDate":"2021-03-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/13523260.2021.1897225","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"41347097","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2021-02-18DOI: 10.1080/13523260.2021.1885921
Silvie Janičatová, P. Mlejnková
ABSTRACT Since the annexation of Crimea in 2014, hybrid warfare has become a widely used yet ambiguous term to describe Russia's hostile activities. In academic publications and policy documents, there have been a plethora of different definitions and concepts to make sense of hybrid warfare. This article takes a bottom-up approach and analyzes the discourse of political and military representatives in the United Kingdom to explore how they understand hybrid warfare by Russia and what the implications are for defense policy. Using qualitative content analysis with quantitative aspects, the results show not only a range of different terms used to describe Russia's hostile activities, but also that the discussed topics do not reflect one particular definition of hybrid warfare. The analysis further reveals that representatives highlight non-military aspects of hybrid warfare over the military ones and consider the role of defense policy dependent on the nature of a particular hybrid threat.
{"title":"The ambiguity of hybrid warfare: A qualitative content analysis of the United Kingdom's political–military discourse on Russia's hostile activities","authors":"Silvie Janičatová, P. Mlejnková","doi":"10.1080/13523260.2021.1885921","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/13523260.2021.1885921","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT Since the annexation of Crimea in 2014, hybrid warfare has become a widely used yet ambiguous term to describe Russia's hostile activities. In academic publications and policy documents, there have been a plethora of different definitions and concepts to make sense of hybrid warfare. This article takes a bottom-up approach and analyzes the discourse of political and military representatives in the United Kingdom to explore how they understand hybrid warfare by Russia and what the implications are for defense policy. Using qualitative content analysis with quantitative aspects, the results show not only a range of different terms used to describe Russia's hostile activities, but also that the discussed topics do not reflect one particular definition of hybrid warfare. The analysis further reveals that representatives highlight non-military aspects of hybrid warfare over the military ones and consider the role of defense policy dependent on the nature of a particular hybrid threat.","PeriodicalId":46729,"journal":{"name":"Contemporary Security Policy","volume":"42 1","pages":"312 - 344"},"PeriodicalIF":5.9,"publicationDate":"2021-02-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/13523260.2021.1885921","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"44453369","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2021-02-08DOI: 10.1080/13523260.2021.1882802
K. P. Coleman, Paul D. Williams
ABSTRACT Peace operations are a highly resilient international institution for managing armed conflict. Their resilience derives from what constructivists in International Relations theory call collective intentionality and the malleable constitutive rules that define and structure such missions. Despite a range of current constraints, challenges, and crises, peace operations are unlikely to become extinct unless a critical mass of states consistently withdraw material support for them and explicitly denigrate the concept of peace operations itself. We see little evidence that both these things are likely to occur. However, the constitutive rules guiding peace operations are likely to continue to evolve due to ideational and material changes. While the proliferation of actors and mission types makes precise predictions impossible, we expect an evolution both in how various actors define their own peace operations and how these actors relate to each other.
{"title":"Peace operations are what states make of them: Why future evolution is more likely than extinction","authors":"K. P. Coleman, Paul D. Williams","doi":"10.1080/13523260.2021.1882802","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/13523260.2021.1882802","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT Peace operations are a highly resilient international institution for managing armed conflict. Their resilience derives from what constructivists in International Relations theory call collective intentionality and the malleable constitutive rules that define and structure such missions. Despite a range of current constraints, challenges, and crises, peace operations are unlikely to become extinct unless a critical mass of states consistently withdraw material support for them and explicitly denigrate the concept of peace operations itself. We see little evidence that both these things are likely to occur. However, the constitutive rules guiding peace operations are likely to continue to evolve due to ideational and material changes. While the proliferation of actors and mission types makes precise predictions impossible, we expect an evolution both in how various actors define their own peace operations and how these actors relate to each other.","PeriodicalId":46729,"journal":{"name":"Contemporary Security Policy","volume":"42 1","pages":"241 - 255"},"PeriodicalIF":5.9,"publicationDate":"2021-02-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/13523260.2021.1882802","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"47769579","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2021-01-22DOI: 10.1080/13523260.2021.1876455
Troels Burchall Henningsen
ABSTRACT In spite of several international interventions to contain and degrade militant groups in the Sahel region, al-Qaeda affiliated groups have managed to retain their alliance and even spread and intensify their use of violence. This article explains the cohesion of the insurgency alliance as the outcome of a number of sound strategic decisions. By applying a framework of irregular strategy, the article examines the processes of early adaption to pre-existing social networks and the subsequent shaping through political, violent, and communicative lines of effort. Although the primary purpose of the strategy was not alliance cohesion, the result is that al-Qaeda related networks cooperate across ethnic and social cleavages, despite the many setbacks and dilemmas that local politics generate. The article adds an agency-oriented perspective to the growing literature on insurgency fragmentation and cohesion, which are major factors in the outcome of civil wars.
{"title":"The crafting of alliance cohesion among insurgents: The case of al-Qaeda affiliated groups in the Sahel region","authors":"Troels Burchall Henningsen","doi":"10.1080/13523260.2021.1876455","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/13523260.2021.1876455","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT In spite of several international interventions to contain and degrade militant groups in the Sahel region, al-Qaeda affiliated groups have managed to retain their alliance and even spread and intensify their use of violence. This article explains the cohesion of the insurgency alliance as the outcome of a number of sound strategic decisions. By applying a framework of irregular strategy, the article examines the processes of early adaption to pre-existing social networks and the subsequent shaping through political, violent, and communicative lines of effort. Although the primary purpose of the strategy was not alliance cohesion, the result is that al-Qaeda related networks cooperate across ethnic and social cleavages, despite the many setbacks and dilemmas that local politics generate. The article adds an agency-oriented perspective to the growing literature on insurgency fragmentation and cohesion, which are major factors in the outcome of civil wars.","PeriodicalId":46729,"journal":{"name":"Contemporary Security Policy","volume":"42 1","pages":"371 - 390"},"PeriodicalIF":5.9,"publicationDate":"2021-01-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/13523260.2021.1876455","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"44225142","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：