Pub Date : 2024-02-20DOI: 10.1177/00223433231219440
Benjamin Jensen, Brandon Valeriano, Sam Whitt
Cyber operations ranging from deception and espionage to disruption and high-end degradation have become a central feature of modern statecraft in the digital age, yet we lack a clear understanding of how decision-makers employ and respond to cyber operations in times of crisis. Our research provides theoretical mechanisms and empirical evidence for understanding how decision-makers react to cyber triggers and utilize cyber responses during crises. Specifically, we argue that the availability of cyber response creates off-ramps for non-escalatory engagement. Based on experimental wargames involving rival states with power parity in militarized disputes and randomized cyber triggers and response options, we find the availability of cyber response options reduces escalatory behavior via a substitution mechanism. In the absence of cyber response options, however, participants pursue more conventional, escalatory actions, regardless of the triggering mechanism. Our findings underscore how enhancing the availability of cyber response options might reduce strategic escalation risks and offer the space to bargain during periods of conflict.
{"title":"How cyber operations can reduce escalation pressures: Evidence from an experimental wargame study","authors":"Benjamin Jensen, Brandon Valeriano, Sam Whitt","doi":"10.1177/00223433231219440","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/00223433231219440","url":null,"abstract":"Cyber operations ranging from deception and espionage to disruption and high-end degradation have become a central feature of modern statecraft in the digital age, yet we lack a clear understanding of how decision-makers employ and respond to cyber operations in times of crisis. Our research provides theoretical mechanisms and empirical evidence for understanding how decision-makers react to cyber triggers and utilize cyber responses during crises. Specifically, we argue that the availability of cyber response creates off-ramps for non-escalatory engagement. Based on experimental wargames involving rival states with power parity in militarized disputes and randomized cyber triggers and response options, we find the availability of cyber response options reduces escalatory behavior via a substitution mechanism. In the absence of cyber response options, however, participants pursue more conventional, escalatory actions, regardless of the triggering mechanism. Our findings underscore how enhancing the availability of cyber response options might reduce strategic escalation risks and offer the space to bargain during periods of conflict.","PeriodicalId":48324,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Peace Research","volume":"51 12 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.6,"publicationDate":"2024-02-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"139938961","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 : 2024-02-16DOI: 10.1177/00223433231217687
Harry Oppenheimer
Social scientists do not directly study cyberattacks; they draw inferences from attack reports that are public and visible. Like human rights violations or war casualties, there are missing cyberattacks that researchers have not observed. The existing approach is to either ignore missing data and assume they do not exist or argue that reported attacks accurately represent the missing events. This article is the first to detail the steps between attack, discovery and public report to identify sources of bias in cyber data. Visibility bias presents significant inferential challenges for cybersecurity – some attacks are easy to observe or claimed by attackers, while others take a long time to surface or are carried out by actors seeking to hide their actions. The article argues that missing attacks in public reporting likely share features of reported attacks that take the longest to surface. It builds on datasets of cyberattacks by or against Five Eyes (an intelligence alliance composed of Australia, Canada, New Zealand, the United Kingdom and the United States) governments and adds new data on when attacks occurred, when the media first reported them, and the characteristics of attackers and techniques. Leveraging survival models, it demonstrates how the delay between attack and disclosure depends on both the attacker’s identity (state or non-state) and the technical characteristics of the attack (whether it targets information confidentiality, integrity, or availability). The article argues that missing cybersecurity events are least likely to be carried out by non-state actors or target information availability. Our understanding of ‘persistent engagement,’ relative capabilities, ‘intelligence contests’ and cyber coercion rely on accurately measuring restraint. This article’s findings cast significant doubt on whether researchers have accurately measured and observed restraint, and informs how others should consider external validity. This article has implications for our understanding of data bias, empirical cybersecurity research and secrecy in international relations.
{"title":"How the process of discovering cyberattacks biases our understanding of cybersecurity","authors":"Harry Oppenheimer","doi":"10.1177/00223433231217687","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/00223433231217687","url":null,"abstract":"Social scientists do not directly study cyberattacks; they draw inferences from attack reports that are public and visible. Like human rights violations or war casualties, there are missing cyberattacks that researchers have not observed. The existing approach is to either ignore missing data and assume they do not exist or argue that reported attacks accurately represent the missing events. This article is the first to detail the steps between attack, discovery and public report to identify sources of bias in cyber data. Visibility bias presents significant inferential challenges for cybersecurity – some attacks are easy to observe or claimed by attackers, while others take a long time to surface or are carried out by actors seeking to hide their actions. The article argues that missing attacks in public reporting likely share features of reported attacks that take the longest to surface. It builds on datasets of cyberattacks by or against Five Eyes (an intelligence alliance composed of Australia, Canada, New Zealand, the United Kingdom and the United States) governments and adds new data on when attacks occurred, when the media first reported them, and the characteristics of attackers and techniques. Leveraging survival models, it demonstrates how the delay between attack and disclosure depends on both the attacker’s identity (state or non-state) and the technical characteristics of the attack (whether it targets information confidentiality, integrity, or availability). The article argues that missing cybersecurity events are least likely to be carried out by non-state actors or target information availability. Our understanding of ‘persistent engagement,’ relative capabilities, ‘intelligence contests’ and cyber coercion rely on accurately measuring restraint. This article’s findings cast significant doubt on whether researchers have accurately measured and observed restraint, and informs how others should consider external validity. This article has implications for our understanding of data bias, empirical cybersecurity research and secrecy in international relations.","PeriodicalId":48324,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Peace Research","volume":"56 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.6,"publicationDate":"2024-02-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"139939053","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 : 2024-02-01DOI: 10.1177/00223433231211766
Johannes Karreth, Jaroslav Tir, Jason Quinn, Madhav Joshi
Recent research shows that comprehensive peace agreements (CPAs) are effective in ending civil wars and improving post-conflict conditions, but CPAs emerge in only a fraction of civil wars. This study provides systematic evidence about the origins of CPAs and the role of international actors in facilitating their signing. We argue that mediation is more likely to be successful and that CPAs are more likely to emerge in those civil war countries that are members in a higher number of IGOs with high economic leverage. Using their financial and institutional leverage, these IGOs can help the combatants overcome the credible commitment problems associated with entering into mediation, and with making sufficient concessions and compromises to reach and sign a CPA. Analyzing all intrastate armed conflicts from 1989 to 2011, we find that a conflict country’s memberships in IGOs with high economic leverage increase the odds of (1) mediation occurring and (2) mediation subsequently leading to the signing of CPAs. This finding is robust to common sources of spurious relationships between international institutions and the behavior of conflict parties. Participating in IGOs with high economic leverage carries important positive consequences for civil war management and enhances the impact of mediation on getting conflict parties to sign CPAs.
{"title":"Civil war mediation in the shadow of IGOs: The path to comprehensive peace agreements","authors":"Johannes Karreth, Jaroslav Tir, Jason Quinn, Madhav Joshi","doi":"10.1177/00223433231211766","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/00223433231211766","url":null,"abstract":"Recent research shows that comprehensive peace agreements (CPAs) are effective in ending civil wars and improving post-conflict conditions, but CPAs emerge in only a fraction of civil wars. This study provides systematic evidence about the origins of CPAs and the role of international actors in facilitating their signing. We argue that mediation is more likely to be successful and that CPAs are more likely to emerge in those civil war countries that are members in a higher number of IGOs with high economic leverage. Using their financial and institutional leverage, these IGOs can help the combatants overcome the credible commitment problems associated with entering into mediation, and with making sufficient concessions and compromises to reach and sign a CPA. Analyzing all intrastate armed conflicts from 1989 to 2011, we find that a conflict country’s memberships in IGOs with high economic leverage increase the odds of (1) mediation occurring and (2) mediation subsequently leading to the signing of CPAs. This finding is robust to common sources of spurious relationships between international institutions and the behavior of conflict parties. Participating in IGOs with high economic leverage carries important positive consequences for civil war management and enhances the impact of mediation on getting conflict parties to sign CPAs.","PeriodicalId":48324,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Peace Research","volume":"31 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.6,"publicationDate":"2024-02-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"139938941","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 : 2024-02-01DOI: 10.1177/00223433231211762
Fahd Humayun
Can representation in foreign policy deliberations – in particular, increased female representation – impact deliberators’ support for interstate conflict resolution? While existing work on gender representation in IR suggests that increased female representation should moderate intragroup hawkishness, making conflict resolution more viable, I offer empirical evidence that qualifies this idea, based on a survey experiment on 149 male and 55 female elite Pakistani legislators. Politicians of both sexes were randomly assigned to ‘listen in’ on a hypothetical national security deliberation that was either all-male or gender-mixed. I find that politicians’ decisionmaking in these hypothetical committees was informed simultaneously by notions of committee competence and by inferences about the social desirability of hawkish outcomes in deliberative settings. Specifically, respondents assigned to gender-mixed committees became less supportive of external conflict resolution. I show how different mechanisms accounted for this increased hawkishness for men and women. Female politicians assigned to gender-mixed committees became more conscious and wary of how their participation, the result of increased representation, would be perceived, compelling them to opt for more hawkish policies. Male politicians, in contrast, attempted to overcompensate for the increased visibility of female representation by resorting to greater levels of aggression.
{"title":"Gendering hawkishness in the war room: Evidence from Pakistani politicians","authors":"Fahd Humayun","doi":"10.1177/00223433231211762","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/00223433231211762","url":null,"abstract":"Can representation in foreign policy deliberations – in particular, increased female representation – impact deliberators’ support for interstate conflict resolution? While existing work on gender representation in IR suggests that increased female representation should moderate intragroup hawkishness, making conflict resolution more viable, I offer empirical evidence that qualifies this idea, based on a survey experiment on 149 male and 55 female elite Pakistani legislators. Politicians of both sexes were randomly assigned to ‘listen in’ on a hypothetical national security deliberation that was either all-male or gender-mixed. I find that politicians’ decisionmaking in these hypothetical committees was informed simultaneously by notions of committee competence and by inferences about the social desirability of hawkish outcomes in deliberative settings. Specifically, respondents assigned to gender-mixed committees became less supportive of external conflict resolution. I show how different mechanisms accounted for this increased hawkishness for men and women. Female politicians assigned to gender-mixed committees became more conscious and wary of how their participation, the result of increased representation, would be perceived, compelling them to opt for more hawkish policies. Male politicians, in contrast, attempted to overcompensate for the increased visibility of female representation by resorting to greater levels of aggression.","PeriodicalId":48324,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Peace Research","volume":"1 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.6,"publicationDate":"2024-02-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"139939020","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 : 2024-01-31DOI: 10.1177/00223433231220264
Christos Makridis, Lennart Maschmeyer, Max Smeets
What determines media coverage on cyber conflict (CC)? Media bias fostering misperception is a well-established problem in conflict reporting. Because of the secrecy and complexity surrounding cyber operations (COs), where most data moreover come from marketing publications by private sector firms, this problem is likely to be especially pronounced in reporting on cyber threats. Because media reporting shapes public perception, such bias can shape conflict dynamics and outcomes with potentially destabilizing consequences. Yet little research has examined media bias systematically. This study connects existing literature on media reporting bias with the CC literature to formulate four theoretical explanations for variation in reporting on COs based on four corresponding characteristics of a CO. We introduce a new dataset of COs reporting by the private sector, which we call the Cyber Conflict Media Coverage Dataset, and media reporting on each of these operations. Consequently, we conduct a statistical analysis to identify which of these characteristics correlate with reporting quantity. This analysis shows that the use of novel techniques, specifically zero-day exploits, is a highly significant predictor of coverage quantity. Operations targeting the military or financial sector generate less coverage. We also find that cyber effect operations tend to receive more coverage compared to espionage, but this result is not statistically significant. Nonetheless, the predictive models explain limited variation in news coverage. These findings indicate that COs are treated differently in the media than other forms of conflict, and help explain persistent threat perception among the public despite the absence of catastrophic cyberattacks.
是什么决定了媒体对网络冲突 (CC) 的报道？媒体偏见造成误解是冲突报道中一个公认的问题。由于网络行动（CO）的保密性和复杂性，而且大多数数据来自私营企业的营销出版物，因此这一问题在有关网络威胁的报道中可能尤为突出。由于媒体报道会影响公众的看法，因此这种偏见可能会影响冲突的态势和结果，从而造成潜在的不稳定后果。然而，很少有研究对媒体偏见进行系统研究。本研究将有关媒体报道偏见的现有文献与有关冲突的文献联系起来，根据冲突的四个相应特征，提出了有关冲突报道差异的四种理论解释。我们引入了一个新的数据集，即网络冲突媒体报道数据集（Cyber Conflict Media Coverage Dataset），该数据集包含了私营部门对 CO 的报道，以及媒体对这些行动的报道。因此，我们进行了统计分析，以确定这些特征中哪些与报道数量相关。分析表明，新技术的使用，特别是零日漏洞的使用，是预测报道数量的一个非常重要的因素。针对军事或金融部门的行动产生的报道较少。我们还发现，与间谍活动相比，网络效应行动往往得到更多的报道，但这一结果在统计上并不显著。尽管如此，预测模型仍能解释新闻报道中的有限差异。这些发现表明，与其他形式的冲突相比，媒体对 COs 的处理方式有所不同，这也有助于解释为什么尽管没有发生灾难性的网络攻击，但公众对 COs 的威胁感依然存在。
{"title":"If it bleeps it leads? Media coverage on cyber conflict and misperception","authors":"Christos Makridis, Lennart Maschmeyer, Max Smeets","doi":"10.1177/00223433231220264","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/00223433231220264","url":null,"abstract":"What determines media coverage on cyber conflict (CC)? Media bias fostering misperception is a well-established problem in conflict reporting. Because of the secrecy and complexity surrounding cyber operations (COs), where most data moreover come from marketing publications by private sector firms, this problem is likely to be especially pronounced in reporting on cyber threats. Because media reporting shapes public perception, such bias can shape conflict dynamics and outcomes with potentially destabilizing consequences. Yet little research has examined media bias systematically. This study connects existing literature on media reporting bias with the CC literature to formulate four theoretical explanations for variation in reporting on COs based on four corresponding characteristics of a CO. We introduce a new dataset of COs reporting by the private sector, which we call the Cyber Conflict Media Coverage Dataset, and media reporting on each of these operations. Consequently, we conduct a statistical analysis to identify which of these characteristics correlate with reporting quantity. This analysis shows that the use of novel techniques, specifically zero-day exploits, is a highly significant predictor of coverage quantity. Operations targeting the military or financial sector generate less coverage. We also find that cyber effect operations tend to receive more coverage compared to espionage, but this result is not statistically significant. Nonetheless, the predictive models explain limited variation in news coverage. These findings indicate that COs are treated differently in the media than other forms of conflict, and help explain persistent threat perception among the public despite the absence of catastrophic cyberattacks.","PeriodicalId":48324,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Peace Research","volume":"39 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.6,"publicationDate":"2024-01-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"139938939","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 : 2024-01-30DOI: 10.1177/00223433231218178
Eric Jardine, Nathaniel Porter, Ryan Shandler
When it comes to cybersecurity incidents – public opinion matters. But how do voters form opinions in the aftermath of cyberattacks that are shrouded in ambiguity? How do people account for the uncertainty inherent in cyberspace to forge preferences following attacks? This article seeks to answer these questions by introducing an uncertainty threshold mechanism predicting the level of attributional certainty required for the public to support economic, diplomatic or military responses following cyberattacks. Using a discrete-choice experimental design with 2025 US respondents, we find lower attributional certainty is associated with less support for retaliation, yet this mechanism is contingent on the suspected identity of the attacker and partisan identity. Diplomatic allies possess a reservoir of good will that amplifies the effect of uncertainty, while rivals are less often given the benefit of the doubt. We demonstrate that uncertainty encourages the use of cognitive schemas to overcome ambiguity, and that people fall back upon pre-existing and politically guided views about the suspected country behind an attack. If the ambiguity surrounding cyberattacks has typically been discussed as an operational and strategic concern, this article shifts the focus of attention to the human level and positions the mass public as a forgotten yet important party during cyber conflict.
{"title":"Cyberattacks and public opinion – The effect of uncertainty in guiding preferences","authors":"Eric Jardine, Nathaniel Porter, Ryan Shandler","doi":"10.1177/00223433231218178","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/00223433231218178","url":null,"abstract":"When it comes to cybersecurity incidents – public opinion matters. But how do voters form opinions in the aftermath of cyberattacks that are shrouded in ambiguity? How do people account for the uncertainty inherent in cyberspace to forge preferences following attacks? This article seeks to answer these questions by introducing an uncertainty threshold mechanism predicting the level of attributional certainty required for the public to support economic, diplomatic or military responses following cyberattacks. Using a discrete-choice experimental design with 2025 US respondents, we find lower attributional certainty is associated with less support for retaliation, yet this mechanism is contingent on the suspected identity of the attacker and partisan identity. Diplomatic allies possess a reservoir of good will that amplifies the effect of uncertainty, while rivals are less often given the benefit of the doubt. We demonstrate that uncertainty encourages the use of cognitive schemas to overcome ambiguity, and that people fall back upon pre-existing and politically guided views about the suspected country behind an attack. If the ambiguity surrounding cyberattacks has typically been discussed as an operational and strategic concern, this article shifts the focus of attention to the human level and positions the mass public as a forgotten yet important party during cyber conflict.","PeriodicalId":48324,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Peace Research","volume":"21 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.6,"publicationDate":"2024-01-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"139939018","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 : 2024-01-30DOI: 10.1177/00223433231214406
Celeste Beesley, Eliza Riley Oak
While studies show that the public disapproves of trade with adversaries, political discourse has historically used security rhetoric to both justify and oppose trade with threatening states. Does emphasizing the potential of trade to exacerbate or mitigate security risks sway public opinion? Is public opinion malleable regardless of the level of threat? These questions become increasingly important as security and economic interactions between states become more intertwined. In a 2019 survey experiment, Ukrainian citizens report more optimism about the effects of trade with Russia (engaged in conflict with Ukraine since 2014) when told that trade decreases security risks. They are more pessimistic when presented with information that trade increases the risk of conflict. In contrast, attitudes about trade with a non-threatening trading partner (the European Union) are unaffected. This study demonstrates that the security effects of trade can both improve and worsen attitudes about trade with politically salient adversaries, even in the context of actual conflict. However, security rhetoric is unlikely to change public opinion about trade with non-threatening states unless they are viewed as reliable allies. Public opinion about trade, thus, responds to rhetoric about security, rather than representing an inflexible constraint on firms’ and states’ trade with adversaries.
{"title":"Public opinion on trading with the enemy: Trade’s effects on the risk of war","authors":"Celeste Beesley, Eliza Riley Oak","doi":"10.1177/00223433231214406","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/00223433231214406","url":null,"abstract":"While studies show that the public disapproves of trade with adversaries, political discourse has historically used security rhetoric to both justify and oppose trade with threatening states. Does emphasizing the potential of trade to exacerbate or mitigate security risks sway public opinion? Is public opinion malleable regardless of the level of threat? These questions become increasingly important as security and economic interactions between states become more intertwined. In a 2019 survey experiment, Ukrainian citizens report more optimism about the effects of trade with Russia (engaged in conflict with Ukraine since 2014) when told that trade decreases security risks. They are more pessimistic when presented with information that trade increases the risk of conflict. In contrast, attitudes about trade with a non-threatening trading partner (the European Union) are unaffected. This study demonstrates that the security effects of trade can both improve and worsen attitudes about trade with politically salient adversaries, even in the context of actual conflict. However, security rhetoric is unlikely to change public opinion about trade with non-threatening states unless they are viewed as reliable allies. Public opinion about trade, thus, responds to rhetoric about security, rather than representing an inflexible constraint on firms’ and states’ trade with adversaries.","PeriodicalId":48324,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Peace Research","volume":"42 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.6,"publicationDate":"2024-01-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"139939045","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 : 2024-01-30DOI: 10.1177/00223433231221426
Thomas Zeitzoff, Grace Gold
Much of the focus of cyber conflict has been on interstate conflict. This article focuses on two interrelated questions in the important but neglected area of cyber contentious politics. First, how does the public feel about the use of different eco tactics including cyber-based tactics carried out by activists involved in the radical environmental movement, a movement that uses protest and sabotage in service of environmental causes? Second, how do anti-technology sentiment and concerns about climate change influence support for different eco tactics? To answer these questions, we conduct a survey and survey experiment on a nationally diverse sample of Americans. We find that Americans are less supportive of certain eco tactics, particularly those that involve property destruction or physical sabotage compared to cyber-based tactics. We further show that anti-technology sentiment and perceived threat from climate change are correlated with increased support for eco direct actions. Using a survey experiment we show that cyber direct actions that result in sabotage are viewed as more acceptable than kinetic actions even though they both result in the same level of destruction. Finally, we include qualitative data from interviews with activists to better understand the strategy and role that new technology and tactics play in the broader radical environmental movement.
{"title":"Cyber and contentious politics: Evidence from the US radical environmental movement","authors":"Thomas Zeitzoff, Grace Gold","doi":"10.1177/00223433231221426","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/00223433231221426","url":null,"abstract":"Much of the focus of cyber conflict has been on interstate conflict. This article focuses on two interrelated questions in the important but neglected area of cyber contentious politics. First, how does the public feel about the use of different eco tactics including cyber-based tactics carried out by activists involved in the radical environmental movement, a movement that uses protest and sabotage in service of environmental causes? Second, how do anti-technology sentiment and concerns about climate change influence support for different eco tactics? To answer these questions, we conduct a survey and survey experiment on a nationally diverse sample of Americans. We find that Americans are less supportive of certain eco tactics, particularly those that involve property destruction or physical sabotage compared to cyber-based tactics. We further show that anti-technology sentiment and perceived threat from climate change are correlated with increased support for eco direct actions. Using a survey experiment we show that cyber direct actions that result in sabotage are viewed as more acceptable than kinetic actions even though they both result in the same level of destruction. Finally, we include qualitative data from interviews with activists to better understand the strategy and role that new technology and tactics play in the broader radical environmental movement.","PeriodicalId":48324,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Peace Research","volume":"39 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.6,"publicationDate":"2024-01-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"139938922","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 : 2024-01-30DOI: 10.1177/00223433231211761
Joakim Kreutz, Magda Lorena Cárdenas
This article presents new data on the individuals who mediate (M-IND) in all active UCDP dyads and lethal MIDs, 1989–2019. The dataset contributes to the systematic study of conflict management in several important respects: it covers both international and internal conflicts, it covers low-intensity violence, and it provides information on individual mediators, who appointed them, and type of mediation. Besides presenting the data collection and descriptive statistics, the article engages with the literatures on multiparty mediation and women, peace and security. M-IND shows that women more commonly are appointed as mediators by nongovernmental organizations than by states and international organizations. Our analysis suggests that greater equality in mediation efforts correlates with the use of more varied mediation strategies and is associated with a greater chance of reaching peace agreements.
{"title":"The women and men that make peace: Introducing the Mediating Individuals (M-IND) dataset","authors":"Joakim Kreutz, Magda Lorena Cárdenas","doi":"10.1177/00223433231211761","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/00223433231211761","url":null,"abstract":"This article presents new data on the individuals who mediate (M-IND) in all active UCDP dyads and lethal MIDs, 1989–2019. The dataset contributes to the systematic study of conflict management in several important respects: it covers both international and internal conflicts, it covers low-intensity violence, and it provides information on individual mediators, who appointed them, and type of mediation. Besides presenting the data collection and descriptive statistics, the article engages with the literatures on multiparty mediation and women, peace and security. M-IND shows that women more commonly are appointed as mediators by nongovernmental organizations than by states and international organizations. Our analysis suggests that greater equality in mediation efforts correlates with the use of more varied mediation strategies and is associated with a greater chance of reaching peace agreements.","PeriodicalId":48324,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Peace Research","volume":"37 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.6,"publicationDate":"2024-01-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"139939042","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 : 2024-01-30DOI: 10.1177/00223433231219441
Ryan Shandler, Daphna Canetti
Investigating cyber conflict is enormously difficult. The domain is complex, quality data are sparse, international affairs are shrouded in secrecy, and despite its seeming ubiquity, cyber power has only recently entered the battlefield. In the face of these challenges, we must rise to meet the challenges of cybersecurity research by deploying creative methods that collect verifiable and probatory data, and which allow for predictive models of cyber behavior. Against this backdrop, our special issue offers a vision of cybersecurity research that embraces a culture of rigorous inquiry based on theoretically robust, and policy relevant investigation. We highlight two key features. First, research at the intersection of cybersecurity and political science must incorporate the human dimension of cyber conflict. A human security approach to cybersecurity places people as the primary objects of security and recognizes that individual-level analyses can shed light on macro-level trends. Second, cyber research must adopt rigorous, empirical methods. We embrace a broad tent of empirical data collection techniques – spanning qualitative and quantitative, experimental, and observational research. What is integral is that all scholarship abides by the highest standards of replicability and falsifiability. The articles contained in this special issue collectively form a proof of concept that expands the horizons of cybersecurity research from a substantive viewpoint (adding a human dimension to the prevalent military/strategic analyses), and from a methodological perspective (propounding the importance of empirical scrutiny). Together, these 10 pieces of scholarship collectively affirm that there is now a critical mass of substantively diverse and empirically rigorous research in the field of cybersecurity, and that we as a community are capable of making bold, theoretically grounded, and empirically tested claims that verify how cyber power is or is not altering the nature of peace, conflict and international relations.
{"title":"Introduction: Cyber-conflict – Moving from speculation to investigation","authors":"Ryan Shandler, Daphna Canetti","doi":"10.1177/00223433231219441","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/00223433231219441","url":null,"abstract":"Investigating cyber conflict is enormously difficult. The domain is complex, quality data are sparse, international affairs are shrouded in secrecy, and despite its seeming ubiquity, cyber power has only recently entered the battlefield. In the face of these challenges, we must rise to meet the challenges of cybersecurity research by deploying creative methods that collect verifiable and probatory data, and which allow for predictive models of cyber behavior. Against this backdrop, our special issue offers a vision of cybersecurity research that embraces a culture of rigorous inquiry based on theoretically robust, and policy relevant investigation. We highlight two key features. First, research at the intersection of cybersecurity and political science must incorporate the human dimension of cyber conflict. A human security approach to cybersecurity places people as the primary objects of security and recognizes that individual-level analyses can shed light on macro-level trends. Second, cyber research must adopt rigorous, empirical methods. We embrace a broad tent of empirical data collection techniques – spanning qualitative and quantitative, experimental, and observational research. What is integral is that all scholarship abides by the highest standards of replicability and falsifiability. The articles contained in this special issue collectively form a proof of concept that expands the horizons of cybersecurity research from a substantive viewpoint (adding a human dimension to the prevalent military/strategic analyses), and from a methodological perspective (propounding the importance of empirical scrutiny). Together, these 10 pieces of scholarship collectively affirm that there is now a critical mass of substantively diverse and empirically rigorous research in the field of cybersecurity, and that we as a community are capable of making bold, theoretically grounded, and empirically tested claims that verify how cyber power is or is not altering the nature of peace, conflict and international relations.","PeriodicalId":48324,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Peace Research","volume":"10 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.6,"publicationDate":"2024-01-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"139939043","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：