Contemporary Civil War Studies and Beyond

 International Relations

Beyond Warfare Data

 

The Contemporary Importance of the Civil Society

 

 

 

I. Introduction

 

Using quantitative data on guns, benefits and bodies is trending in warfare studies (Fearon, 1995; Sambanis, 2002; Dixon, 2009) Yet, this paper will look at such practice’s limitations under the contemporary context and will encourage us to enquire about ambiguity and the role of unarmed civilians. Although,  quantitative data is needed, it is incomplete as (1) it is unable to include every direct- and indirect consequences of an armed conflict –; and (2) is incapable of realising the relevant disparities, for example between two ethnically motivated conflicts, such as those between Croats and Serbs and between Russia and Ukraine, which will be our tool for analysis (Steele, 2020; Posen, 1993). The reasons for this are (1) the differences between these conflicts – despite their common ethnic ground – and that (2) their pre-9/11 setting will support our elaboration of the out-dated nature and limitations of looking only at directly-related numbers. Focusing qualitatively on a limited number of examples also allow the research to be more focused and critical (Krusenvik, 2016).

After looking at the strengths of current data-gatherings, we will open up their limitations, which will lead us to the role of civil society: the field that needs to be involved in warfare-analysis in order to keep up with coeval developments (Sanín and Wood, 2014; Maynard, 2019). Although, we must not be misled: it is not about whether qualitative or quantitative approaches should dominate the scrutiny, rather how we should combine them under a universal framework of concept-definitions.

 

 

II. What Are the Numbers of Guns, Benefits and Bodies Able to Tell Us?

 

Quantitative numbers of guns, benefits and war-related deaths are important starting points. They indeed sufficiently give us an idea about the scale of a particular conflict, which may be useful for international actors when deliberating intervention (Wise, 2013).  In the example of the tension between Russia and Ukraine datasets were informative on its ethnic-based formation and its nuclear-nature (Posen, 1193; Council on Foreign Relations, 2020). Similarly, – although later than Posen’s article – data was used by the NATO to assess the need of intervention in the ethnic conflict among the Croats and Serbs in 1999 (Wise, 2013). Yet, data was unable to tell the reasons behind the different directions these correspondingly ethnic-wars went to, without involving the locals’ views (Posen, 1993). In addition, we are now beyond 9/11, in a new era of warfare what must not be ignored (Kaldor, 2013).

 

 

III. What Are We Missing?

 

First, we must highlight how these datasets often do not start counting casualties under 1000 deaths in one calendar year, which method itself is unable to acknowledge armed conflict with ‘just’ 999 deaths (Steele, 2020). In addition, every dataset varies in the definition of what counts as a civil war death and therefore, in their findings as well (Beck et al., 2000; Steele, 2020). For example, Sambanis’ Probit Models of Civil War Onset table is relative to his definitions (2010: 838-839, in Steele, 2020).

As warfare became more ambiguous, they also miss the indirect casualties of a conflict (e.g. those who became victims of sexual violence or those who decide to refuge from the conflict and lose their lives on the way, outside the conflict zone) (Geneva Declaration on Armed Violence and Development, 2008; Bulutgil, in Steele 2020; Steele, in Steele 2020; Cohen, in Steele 2020). Those civilian lives should equally matter for reports.

For instance, comparing the tension between the Croats and Serbs with the conflict between Russia and Ukraine, investigators should have count non-battle deaths, victims of displacement, rape, etc. in order to get a comprehensive, new type of reflection on a new type of conflict (Posen, 1993; Lindsey, 2002; Lazarenko, 2018).

 

Second, not only the nature of post-Cold War warfare, but the locus of conflict has changed. Conflicts have moved away from guerrilla wars, and civil wars are concentrated in the Sub-Sahara (Kalyvas and Balcells, 2010). Therefore, contemporary research should follow this shift in its methodology and consider the new actors of the new type of warfare.

Although, to expose the cause of ethnic conflict, Cederman et al. have built a new dataset, but it is also subjective to their definition of ‘ethnicity’ (2010). Therefore, – as Kalyvas correctly pointed out – contemporary scholars must go beyond (2003). We must involve – ideologically motivated – civilians, who might not fall under certain definitions to be include in a dataset but are still involved in the conflict though alternative means (Sanín and Wood, 2014; Maynard, 2019).

 

 

IV. The Role of Civilians

 

To resolve these issues, contemporary research of conflict must be extended. We must critically reconstruct warfare-enquiry and combine the data on guns, benefits and bodies with the role of civilians. Yet, we must do so through a universal definition of ‘civilians’, ‘ethnicity’ and ‘war related deaths’. This way, we will minimise the issue of excluding a certain number of conflicts (due to lower numbers of casualties) or deaths (as a result of their indirect nature) from our conclusions.

 

We must critique the existing literature on missing how different causes of war lead to disparate assertions and outcomes. It should be important how a conflict arises among civilians, because it makes a difference in how (if) it can be resolved (Sanín and Wood, 2014; Maynard, 2019; Steele, 2020). Therefore, civilians’ rationales behind starting a war should be taken into account. Consequently, the role of civilians should be added to the quantitative datasets on guns, benefits and bodies because every group in conflict differs in nature, in background and motives (Posen, 2003). 

 

In the cases of the conflict among the Croats and Serbs and the one between Russia and Ukraine, the finding that ethnic groups differ in their organisation and mobilisation, as well as in their likeliness to arm, gets confirmed. These cases also confirm – what Steele noted – that ‘… in ethnic civil wars we find a lot of variation in how they evolve, why they start…’ (Posen, 1993; Steele, 2020). Therefore, as it was mentioned earlier, we must go beyond the ethnic-level of motivation to capture civilians and their purpose behind. 

 

 

V. Conclusions and Looking Forward

 

This essay has critically investigated whether scholars need to go beyond calculating guns, benefits and bodies and begin discussing ambiguity and the role of ordinary and unarmed people. I have been doing so by uncovering the issues with such data-driven analysis and the limitations of the obscure definitions that determine who and what can be in a particular dataset – often excluding many relevant actors and deaths (Steele, 2020; Geneva Declaration on Armed Violence and Development, 2008; Bulutgil, in Steele 2020; Steele, in Steele 2020; Cohen, 2015; Posen, 1993; Kalyvas and Balcells, 2010; Cederman et al., 2010; Kalyvas,2003). We need to move away from these approaches because warfare has changed: it has become turbid who and to what extent is included. Therefore, in this contemporary ambiguity we need to extend the approach with the inclusion of the civilians’ roles, because actors of civil wars – as we have seen through the examples of the Croats and Serbs and Ukraine with Russia – are now embedded in society (Sanín and Wood, 2014; Maynard, 2019). It is not justifiable anymore to make a distinction, excluding them from warfare inspections. Although this study has shown the need for extending the current trends of quantitative data, it is not to say by any means that it needs to be overruled, but only broadening with other parallel information. There is a need for future research to specify how this combined-approach should be characterised and how the concepts involved should be ‘defined’ universally.

 

 

 

Bibliography

 

 

Beck, N., King, G. and Zeng, L. (2000) ‘Improving Quantitative Studies of International Conflict: A Conjecture’ The American Political Science Review 94(1) JSTOR [online] pp 21-35. Available at: https://www.jstor.org/stable/2586378 (accessed on 23/09/2020)

Cederman, L.-E., Wimmer, A. and Min, B. (2010) ‘Why Do Ethnic Groups Rebel? New Data and Analysis’ World Politics 62(1) Cambridge Core [online] pp. 87–119 Available at: https://doi-org.proxy.uba.uva.nl:2443/10.1017/S0043887109990219 (accessed on 23/09/2020)

Council on Foreign Relations (2020) Conflict in Ukraine Council on Foreign Relations [online]  Available at: https://www.cfr.org/global-conflict-tracker/conflict/conflict-ukraine (accessed on 24/09/2020)

Dixon, J. (2009) ‘What Causes Civil Wars? Integrating Quantitative Research Findings’ International Studies Review11(4) Oxford Academic [online] pp. 707–735 Available at: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2486.2009.00892.x(accessed on 26/09/2020)

Fearon, J. (1995) ‘Rationalist Explanations for War’ International Organization 49(3) JSTOR [online] pp. 379-414 Available at: http://www.jstor.org/stable/2706903 (accessed on 19/09/2020)

Geneva Declaration on Armed Violence and Development (2008) ‘Chapter 2. The Many Victims of War: Indirect Conflict Deaths Global’ in Geneva Declaration on Armed Violence and Development (ed.) Burden of Armed Violence 2008 Geneva Declaration on Armed Violence and Development [online] Available at: http://www.genevadeclaration.org/measurability/global-burden-of-armed-violence/global-burden-of-armed-violence-2008.html (accessed on 23/09/2020)

Kaldor, M. (2013) ‘In Defence of New Wars’ International Journal of Security and Development 2(1) Stability Journal[online] Available at: https://www.stabilityjournal.org/articles/10.5334/sta.at/ (accessed on 24/09/2020)

Kalyvas, S. N. (2003) ‘The Ontology of "Political Violence": Action and Identity in Civil Wars’ Perspectives on Politics 1(3) JSTOR [online] pp. 475-494 Available at: https://www.jstor.org/stable/3688707 (accessed on 19/09/2020)

Kalyvas, S. and Balcells, L. (2010) ‘International System and Technologies of Rebellion: How the End of the Cold War Shaped Internal Conflict’ The American Political Science Review 104(3) JSTOR [online] pp. 415-429 Available at: https://www.jstor.org/stable/40863761 (accessed on 19/09/2020)

Krusenvik L. (2016) Using Case Studies as a Scientific Method: Advantages and Disadvantages Halmstad University Student Thesis Digitala Vetenskapliga Arkivet [online] Available at http://www.diva-portal.org/smash/record.jsf?pid=diva2%3A1054643&dswid=-2609 (accessed on 24/09/2020)

Lazarenko, V. (2018) ‘Conflict in Ukraine: multiplicity of narratives about the war and displacement’ European Politics and Society 20(5) Taylor & Francis Online [online] pp. 550-566 Available at: https://doi.org/10.1080/23745118.2018.1552108 (accessed on 25/09/2020)

Lindsey, R. (2010) ‘From atrocity to data: historiographies of rape in Former Yugoslavia and the gendering of genocide’ Patterns of Prejudice 36(4) Taylor & Francis Online [online] pp. 59-78 Available at: https://doi.org/10.1080/003132202128811556 (accessed on 25/09/2020)

Maynard, J. L. (2019) ‘Ideology and armed conflict’ Journal of Peace Research 56(5) JSTOR [online] pp. 635–649 Available at: https://doi.org/10.1177/0022343319826629 (accessed on 24/09/2020)

Posen, B. (1993) ‘The Security Dilemma and Ethnic Conflict’ Survival 35(1) ProQuest [online] pp. 27–47 Available at: https://search.proquest.com/docview/1299585488?accountid=14615 (accessed on 18/09/2020)

Sanín, F. G. and Wood, E. J. (2014) ‘Ideology in civil war: Instrumental adoption and beyond’ Journal of Peace Research 51(2) SAGE journals [online] pp. 213–226 Available at: https://doi-org.proxy.uba.uva.nl:2443/10.1177/0022343313514073 (accessed on 22/09/2020)

Sambanis, N. (2002) ‘A Review of Recent Advances and Future Directions in the Quantitative Literature on Civil War’ Defence and Peace Economics 13(3) Taylor & Francis Online [online] pp. 215-243 Available at:https://doi.org/10.1080/10242690210976 (accessed on 26/09/2020)

Sambanis, N. (2004) ‘What Is Civil War?: Conceptual and Empirical Complexities of an Operational Definition’ Journal of Conflict Resolution 48(6) SAGE journals pp. 814–858 Available at: https://doi-org.proxy.uba.uva.nl:2443/10.1177%2F0022002704269355 (accessed on 24/09/2020)

Steele, A. (2020) Specialisation Course International Relations lecture University of Amsterdam released on 14/09/2020 UvA Canvas [online] Available at: https://webcolleges.uva.nl/Mediasite/Play/e8cbd713509342d8afb07a55c30f43e51d (accessed on 14/09/2020)

Wise, L. (2013) Was NATO’s Intervention in Kosovo in 1999 ‘Just’? E-International Relations [online] Available at: https://www.e-ir.info/2013/06/21/was-natos-intervention-in-kosovo-in-1999-just/ (accessed on 24/09/2020)

 

Appendix: Sambanis’ Probit Models of Civil War Onset (2010: 838-839)

mentioned in Steele, 2020