Hoeffler Civil War

His approach attempts to consider deeper causes of intrastate violence than traditional case-studies have done (Newman 2014, 63). Newman identifies four general types of civil war: ethnic, political-ideological, weakened or failed state, and resource-based (Newman 2014, 63-65). Most intrastate conflicts can be characterized by a combination of these classifications and their influences. Newman defines four loose requirements for a conflict to be considered using this model. First, a conflict must mainly occur within the borders of an internationally recognized state to be considered “civil” rather than interstate (Newman 2014, 62). Secondly, civil wars are fought between organized groups rather than individuals or unorganized affiliates (Newman 2014, 62). Governmental military forces fit this mold, but are not required for a conflict to be deemed as intrastate. Third, there must be evidence of sustained violence. Newman defines this threshold as 1,000 fatalities (Newman 2014, 62). Last, belligerents must be fighting with a political objective in mind (Newman 2014, 62). This requirement is given a wide range of applicability, as almost any objectives of a group can be defined as political. The Nigerian civil war of the late 1960s fits all of these parameters, and can therefore be analyzed using the typologic system devised by

Rebellion within a country brings terror, if not mediocrity to the government. People will grow

Throughout history, our world has constantly been bruised and battered by civil turmoil. Today, the civil war in Syria decimates the country; the Israeli and Palestinian conflict rages on; tens of thousands of people have been killed in South Sudan's ongoing civil war. It is not always easy to isolate what exactly ignites the flames of war, but, whenever possible, finding a workable, calm and satisfying solution to a potential uprising is preferable.

Joint Publication (JP) 3-24 and Field Manual (FM) 3-24.2 have slightly different definitions of insurgency. JP 3-34 defines it as the organized use of subversion and violence by a group or movement that seeks to overthrow or force change of a governing authority. FM 3-24.2 defines it as a protracted politico-military struggle designed to weaken government control and legitimacy while increasing insurgent control. I have problems with both definitions. However, I disagree more with the joint publication. This paper will explain why.

However, the rebellion is identified with a non-international armed conflict when it corresponds to the characteristics set for the existence of this type of conflict. By cons, insurrection or rebellion usually indicates a violent movement and decided collectively by a significant portion of the inhabitants of a territory who rebel, by arms against the government in place.

Collier’s Greed and Grievance stands for an argument that intrastate and intestate conflicts are enthused by desire, desire to better their predicament; the cost-benefit analysis indicates that the incentives of a rebellion compared to silence are significantly high, is known as “greed”. The argument presented in “grievance” is that people dissident due to identity dilemmas; for example, ethnicity, social class and religion. Both play a role in an intrastate conflict, sometimes one drives the other and others the each of the argument are the sole conspirator of transpiring a rebellion. However, Collier concentrated on the economic factors that play into a conflict; the yearning for self-enrichment, greed.

Conflict between and within nations is proven by history to be expected, but the answer to which countries are at a higher risk for conflict depends on whom you are asking. The reading “Ethnicity, Insurgency and Civil War” by James D. Fearon and David D. Laitin, argues that the conditions that favour insurgency are better predictors of which countries are at risk for internal conflict. Determining which countries are at a higher risk depends on multiple logical factors for the perfect environment for rebellion to occur. These factors are based on the political, economic, and organization of the state in question. Fearon and Laitin dissect the formula for rebellion piece by piece over the course of the entire article. By the end it left me in

Greed and grievances are found to be two of the most crucial causes of most violent conflicts as well as the driving forces of mass rebellion. In the case of Sierra Leone, a war that went on from 1991 to 2002 killing about 50,000 people and displacing almost two thirds of the total population is a great example of a violent conflict that fits both the greed and grievance based explanation. At the time, Sierra Leon was a country based on a one party system and dominated by the APC also known as the ‘All people’s congress’. During the APC regime there was great misuse of political power for the parties personal gain. There appeared to be great decline of “total output, neglect of agriculture, increase in unemployment, deterioration and neglect of agriculture, increase in unemployment” (Naguib, 2015). Although the president at the time made major reforms that pushed for a more democratic state, that guaranteed basic human rights, he did not keep his promising allowing the APC to continue in

The following wars have been divided between 1.) Wars caused by ethnic issues and 2.) Wars not caused by ethnic issues. After determining the cause of war, I will focus on particular aspects of the war predominantly the death toll, how long the war lasted, if core states got involved in the conflict and if so how far removed were they from the region of conflict. Finally and most importantly, I will compare and contrast the two types of wars (1.) Wars caused by ethnic conflict and 2.) Wars not caused by ethnic conflict) and determine how these wars were ultimately resolved. More specifically, I am determining if wars caused by ethic issues are resolved by internal means or whether they are resolved by external factors such as core states or states that have an invested interest in the matter.

The Syrian Civil War follows the Crane Brinton model when it enters Phase One. When it enters Phase One, reformers speak out against the government. In February 2011, a group of children protesting using graffiti are arrested and tortured. The civil war begins with civilians protesting against the government, causing the government to react with violence. A month later, as civilians begin to realize there is something wrong with their government, they continue to rise against it. More and more protesters rise, causing the government to react violently by firing at and killing them in March 2011. These first two months of the war show the first symptoms of the “fever” represented by the Crane Brinton Model.

Studying civil wars can be a very complicated endeavor. This is because the topic is very difficult to break down. When scholars study civil wars, there are many variables that can’t be controlled that can skew data. This makes finding interactions between different variables more difficult. Their complex entanglement, in addition to there being many variables to begin with, makes studying civil wars interesting yet particularly challenging. In the late 1950s and early 1960s, the world was experiencing a wave of conflict proliferation. From South America to Asia and everywhere in between, many states found themselves embroiled in civil conflict. With the US fighting communism from spreading and the Soviet Union fighting to make sure it spread, many domestic issues became internationalized when super powers (more often so than not) became involved. With the rivalry between both hegemons growing more intense, countries experiencing civil conflicts found themselves aided (and sometimes occupied) by both sides. Conflicts in smaller states became proxy wars as the US and the USSR battled it out for supremacy. In both Guatemala and Vietnam, they too got caught up in the middle of the fight. Although the civil wars of both countries began close in time to one another, it is important to analyze their differences in order to

Revolutions that took place decades ago have started due to politics being at the nub of every situation. The key factors that are most likely to spark a revolution often involved mass frustration, clash of ideologies, disconnect between two parties and oppression of the masses. In this paper, we will examine “Revolution” and “Civil War” the differences and what usually triggers them. Based on several readings involving these two topics, we will take a close look at the work of a few Historians, philosophers and socialists to better understand the concept of a revolution and a civil war. First, we will define these two concepts, second analyze them closely while comparing two countries which previously undergone this experience, third explain

Throughout human history, from tribal groups to contemporary nations, individuals have waged war through a structure – through the collective. This act of collective war has ravaged nations, continents, and even the world. These conflicts occur for reasons ranging from religious differences to economic circumstances. However, a precedent has been set that these conflicts always combat a group, whether it be a group ideology or the members that make it up. Large scale conflicts never seek out the individual and for good reason. The development of individualistic anarchy where humanity wages war against itself inevitability ends in utter destruction. Therefore, there are distinct advantages to the formal

The empirical study of Collier and Hoeffler of 2004 will serve as starting point and basis of this paper, as it has initiated the debate about whether greed or grievance explanations about the origins of civil wars are inferior, as well as it was extremely famous and influential - not only in the academic sector, but also in policy and donor circles and the media (Berdal, 2005; Keen). However, because policy implications resulting out of their economic based conclusion are not overall appropriate, the study needs to be revisited with new data and novel approaches.

The extant literature shows two trends. First, a few large-N studies which showed strong correlations between climate and conflict used civil war datasets as the measure of the outcome variable. The use of an aggregated country level civil war data may be missing the most important features of the accuracy, degree, and severity of the impact of climate change on Africa’s security environment. The use of civil war and political violence datasets to capture the impact of climate change may produce misleading outcomes. Unlike civil conflict and political violence, climate-related conflicts may be mirroring the ebb and flow of climatic conditions. Different from civil wars and political violence, climate-related conflicts may become intense during the drier months and recede during the rainy or wet months of the year. Using aggregated country-level civil war datasets to measure climate-induced conflicts misses the important nuances we need to determine cause and effect—the causation linking climate change to violent conflict, and exposes such analysis to the ecological fallacy trap. The drawback of using aggregated data has been addressed by studies using sub-state, micro-level data, and case studies. Most of the studies that used sub-state data also reported connections between climate and conflict, and most were situated in the Horn of Africa or in countries with histories of volatilities. Finally, there are those who suggested