Political Violence

Course Organization

Course Description

Political violence manifests itself at all levels of social organisation. “War” is today the least important contemporary manifestation of political violence, which implicates non-state armed groups, inter-communal conflicts, large-scale criminal-political violence, rebellions, localised struggles, and acts of terror. This research seminar will examine the global distribution of armed violence, and develop different inter-disciplinary approaches to explaining contemporary violence in different cases and contexts. Students will be expected to present case study research papers. “Contemporary Issues in Conflict and Security” is a prerequisite for this seminar, or permission of the instructor.

Course Structure
The first part of the course will examine issues such as the definition of “violence,” the “new wars” debate, contemporary warlordism, communal conflicts, non-state armed groups, genocidal violence and state violence. This is by no means an exhaustive list, and in each case, a mix of conceptual and empirical material will be introduced, in order to expose students to a wide range of examples (and possible research paper topics). The last part of the course will be devoted to presentations and discussions of student's research papers, which should explore one of the themes of the course in a focused research case study.

Full participation is expected of all students in the seminar. This includes having read the required readings, and being prepared to discuss them critically. Final grades will in large part be determined by the level and quality of seminar participation, by presentations that will be scheduled according to the number of students in the seminar, and by the critique each student offers of one other student’s draft research paper.

Note: in order to take this seminar you must have either taken “Contemporary Issues in Conflict and Security” or have received my permission to enrol.

Assignments
The first assignment is a short “literature review” of the readings for the second week. It is due 9 March, at the beginning of the seminar.

The main focus of this seminar is on the individual research paper, which will account for 50 percent of your final grade. A draft of the paper must be presented in class, and distributed to all students electronically no later than the Friday before your scheduled presentation. I will provide comments on the paper, but no grade. If you do not present a draft on the scheduled date, you will receive a zero grade on the research paper. In other words, although the draft itself receives no grade, if you do not present one in class you will fail the course.

The research paper must be an empirically-grounded, theoretically-informed, exploration of a particular case study or set of cases relevant to the theme of this course. It cannot be a mere review of theoretical literature, or simply a narrative account of a particular case. It must have an argument, a conceptual framework, an empirical “field” (case or cases, or data, etc.), and a coherent research strategy or method. Case studies that examine a particular theme in the context of recent or current violence and armed conflict (Afghanistan, Sudan, Somalia, Algeria, Sri Lanka, Iraq, Nigeria, Nepal, Rwanda, Burundi, Liberia, Guatemala, Cambodia, Colombia, Mexico, Democratic Republic of Congo, Angola, Venezuela, Nicaragua, etc.) are particularly welcome, but the analysis is not restricted to war or post-conflict states.

Grades will be distributed as follows:
literature review (second week’s readings, 5 pages, due 9 March)    15%       
paper presentation and seminar participation                                    25%
research paper (approximately 30 pages)                                          50%
paper critique                                                                                      10 %

Students will be free to choose the topic for their research paper, although it must be determined in consultation with me.


Readings
The course readings are not introductory-level, and presume some familiarity with main approaches to violence and conflict studies. The required readings for weeks four onwards will be made available in a “kit” or polycopie. The polycopie must be ordered through the ’imprimerie minute’. A packet of readings for weeks one to three is available for purchase from the course assistant (CHIU Sze Wai aka Nikita). You must do the readings to participate in (or do well in) the course. Other readings may be added as we go along.

There are a number of good journals that treat the themes in this course. Among some you might find useful would be:

Journal of Conflict Resolution
International Security
Terrorism and Political Violence
Nationalism and Ethnic Politics
Studies in Conflict and Terrorism
Small Wars and Insurgencies
Civil Wars

Finally, some sessions of the seminar will have to be rescheduled to accommodate some unavoidable commitments on my part. I will provide as much warning as possible for this.
Note: There is no class 16 February, but registered students are expected to pick up the first polycopie and do the required readings before the course on 23 February. An extra session will be scheduled at the end of the course for presentations.


Introduction: “Violence” and “Political” (February 23)

Charles Tilly, The Politics of Collective Violence, 1-80.
David Apter, “Political Violence in Analytical Perspective,” in David Apter, ed., The Legitimization of Violence, 1-32.
Mary R. Jackman, "Violence in Social Life," Annual Review of Sociology, 28 (2002). 387-414.
Vittorio Bufacchi, “Two Concepts of Violence,” Political Studies Review, 3 (2005), 193-204.
Michael Brzoska, “Appendix C: Collective Violence beyond the Standard Definition of Armed Conflict,” in SIPRI Yearbook 2007, 94-106.


The Changing Face of War and the “New Wars” Debate (March 2)
 

1. Herfried Münkler, The New Wars, 1-31.
2. Mary Kaldor, New and Old Wars: Organised Violence in a Global Era (Stanford, Cal: Standford University Press, 2001), pp. 13-30, 69-89.
3. Stathis Kalyvas, “‘New’ and ‘Old’ Civil Wars: A Valid Distinction?” World Politics, 54 (October 2001), 99-118.
4. Erik Melander, Magnus Öberg and Jonathan Hall, “The ‘New Wars’ Debate Revisited: An Empirical Evaluation of the Atrociousness of ‘New Wars’,” Uppsala Peace Research Papers no. 9, Uppsala University, 2006.
5. Geneva Declaration Secretariat, The Global Burden of Armed Violence, 9-30.

Identity and Communal Conflicts (March 9)
 

1. James Fearon and David Laitin, “Ethnicity, Insurgency and Civil War,” American Political Science Review, 97:1 (February 2003), 75-89.
2. Rogers Brubaker and David Laitin, “Ethnic and Nationalist Violence,” Annual Review of Sociology, 24 (1998), 423-452.
3. Chaim Kaufmann, “Possible and Impossible Solutions to Ethnic Civil Wars,” International Security, 20:4 (Spring 1996), 136-175.
4. V.P. Gagnon, “Ethnic Nationalism and International Conflict: The Case of Serbia,” International Security, 19:3 (Winter 1994-95), 130-166.
5. Nicholas Sambanis, “Partition as a Solution to Ethnic War: An Empirical Critique of the Theoretical Literature,” World Politics, 52 (July 2000), 437-483.
6. James Fearon and David Laitin, “Violence and the Social Construction of Identity,” International organization, 54:4 (Autumn 2000), 845-877.
7. Bruce Gilley, “Against the Concept of Ethnic Conflict,” Third World Quarterly, 25:6 (2004), 1155–1166.

The Ontology of Violence (March 16)
 

1. Stathis Kalyvas, “The Ontology of ‘Political Violence’: Action and Identity in Civil Wars,” Perspectives on Politics, 1:3 (September 2003), 475-494.
2. Stathis Kalyvas, The Logic of Violence in Civil War, 1-15, 146-209, 330-363.
3. Charles King, “The Micropolitics of Social Violence,” World Politics 56:3 (2004), 431-455.
4. Stathis Kalyvas, “Wanton and Senseless? The Logic of Massacres in Algeria,” Rationality and Society 11:3 (1999), pp. 243-285.
5. Elisabeth Jean Wood, “Variation of Sexual Violence during War,” Politics and Society 34:3 (2006), pp. 307-341.

Warlordism (March 23)
 

1. William Reno, Warlord Politics and African States, 1-44.
2. Kimberly Marten, “Warlordism in Comparative Perspective,” International Security, 31:3 (Winter 2006-2007), 41-73.
3. Daniel Brió, “The (Un)bearable Lightness of Violence: Warlordism as an Alternative Form of Governance in the ‘Westphalian Periphery,” in State Failure Revisited II: Actors of Violence and Alternative Forms of Governance, INEF Report 89/2007, 7-49.
4. Antonio Giustozzi, “The Debate on Warlordism: The Importance of Military Legitimacy,” Crisis States Discussion Papers, London School of Economics, 2005.
5. Morten Boas, “Liberia and Sierra Leone – Dead Ringers? The Logic of Neopatrimonial Rule,” Third World Quarterly, 22:5 (2001), 697-723.

Violence and Terror (March 30)
 

1. Robert Pape, “The Strategic Logic of Suicide Terrorism,” American Political Science Review, 97:3 (August 2003), 1-19.
2. Elizabeth Picard, “The Lebanese Shi’a and Political Violence in Lebanon,” in David Apter, ed., The Legitimization of Violence, 189-233.
3. Adrian Guelke, The Age of Terrorism, 1-17, 143-161.
4. Andrew Kydd and Barbara Walter, “The Strategies of Terrorism,” International Security, 31:1 (Summer 2006), 49-80.
5. Max Abrahms, “Why Terrorism Does Not Work,” International Security, 31:2 (Fall 2006), 42-78.
6. Mary Anne Weaver, “The Real bin Laden,” The New Yorker, 24 January 2000.
7. Various documents on Al-Qaeda.

Mass Killing and Genocidal Violence (April 6)
 

1. Jacques Sémelin, “From massacre to the genocidal process,” International Social Science Journal, 54:174 (December 2002), 433-442.
2. Benjamin Valentino, Final Solutions: Mass Killing and Genocide in the 20th Century, 1-90.
3. Zygmunt Bauman, “The Uniqueness and Normality of the Holocaust,” in Catherine Besteman, ed., Violence: A Reader, 67-96.
4. Gerard Prunier, The Rwanda Crisis: History of a Genocide, 213-280.
5. Helen Fein, “Revolutionary and Antirevolutionary Genocides: A Comparison of State
6. Murders in Democratic Kampuchea, 1975-1979, and in Indonesia, 1965-1966,” Comparative Studies in Society and History 35:4 (1993), 796-823.

Non-state Armed Groups (April 20)
 

1. Jeremy Weinstein, “Resources and the Information Problem in Rebel Recruitment,” Journal of Conflict Resolution, 49:4 (August 2005), 598-624.
2. Stathis Kalyvas and Matthew Adam Kocher, “How ‘Free’ is Free Riding in Civil Wars: Violence: Insurgency and the Collective Action Problem,” World Politics, 59 (January 2007), 177-216.
3. Maria Eriksson Baaz and Maria Stern, “Making Sense of Violence: Voices of Soldiers in the Congo (DRC), Journal of Modern African Studies, 46:1 (2008), 57-86.
4. Klaus Schlichte, “With the State against the State? The Formation of Armed Groups,” unpublished paper 2008.
5. Anthony Vinci, “Existential Motivations in the Lord's Resistance Army's Continuing Conflict,” Studies in Conflict and Terrorism, 30:4 (April 2007), 337-352.
6. Lisa Hultman, “Battle Losses and Rebel Violence: Raising the Costs for Fighting,” Terrorism and Political Violence, 19:2 (2007), 205-222.

Violence and the State: Latin America (April 27)
 

1. Mark Mazower, “Violence and the State in the Twentieth Century,” American Historical Review, 107:4 (October 2002),
2. Fernando Coronil and Julie Skurski, “Dismembering and Remembering the Nation: The Semantics of Political Violence in Venezuela,” Comparative Studies in Society and History 33:2 (1991), 288-337.
3. Kees Koonings, “Political Armies, Security Forces and Democratic Consolidation in Latin America,” in Gavin Cawthra and Robin Luckham, eds., Governing Insecurity, 124-151.
4. Elisabeth Jean Wood, Insurgent Collective Action and Civil War in El Salvador, chapter one.
5. Corinne Caumartin, “Racism, Violence, and Inequality: An Overview of the Guatemalan Case,” CRISE Working Paper No. 11 (March 2005).
6. Francisco Leal Buitrago, “Armed Actors in the Colombian Conflict,” in Kees Koonings and Dirk Kruijt, Armed Actors: Organised Violence and State Failure in Latin America, 87-105.
7. Malcolm Deas, “Violent Exchanges: Reflections on Political Violence in Colombia,” in David Apter, ed., The Legitimization of Violence, 350-404.

Violence and the State: Southeast Asia (May 4)
 

1. Douglass Kammen, “The Trouble with Normal: The Indonesian Military, Paramilitaries, and the Final Solution in East Timor,” in Benedict Anderson, ed., Violence and the State in Suharto’s Indonesia, 156-188.
2. Aurel Croissant, “Muslim Insurgency, Political Violence, and Democracy in Thailand,” Terrorism and Political Violence, 19:1 (2007), 1-18.
3. Geoffrey Robinson, The Dark Side of Paradise: Political Violence in Bali, 1-18, 218-234, 273-313.
4. Charles Frake, “Abu Sayyaf, Displays of Violence and the Proliferation of Contested Identities among Philippine Muslims,” American Anthropologist, 100:1 (Mar., 1998), 41-54.
5. Ian Douglas Wilson, “Continuity and Change: The Changing Contours of Organized Violence in post-New Order Indonesia,” Critical Asian Studies, 38:2 (2006), 265-297.
6. David Brown and Ian Wilson, “Ethnicized Violence in Indonesia: Where Criminals and Fanatics Meet,” Nationalism and Ethnic Politics, 13:3 (2007), 367-403.

Weeks 11-13 (May 11, May 18, May 25)

These three sessions will be devoted to presentations of the research paper drafts, usually two per session. Between one and three additional sessions will be scheduled (and be required) if necessary, and we may group sessions together (i.e.: meet for four hours) if a suitable time can be found and numbers warrant.