From academic scholarship to military policy and international law, legitimacy is regarded as critical in shaping the course and outcome of violent political conflict. Yet, our understanding of the conditions for legitimacy and its effects in the context of armed conflict has been limited by multiple challenges and inconsistencies. My dissertation addresses longstanding debates in the literature on armed conflict by turning attention to two key features of legitimation: the asymmetry between legitimacy and illegitimacy, and the relationality of legitimation. I argue that these concepts, which have been theoretically and empirically overlooked or underdeveloped in research on armed conflict, offer a path to overcoming the challenges associated with the study of legitimacy in this context. I advance this claim through three studies. The first study empirically develops the assertion that while the conditions for legitimacy vary by case, the conditions for illegitimacy transcend regional contexts, representing a more global phenomenon. Comparative analyses of 30 cases of civil conflict from 1978 to 2008 reveals significant patterns across space and time in the conditions for civilian perceptions that government sanctioned violence is illegitimate. And yet, consistent with existing literature, my analyses revealed no patterning in the conditions for legitimacy. Through historical research into the details of these 30 cases, I identify three general mechanisms that result in perceptions of illegitimacy. The second study turns attention to the effects of illegitimacy for violent non-state groups. Using historical and discursive data, I examine the effects of illegitimacy at this level through an in-depth study of the Kurdistan Workers' Party (PKK) in Turkey. I introduce important correctives to existing theories, examining the cumulative effects of multiple sources of legitimation and showing that illegitimacy can provide much needed flexibility for oppositional groups. The third study examines the causes and conditions that lead to intrastate conflict recurrence. Combining quantitative analyses with comparative and historical research, I identify four distinctive pathways to conflict recurrence. I show how the conditions associated with each pathway shape the networks in which relationships of legitimacy and illegitimacy are embedded, and I discuss how these conditions mediate the effects of legitimacy and illegitimacy on conflict recurrence. By focusing on the asymmetry and relationality of legitimacy and illegitimacy, this work engages fundamental assumptions that are widely taken for granted and overlooked in scholarship on legitimacy in violent conflict and suggests significant revisions to existing theories of legitimation in armed conflict. Through this shift, my research identifies previously unobserved patterns in how evaluations of rightness and acceptability are made across space and time, allowing us to better understand the power dynamics that shape and constrain the networks of actors engaged in armed conflict.

Intrastate conflicts in Sub-Saharan Africa are a development tragedy and a security dilemma that requires more prevention and better intervention from the international community. Such engagement necessitates a robust early warning system, which can determine, with a sufficient degree of accuracy, the countries most at risk of experiencing intrastate conflict. This research summarizes and critiques current efforts to conceptualize intrastate conflict in Sub-Saharan Africa and determine what factors best explain the likelihood of intrastate conflict onset. The research examines the challenges of empirically modelling the human behaviour that underlies intrastate conflict, as well as some promising avenues for overcoming challenges posed by data issues and existing methodological shortcomings. The research concludes that with improved data and research design, and more attention being paid to how statistical significance reflects pathway(s) to violence, the development of an intrastate conflict early warning system is possible.

The ongoing Syrian conflict has been subject to considerable amount of political polemics. Nevertheless, little scholarly work has been conducted in order to comprehend the complexities as well as underlying reasons behind the intensity, scope, and duration of the conflict in Syria. Through qualitative methodology, this research examines the character of the Syrian conflict, by conducting an in-depth and nuanced case study of the Syrian civil war. While some theories of intrastate conflict and civil wars, concentrate on the domestic character of internal conflicts within states, transnational theories focus on external factors in examining intrastate conflicts. Both theoretical framework fail to take into account the broader picture of intrastate conflict and civil war. This study makes a contribution to the intrastate and civil war theories by introducing an expanded model for analyzing intrastate conflicts and civil wars. With respect to the Syrian conflict, utilizing this approach is instrumental in order to more efficiently and thoroughly comprehend the character of the Syrian conflict. Secondly, this study determines that states, which are multi-ethnic, multi-religious, multi-cultural, and geostrategically and geopolitically significant, tend to have protracted civil war and intrastate conflict. This research concludes that the unrecognized character of the Syrian conflict is unique due to the notion that it is operating, and being influenced, by four concentric forces of tensions, which are occurring simultaneously. In addition, it is critical to understand the interactions, contradictions, and excesses created by these four concentric circles of tensions. These interactions, contradictions and excesses shape the nature, scope, intensity, violence, death toll, and duration of the conflict and civil war in Syria.

Academics and practitioners often assume that arms and violence against civilians are positively correlated. Existing research on small arms and light weapons (SALW) and major conventional weapons (MCW) imports, however, find that arms are a weak explanatory factor for intrastate violence. When the focus is on arms imports’ impact on the level of one-sided violence (OSV) specifically, earlier studies’ findings suggest that the comparative organisational size of armed actors is an important conditioning variable that influences the direction and magnitude of the impact arms imports have on rebel and government perpetrated OSV. Using OLS regression models, this thesis finds that increasing SALW imports are linked to no increase in the level of rebel perpetrated OSV and a marginal decrease for the level of OSV perpetrated by large government forces. MCW imports have a negative correlation for large rebel groups and governments, but no impact for small rebel groups or government forces. In all specifications, the magnitude of the impact arms imports conditional on troop size have on rebel or government perpetrated OSV remains small. This suggests the need for policymakers to focus on humanitarian and economic interventions, rather than arms when pursuing protection of civilians.

The reasons why some countries suffer from high levels of violence are still poorly understood despite the important attention they have received in academia. One of the potential drivers explaining spatial and temporal differences in organised conflict is the culture surrounding violence. This paper specifically attempts to explain: How does a culture of violence impact the likelihood and intensity of organised conflict? I build a theoretical framework which describes a culture of violence constituted of (at least) four dimensions. I propose that a society with a stronger culture of violence is more likely to experience armed conflict and less likely to have non-violent conflicts. I also hypothesize a positive effect on conflict intensity. I perform an exploratory factor analysis to investigate the dimensions of a culture of violence and use zero-inflated Poisson regressions to test its effect on organized conflict. The exploratory factor analysis reveals the existence of not four but at least five dimensions of culture of violence. A culture of violence does not appear to influence the likelihood of conflict. However, when conflict does occur, culture of violence seems to increase the intensity of conflicts. Unfortunately, this paper does not find sufficient support to reject the null hypotheses.

The aim of this thesis is to analyze factors responsible for onset of ethnic conflicts and selected characteristics. By comparing to non-ethnic conflicts it was determined, if there are any differences in onset mechanisms of these two types of conflicts and thus if there is a space for explanatory role of ethnicity as a cause of ethnic conflicts. Selection of examined factors is congruent with the relevant literature and existing analyses and reflects the context of contemporary conflict research. The influence of male unemployment rate, level of Human development index and its inequality-adjusted version, human rights and finally the influence of conflicts in neighbouring countries on the onset of conflict is tested by statistical methods in component analyses. Also the intensity of ethnic and non-ethnic conflicts, war years and HDI are also compared. The comparative style of the research helps to understand the true nature of causes of intrastate conflicts and indicates, that there is no difference between the two types. Empirical character of this thesis is also the reason for assessing it within the context of other quantitative studies of conflict, comparing the results and defining the proper level of analysis for reaching tangible contributions.

This dissertation examines the role of third parties in civil war mediation and peacekeeping efforts. The dissertation makes two primary contributions to the literature. First, it builds upon existing literature by applying state-level arguments of third party involvement in mediation and peacekeeping efforts to the United Nations Security Council and regional IGOs. Second, it investigates the role of communication and coordination between third parties in their conflict management efforts.

In recent decades we have seen an increase in peace processes aimed at solving armed conflicts through peaceful means. The often fragile characteristics of such processes and the settlements that they produce underline the essential importance of improving our understanding of the dynamics at play in transitions from war to peace. This thesis aims to contribute to this overarching objective by analysing ceasefire agreements in relation to peace processes in two protracted intrastate armed conflicts: Aceh, Indonesia, and Sri Lanka. In the scholarly literature, ceasefire agreements are often assumed to create momentum due to their ability to pave the way to a peaceful solution. At the same time, it has also been suggested that ceasefires can influence conflict dynamics in negative ways. Although there are many unanswered questions about ceasefire agreements in contemporary peace processes, few studies have been devoted to systematic and in-depth analysis of how ceasefire agreements can be characterized and analysed in relation to peace processes in protracted intrastate conflicts. This thesis, which is based on written documents and on interviews conducted during four research trips to the region, contributes to filling this research gap by presenting comparative case studies of Aceh and Sri Lanka. The point of departure in the study is a process-oriented, conflict dynamics approach and a view that war-to-peace transitions require changes in the conflicting parties’ attitudes, behaviours and relationships. I analyse and compare ceasefire agreements by looking at their initiation, form and content, and by examining their implementation and the unfolding of the processes. I identify six key factors in the literature that can influence the conflicting parties’ attitudes, behaviours and relationships. I then use these factors to analyse ceasefire agreements in relation to the dynamics of the broader peace processes. In this thesis I show how these key factors – including issues of recognition, trust, whether the parties’ claims are met, international involvement, contextual changes and intra-party dynamics – have mattered. I also show that context is important for understanding how and why they have mattered. The results suggest that ceasefire agreements can facilitate war-topeace transitions; however, it also illuminates challenges and the risk that such agreements can be counter-productive in the context of intrastate conflicts. The study also shows that ceasefire agreements have a historical legacy, as illustrated by their impact on subsequent interactions and agreements, and it underlines the symbolic politics of ceasefires in asymmetrical intrastate conflicts. The thesis ends with a number of propositions, among others that ceasefire agreements tend to become more comprehensive over time and that power struggles and developments within the conflicting parties are important for understanding ceasefire agreements in relation to contemporary peace processes.

No description available.

The answer to if peacekeeping is successful or not is still debated. The focus has mostly been on internal characteristics of peacekeeping missions. While external factors, have been largely overlooked. This thesis aims to explore the effects external involvement in intrastate conflicts may have on the success of peacekeeping deployment. It poses the following research question: how does foreign state sponsorship to rebel groups affect the success of peacekeeping operations? The main argument made is that the causal mechanisms presented for why peacekeeping operations are effective, do not have an effect on the sponsors and their incentive to stop fighting. Hence, it is hypothesized that peacekeeping operations are less effective in decreasing the duration of intrastate armed conflict when rebel groups are sponsored by foreign states. The argument is tested using a discrete-time survival analysis and Cox proportional hazard models on all intrastate conflicts between 1970-2017, and foreign state sponsorship is treated as an interaction effect. The findings did not support the hypothesis but rather suggest that the presence of peacekeepers has a dominant positive conflict-intensity reducing effect. These results scratch the surface of what the effects external involvement may have on peacekeeping success and indicate that peacekeeping is successfully undermining sponsorship.