|
Sign In to gain access to subscriptions and/or personal tools.
|
Transnational Dimensions of Civil War
Kristian Skrede Gleditsch
Department of Government, University of Essex & Centre for the Study of Civil War, PRIO, ksg{at}essex.ac.uk
Existing research has related civil war primarily to country-specific factors or processes that take place within individual states experiencing conflict. Many contemporary civil wars, however, display a transnational character, where actors, resources, and events span national boundaries. This article challenges the 'closed polity' approach to the study of civil war, where individual states are treated as independent entities, and posits that transnational factors and linkages between states can exert strong influences on the risk of violent civil conflict. Previous research has shown that conflicts in a state's regional context can increase the risk of conflict, but the research has not distinguished between different varieties of transnational linkages that may underlie geographic contagion, and it has failed to consider the potential influences of domestic attributes. The article develops and evaluates a series of hypotheses on how transnational factors can influence the risk of conflict and the prospects for maintaining peace in a conditional autologistic model, including country-specific factors often associated with civil wars. The results suggest that transnational linkages between states and regional factors strongly influence the risk of civil conflict. This, in turn, implies that the risk of civil war is not determined just by a country's internal or domestic characteristics, but differs fundamentally, depending on a country's linkages to other states.
Journal of Peace Research, Vol. 44, No. 3,
293-309 (2007)
DOI: 10.1177/0022343307076637

CiteULike Complore Connotea Del.icio.us Digg Reddit Technorati Twitter What's this?
This article has been cited by other articles:

|
 |

|
 |
 
H. Buhaug, S. Gates, and P. Lujala
Geography, Rebel Capability, and the Duration of Civil Conflict
Journal of Conflict Resolution,
August 1, 2009;
53(4):
544 - 569.
[Abstract]
[PDF]
|
 |
|

|
 |

|
 |
 
D. E. Cunningham, K. Skrede Gleditsch, and I. Salehyan
It Takes Two: A Dyadic Analysis of Civil War Duration and Outcome
Journal of Conflict Resolution,
August 1, 2009;
53(4):
570 - 597.
[Abstract]
[PDF]
|
 |
|

|
 |

|
 |
 
L.-E. Cederman and K. S. Gleditsch
Introduction to Special Issue on "Disaggregating Civil War"
Journal of Conflict Resolution,
August 1, 2009;
53(4):
487 - 495.
[Abstract]
[PDF]
|
 |
|

|
 |

|
 |
 
H. Fjelde and I. De Soysa
Coercion, Co-optation, or Cooperation?: State Capacity and the Risk of Civil War, 1961--2004
Conflict Management and Peace Science,
February 1, 2009;
26(1):
5 - 25.
[Abstract]
[PDF]
|
 |
|

|
 |

|
 |
 
K. S. Gleditsch, I. Salehyan, and K. Schultz
Fighting at Home, Fighting Abroad: How Civil Wars Lead to International Disputes
Journal of Conflict Resolution,
August 1, 2008;
52(4):
479 - 506.
[Abstract]
[PDF]
|
 |
|

|
 |

|
 |
 
Z. Iqbal and C. Zorn
The Political Consequences of Assassination
Journal of Conflict Resolution,
June 1, 2008;
52(3):
385 - 400.
[Abstract]
[PDF]
|
 |
|

|
 |

|
 |
 
E. Forsberg
Polarization and Ethnic Conflict in a Widened Strategic Setting
Journal of Peace Research,
March 1, 2008;
45(2):
283 - 300.
[Abstract]
[PDF]
|
 |
|

|
 |

|
 |
 
L. Harbom and P. Wallensteen
Armed Conflict, 1989 2006
Journal of Peace Research,
September 1, 2007;
44(5):
623 - 634.
[Abstract]
[PDF]
|
 |
|
|
|