Search

To purchase or authenticate to the full-text of this article, please visit this link: http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2478.2007.00465.x Byline: Michael G. Findley (*), Scott Edwards ([dagger]) Abstract: This paper addresses a puzzle of how conflicts characterized by significant power asymmetries often play out much differently than dominant powers expect. We adapt the notions of institutionalized peace and riot systems from the literature on ethnic violence to identify ways in which social institutions attenuate collective action dilemmas, thereby increasing capability for a less-powerful group. Dominant groups often miscalculate the true nature of capability relationships by failing to account for these group-specific institutions that operate in the face of exogenous threats. We illustrate our model with two episodes of Chechen mobilization in the 1990s. Author Affiliation: (*)Brigham Young University ([dagger])University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign

To purchase or authenticate to the full-text of this article, please visit this link: http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2508.2006.00473.x Byline: Michael G. Findley (1), Tze Kwang Teo (1) Abstract: Studies of the decision to intervene into ongoing civil wars should focus on those making the decision, not the conflict. We adopt such an 'actor-centric' approach and discuss third-party intervention by emphasizing convergent and divergent interests and the connections between potential interveners, actual interveners, and civil war states. Our model furthermore differentiates between interventions on the side of the government and opposition and takes the sequence of interventions in the same conflict into account. The results from estimation of a mixture cure survival model support our theoretical framework and expectations. This paper thus advances our understanding not only of the effects of intervention, but also the motivation and decision to intervene. Author Affiliation: (1)University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign Article History: Manuscript submitted 15 April 2005Manuscript accepted for publication 11 November 2005 Article note: Michael Findley and Tze Kwang Teo are Ph.D. candidates in political science at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, Urbana, IL 61801.

Studies of the decision to intervene into ongoing civil wars should focus on those making the decision, not the conflict. We adopt such an 'actor-centric' approach and discuss third-party intervention by emphasizing convergent and divergent interests and the connections between potential interveners, actual interveners, and civil war states. Our model furthermore differentiates between interventions on the side of the government and opposition and takes the sequence of interventions in the same conflict into account. The results from estimation of a mixture cure survival model support our theoretical framework and expectations. This paper thus advances our understanding not only of the effects of intervention, but also the motivation and decision to intervene.