Abstract
A growing literature on the subnational diffusion of armed conflict rests on the proposition that political violence triggers more violence, in the same locality and elsewhere. Yet state efforts to contain such uprisings remain largely unexplored, theoretically and empirically. Drawing on a mathematical model of epidemics, we formalize the logic of conflict diffusion and derive conditions under which state coercion might limit the spread of insurgent violence. Using a new dataset of insurgent and government violence in Russia’s North Caucasus from 2000 to 2008, we evaluate the relative effectiveness of four coercive strategies: (1) denial, which manipulates the costs of expanding insurgent activity to new locations, (2) punishment, which manipulates the costs of sustained fighting in contested areas, (3) denial and punishment, which does both, and (4) no action, which does neither. We find denial to be most effective at containing insurgent violence. Punishment is least effective, and even counterproductive. Not only does such a strategy fail to prevent the spillover of violence to new locations, but it may amplify the risk of continued fighting in contested areas. In the Caucasus, denial is found to be the least inflammatory counter-insurgency option for Russia. For it to succeed, Russia should physically isolate centers of insurgent activity from regions of nonviolence and avoid the temptation of punitive reprisals.
Highlights
A growing body of political science research has shown violence to be contagious, its transmission facilitated by the flow of people, information, materiel and finances between geographically proximate locations
Using a mathematical model of epidemics, a new dataset of violent events in Russia’s North Caucasus, and simulation, we evaluate the relative effectiveness of four strategies states can use to fight insurgents: (1) denial, which operates by physically isolating insurgents and manipulating the costs of expanding fighting to new locations, (2) punishment, which uses offensive operations in contested areas to manipulate the costs of sustained fighting, (3) denial and punishment, which does both, and (4) no action, which does neither
We review the literature on strategic coercion, and extend its propositions to the containment of insurgent violence
Summary
Monica Duffy, and Yuri Zhukov. 2012. Denial and punishment in the north Caucasus: evaluating the effectiveness of coercive counter-insurgency. Denial and Punishment in the North Caucasus: Evaluating the effectiveness of coercive counterinsurgency∗
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.