Peace Research Institute Oslo Research Articles

Targeting muslims beyond Europe: preventing violent extremism and radicalisation in Kosovo

Ervjola Selenica is post-doc fellow and adjunct professor in Terrorism and Counterterrorism at the University of Bologna and associate research fellow at the University of Sussex. Previously, she was post-doc fellow at Scuola Normale Superiore (Firenze). She holds a PhD in International Studies (University of Trento), an MSc. in International Development Studies (University of Amsterdam), a BA in International Relations and Political Science (University of Bologna), and a PGDip on Peace and Conflict (Peace Research Institute Oslo). Her research interests include education, international interventions, conflict, global changes. She has published at The Journal of Contemporary European Studies, Italian Political Science Review/Rivista Italiana di Scienze Politiche, Critical Studies on Terrorism, Globalisation, Societies and Education, and Journal of Southeast European and Black Sea Studies. The paper analyses national and international interventions on preventing and countering violent extremism (P/CVE) and radicalisation in Kosovo and their underpinning rationales. The analysis seeks to understand how a country with a Muslim majority is targeted by P/CVE and counter-radicalisation policies. Furthermore, it seeks to understand whether these policies are informed by an understanding of violent extremism and radicalisation as underpinned by Islamic extremism and, if so, how they tackle and interact with the question of Islam in Kosovo. The article has found that P/CVE and counter-radicalisation policies in Kosovo are mainly externally driven and funded, rest upon the same preventative, anticipatory logic that has characterised similar policies implemented in EU member states, are informed by an understanding of violent extremism and radicalisation as ideological processes fuelled by radical Islam, and encompasses an all-societal approach combining hard and soft measures of prevention as those found in other EU and non-EU contexts.

Restricting NGOs: From Pushback to Accommodation

Restricting NGOs: From Pushback to Accommodation

Peacekeeping Prevention: Strengthening Efforts to Preempt Conflict-related Sexual Violence

Louise Olsson and Angela Muvumba Sellstrom Peace Research Institute Oslo (PRIO) and Uppsala University Since the adoption of UNSCR 1820 in 2008, United Nations peacekeeping operations have come und...

Illicit Small Arms Prices: Introducing Two New Datasets

ABSTRACT Despite calls to reduce illicit arms flows, it remains difficult to detect and quantify them. One proposed method for detecting and quantifying illicit trade volumes is to test econometrically for price changes. This paper documents an effort of the Peace Research Institute Oslo (PRIO) and the Small Arms Data Observatory (SADO) to make such inferential econometric analyses possible by assembling two new datasets on illicit small arms prices. The first, called the ‘Illicit Small Arms Prices – Transactions’ dataset (iSAP-T), has an observational unit of arm(s) sold in a single transaction. The second, called the ‘Illicit Small Arms Prices – Countries’ dataset (or iSAP-C), derives from the iSAP-T and has the more standard country-year observational unit. This paper describes the methods for data collection, organization, and generation for these datasets, presents some descriptive statistics and graphics, and concludes with a discussion of possible future uses and limitations of the datasets.

Who Wins, Who Loses, Who Negotiates Peace in Civil Wars: Does Regime Type Matter?

AbstractPrevious research has shown that the outcome of a civil war is related to conflict duration: military victory by either the government or the rebels occurs early if it occurs at all, and the longer a civil war lasts, the more likely it is to end in a negotiated settlement. The models of civil war duration and outcome that have produced these findings are built on characteristics of the civil war and less on attributes of the state itself, other than where the state lies on the Polity autocracy-democracy scale. We propose that how civil wars end varies not only between democracies and authoritarian regimes but among the different authoritarian regime types identified by Geddes, Wright, and Franz. The distinguishing attributes of these regime types—democracy, one-party, personalist, military, monarchical—should lead to different likelihood in defeating a rebel movement, being defeated by a rebel movement, and negotiating a peace agreement with a rebel movement. Results from a series of competing-risk models using the Uppsala–Peace Research Institute Oslo Armed Conflict Dataset demonstrate support for our claim that how civil wars end is partly a function of the characteristics of the regime.

Interview with Jonathan Cohen: Beginning the Legacy of SLOVO Journal

D IRECTOR OF C ONCILIATION R ESOURCES , J ONATHAN C OHEN , IN CONVERSATION WITH S LOVO ’ S E XECUTIVE E DITOR B ORIMIR T OTEV . Jonathan Cohen joined Conciliation Resources in December 1997 and developed the Caucasus programme. In September 2008, he became Director of Programmes overseeing all Conciliation Resources’ regional programmes and was appointed Executive Director in May 2016. Previously he was deputy director of the Foundation on Inter-Ethnic Relations in The Hague, working with the OSCE High Commissioner on National Minorities. Before that he worked for International Alert and the Peace Research Institute Oslo. He has been a board member of the DFID/CAF Partnerships in the Non-Profit Sector Programme for Russia; acted as a consultant to United Nations Volunteers, the Heinrich Boell Foundation, the Berghof Foundation and taught at the London School of Economics. Read full text here.

Publishing and perishing: an academic literacies framework for investigating research productivity

The current discourse on research productivity (how much peer-reviewed academic output is published by faculty) is dominated by quantitative research on individual and institutional traits; implicit assumptions are that academic writing is a predominately cognitive activity, and that lack of productivity represents some kind of deficiency. Introducing the academic literacies approach to this debate brings issues of identity, multiple communities, and different institutional expectations (at the local, national, and international levels) to the foreground. I argue that academics often juggle competing demands that create various sites of negotiation in the production of academic writing: the results of these negotiations can have a direct impact on what kind of research output is produced, and how much it ‘counts’. Drawing from research on the Peace Research Institute Oslo (PRIO), this article demonstrates how a theoretical framework based on academic literacies can be used to investigate research productivity outcomes in specific academic settings.

Journal of Peace Research

Click to increase image sizeClick to decrease image size Additional informationNotes on contributorsHenrik UrdalHenrik Urdal is Research Professor at the Peace Research Institute Oslo and has been the Editor of JPR (prio.no/jpr) since 2010. E-mail: henriku@prio.orgGudrun ØstbyGudrun Østby is Senior Researcher at the Peace Research Institute Oslo and Associate Editor of JPR. She served as Deputy Editor of JPR from 2010–2013. E-mail: gudrun@prio.orgNils Petter GleditschNils Petter Gleditsch is Research Professor at the Peace Research Institute Oslo and Professor Emeritus of Political Science at the Norwegian University of Science and Technology. He served as Editor of JPR from 1977–1978 and from 1983–2010. E-mail: nilspg@prio.org

ON GIVING BIRTH TO A NEW ORGANISM AND HELPING TO SHAPE A DISCIPLINE: REFLECTIONS ON THE IDEA OF THE JOURNAL OF MILITARY ETHICS AND ITS RELATION TO DEVELOPING THINKING ABOUT ETHICS AND WAR

[Remarks at the 10th-anniversary conference for the Journal of Military Ethics, Oslo, Norway, 9 September 2011, arranged by the journal in collaboration with the Norwegian Defence University College, the Peace Research Institute Oslo, and Bjørknes College.]

Military Necessity as Normative Indifference

What does it mean to say that international humanitarian law (IHL) “accounts for” military necessity? According to one theory, unqualified IHL rules exclude not only military necessity pleas but also humanity pleas in support of deviant behavior. Three propositions underpin this view. They are, first, that military necessity generates imperatives; second, that the imperatives emanating from military necessity inevitably conflict with those emanating from humanity; and third, that all positive IHL rules embody the military necessity-humanity interplay in the process of their norm-creation. In lieu of what may be termed an “inevitable conflict” thesis, this Article proposes and develops a “joint satisfaction” thesis. In the process of IHL norm-creation, military necessity does not furnish the law with reason to obligate or forbid given conduct. Rather, it only generates permissions. It not only robustly permits pursuing military necessities and avoiding non-necessities; it also permits, albeit moderately, forgoing success and inviting failure. In other words, military necessity is normatively indifferent. By acting as non-indifferently exhorted or demanded by humanity, the belligerent never acts in a manner affirmatively contrary to what military necessity indifferently permits. Where both humanitarian exhortations or demands and military necessity’s indifferent permissions are at stake, one always jointly satisfies them by acting in accordance with the former. When the framers of IHL validly posit an unqualified rule regarding given conduct, the rule does two things. First, it unqualifiedly obligates the pursuit of joint military necessityhumanity satisfaction with respect to the conduct in question. Second, this rule extinguishes any indifferent permission, including that emanating from military necessity, not to pursue the said satisfaction. It is for this reason, rather than the empirically troublesome claim that every positive IHL rule embodies the military necessity-humanity interplay, that unqualified IHL rules admit no military necessity and other de novo indifference pleas. The same does not necessarily hold * Researcher, Peace Research Institute Oslo (PRIO). Formerly, Legal Advisor, Norwegian Centre for Human Rights, Faculty of Law, University of Oslo; Legal Officer, Office of the Prosecutor, International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia. The views expressed in this Article are strictly those of the author. All errors are his and his alone. The author wishes to thank Arne Willy Dahl, William J. Fenrick, Guillermo Otalora Lozano, Joanna Nicholson, Simon O’Connor, Greg Reichberg, Henrik Syse, and Inna Uchkunova for their encouragement and thoughtful comments on earlier drafts. © 2013, Nobuo Hayashi.

Economic Freedom: The Path to Economic and Political Emancipation of the Conflict-Affected Region

This working paper is a written version of an oral presentation made originally at a seminar jointly organised by the Pathfinder Foundation and Point Pedro Institute of Development in Colombo on June 05, 2009 on the revival of the Northern Economy and subsequently at the Peace Research Institute Oslo (PRIO) on July 27, 2009. This working paper argues the case for a comprehensive policy framework for the revival of the economy of the conflict-affected region, viz. the Eastern and Northern Provinces, in Sri Lanka. In lieu of going into sectoral specificities, this policy paper outlines a broad policy framework enshrined on economic freedom, transparent and accountable politico-economic governance structure, knowledge economy, and fiscal autonomy for the conflict-affected provinces and beyond. An edited version of this Working Paper was published in the journal Conflict Trends in December 2009.

When Greeks think about Turks: the view from anthropology - Edited by Theodossopoulos, Dimitrios

Journal of the Royal Anthropological InstituteVolume 16, Issue 1 p. 179-180 When Greeks think about Turks: the view from anthropology – Edited by Theodossopoulos, Dimitrios Olga Demetriou, Olga Demetriou International Peace Research Institute Oslo (PRIO) – PRIO Cyprus CentreSearch for more papers by this author Olga Demetriou, Olga Demetriou International Peace Research Institute Oslo (PRIO) – PRIO Cyprus CentreSearch for more papers by this author First published: 10 February 2010 https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9655.2009.01604_14.xRead the full textAboutPDF ToolsRequest permissionExport citationAdd to favoritesTrack citation ShareShare Give accessShare full text accessShare full-text accessPlease review our Terms and Conditions of Use and check box below to share full-text version of article.I have read and accept the Wiley Online Library Terms and Conditions of UseShareable LinkUse the link below to share a full-text version of this article with your friends and colleagues. Learn more.Copy URL Volume16, Issue1March 2010Pages 179-180 RelatedInformation

Aquinas on Battlefield Courage

The Thomist 74 (2010): 337-68 AQUINAS ON BATTLEFIELD COURAGE GREGORY M. REICHBERG Peace Research Institute Oslo (PRIO) Oslo, Norway OVER THECOURSEofhiscareer, ThomasAquinaspaused only once to reflect on battlefield courage-question 123, article 5 of the Secunda Secundae of the Summa Theologiae : "Whether fortitude is properly about the dangers of death which arise in war."1 In light of his robust teaching on just war,2 one would have expected him to elaborate on the special nobility of the military profession, or to detail the moral challenges faced by its practitioners. Instead, the article explains how "death in war" is an analogous term that applies to soldiers certainly, but also to civic heroes and even to martyrs for the faith. The theme of martyrdom occupies central stage3 in Aquinas's overall discussion of courage. Some commentators have concluded that his main purpose in writing question 123 was to substitute the ancient Greco-Roman admiration for military heroism with a Christian focus on martyrdom.4 In what follows, 1 The theme of battlefield courage is however announced earlier in question 50 on prudence. Having noted that generalship requires a special form of prudence, Aquinas adds that those who do the actual fighting (rank-and-file soldiers) stand in need of fortitude (STh 11-11, q. 50, a. 4, ad 3). For a treatment of the former virtue, see Gregory M. Reichberg, "Thomas Aquinas on Military Prudence,"Journal ofMilitary Ethics 9 (2010): 261-74. 2 STh 11-11, q. 40, "De hello." See Gregory M. Reichberg, "Thomas Aquinas between Just War and Pacifism," Journal ofReligious Ethics 38 (2010): 219-41. 3 Among the acts of fortitude, martyrdom alone receives special treatment in a full quaestio (STh II-II, q. 124). 4 A particularly emphatic formulation of this reading has been advanced by Rebecca Konyndyk de Young, "Power Made Perfect in Weakness: Aquinas's Transformation of the Virtue of Courage," Medieval Philosophy and Theology 11(2003):147-80. To a lesser extent 337 338 GREGORY M. REICHBERG I argue that the substitution account is misleading. Despite Aquinas's obvious interest in highlighting martyrdom as the highest instantiation of fortitude, he does not discredit the value of battlefield courage within the Christian life of virtue. On the contrary, he elaborates a two-stage theory in which military heroism is put forward as the exemplar of acquired fortitude, while martyrdom is praised as the paradigm of infused fortitude. Having embraced the principle "grace perfects nature," Aquinas is attentive to the various relations that can exist between these two modalities-acquired and infused-of fortitude.5 On the one hand, the heroism of soldiers provides him with a natural basis for understanding the supernatural fortitude of holy martyrs. On the other hand, he recognizes how infused fortitude can find expression in military deeds, such that death on the battlefield will sometimes count as martyrdom. The argument will proceed in six stages. In a first section I examine why Aquinas brings the theme of martyrdom into his account of battlefield courage in question 123, article 5. To this end, a comparison with his earlier discussion of prudence6 will prove instructive. Whereas prudence is differentiated into five separate kinds, including a military kind, on the Aristotelian typology followed by Aquinas, courage is a unitary virtue. Unlike many contemporary Christian authors, who typically frame martyrdom as a category suigeneris that would stand wholly apart from the soldier's active engagement on the battlefield, Aquinas is intent on encompassing the two sorts of death within a single account.7 this viewpoint is briefly developed by Michel Labourdette, O.P., Force et temperance (IIa-IIae, 123-170) in Cours de theologie morale, Toulouse, annee scolaire 1961-62, unpublished manuscript. (Copies of Labourdette's typed course manuscript, which follows the order of the Secunda Pars, have circulated widely). Labourdette's treatment does have the merit of emphasizing the importance, in Aquinas's eyes, of acquired courage, while Konyndyk De Young's analysis is framed almost exclusively in terms of infused courage. 5 I thank an anonymous reviewer for suggesting this formulation. 6 In particular, STh 11-11, qq. 48 and. 50. 7 This is especially salient in STh 11-11, q. 124...

Estimating War Deaths

In a much-cited recent article, Obermeyer, Murray, and Gakidou (2008a) examine estimates of wartime fatalities from injuries for thirteen countries. Their analysis poses a major challenge to the battle-death estimating methodology widely used by conflict researchers, engages with the controversy over whether war deaths have been increasing or decreasing in recent decades, and takes the debate over different approaches to battle-death estimation to a new level. In making their assessments, the authors compare war death reports extracted from World Health Organization (WHO) sibling survey data with the battle-death estimates for the same countries from the International Peace Research Institute, Oslo (PRIO). The analysis that leads to these conclusions is not compelling, however. Thus, while the authors argue that the PRIO estimates are too low by a factor of three, their comparison fails to compare like with like. Their assertion that there is “no evidence” to support the PRIO finding that war deaths have recently declined also fails. They ignore war-trend data for the periods after 1994 and before 1955, base their time trends on extrapolations from a biased convenience sample of only thirteen countries, and rely on an estimated constant that is statistically insignificant.

Professional identities: policy and practice in business and bureaucracy – Edited by Shirley Ardener & Fiona Moore

Journal of the Royal Anthropological InstituteVolume 15, Issue 4 p. 893-894 Professional identities: policy and practice in business and bureaucracy – Edited by Shirley Ardener & Fiona Moore Olga Demetriou, Olga Demetriou International Peace Research Institute Oslo (PRIO) – PRIO Cyprus CentreSearch for more papers by this author Olga Demetriou, Olga Demetriou International Peace Research Institute Oslo (PRIO) – PRIO Cyprus CentreSearch for more papers by this author First published: 06 November 2009 https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9655.2009.01589_33.xRead the full textAboutPDF ToolsRequest permissionExport citationAdd to favoritesTrack citation ShareShare Give accessShare full text accessShare full-text accessPlease review our Terms and Conditions of Use and check box below to share full-text version of article.I have read and accept the Wiley Online Library Terms and Conditions of UseShareable LinkUse the link below to share a full-text version of this article with your friends and colleagues. Learn more.Copy URL Volume15, Issue4December 2009Pages 893-894 RelatedInformation

The Effect of the Spatial Resolution of Conflict Data on the Analysis of Drought As a Local Determinant of Civil War Onset: Africa, 1980 – 2001

With the steady decrease in freshwater availability and the growth of world population, freshwater distribution is likely to become an increasingly prominent source of conflict. Given that civil wars by definition occur within national boundaries and therefore involve factors that vary within the country in which they occur, past studies examining the determinants of civil conflict using the state as the unit of observation are inherently flawed. Improvements in the accuracy of the delineations of such conflict should increase the ability to determine the local determinants of civil war. This analysis focuses on Africa between 1980 and 2001, utilizing a refined version of the International Peace Research Institute, Oslo (PRIO) Armed Conflict dataset at the 0.25-degree resolution, and juxtaposing this data on rainfall data using GIS analysis. Using socioeconomic factors as control variables, we perform a logistic regression analysis, comparing the correlation coefficients from this analysis to those of a previous study using conflict centroids with radii as the units of observation. Thus, this study aims to explore the effect a change in the spatial level of resolution of conflict data has on our ability to analyze geographic determinants of war outbreak. We find that, despite the altered delineation of conflict data, the statistical analysis produces similar results that confirm the causal relationship between drought and civil war outbreak. This calls to attention the need for further international cooperation in assisting developing nations to develop infrastructure for the sustainable management of water resources.

On the State of Media Violence in Nepal

Click to increase image sizeClick to decrease image size Jason Miklian and Ingvill Håkås Tveite are Researchers at the International Peace Research Institute Oslo (PRIO). Notes 1 FNJ, ‘Press Freedom: One Year of Loktantra’. English version available at http://www.fnjnepal.org/downloads/English.pdf (Accessed July 8, 2007). 2 http://www.nepalnews.com/archive/2007/jul/jul01/news05.php (Accessed July 10, 2007). 3 Sharma is the Executive Chairman of the Gorkhaptra Corporation, Baral is the Chairman of the Nepal Television Corporation. 4 See http://www.nepalnews.com/archive/2007/jul/jul23/news06.phpandhttp://www.kantipuronline.com/kolnews.php?&nid=116655 (Accessed July 25, 2007). 5 One missing is Prakash Thakuri, a Royalist-leaning journalist from Mahendranagar. His whereabouts are still unknown at the time of publication, at http://www.nepalnews.com/archive/2007/jul/jul11/news01.php(Accessed July 25, 2007). 6 Compiled from FNJ press releases, at http://www.fnjnepal.org/news_alert.php (Accessed August 1, 2007). 7 International Federation of Journalists, ‘IFJ Concerned Over Continuing Attacks on Journalists in Nepal’, at http://www.ifj.org/default.asp?index=5127&Language=EN (Accessed July 16, 2007). 8 Reporters Sans Frontiers, ‘At Least 72 Journalists Attacked or Threatened by Armed Groups Since Start of the Year’, at http://www.rsf.org/article.php3?id_article_22448 (Accessed July 27, 2007). 9 For one of the many examples, see http://www.nepalnews.com/archive/2007/jul/jul23/news06.php. (Accessed July 28, 2007). 10 See for details, at http://www.fnjnepal.org/ebulletin_detail.php?id=27 (Accessed August 1, 2007). 11 See http://www.fnjnepal.org/news_alert_detail.php?id=144 (Accessed August 1, 2007). 12 For two of the many examples, see at http://www.ifex.org/alerts/content/view/full/81676/andhttp://www.fnjnepal.org/news_alert_detail.php?id=160 (Accessed August 1, 2007). 13 All examples taken from the official Federation of Nepali Journalists website at http://www.fnjnepal.org/news_alert.php (Accessed August 1, 2007). 14 ‘PM Says He Will Not “Tolerate” Attacks on Press Freedom’, at http://www.nepalnews.com.np/archive/2007/jul/jul22/news15.php (Accessed July 22, 2007).

Is There a “Presumption Against War” In Aquinas’s Ethics?

The Thomist 66 (2002): 337-67 IS THERE A "PRESUMPTION AGAINST WAR" IN AQUINAS'S ETHICS? GREGORY M. REICHBERG International Peace Research Institute, Oslo (PRIO) Oslo, Norway I OVER THE PAST FEW YEARS a debate has arisen among proponents of just-war thinking about the correct starting point for moral reflection on war.1 The debate concerns how moral reasoning should proceed when the just-war criteria of legitimate authority, just cause, and right intention are made to inform decision making about resort to military force (jus ad bellum). Some authors have maintained that moral reasoning about war should begin with a reflection on the obligation "do no harm." From this obligation there derives, they argue, a strong presumption against the use of force, a presumption which can be overridden only in "exceptional circumstances."2 On this understanding, as articulated inter alia by the American Catholic Bishops, 1 An early draft of this article was presented in Boston in September 2000, at the American Political Science Association annual meeting, for a special session on medieval conceptions of just war, organized by the "Politica" group in medieval political theory. I am grateful to Gerson Moreno-Riano, who commented on my paper at the conference, Henrik Syse, and an anonymous reviewer for The Thomist, for many useful questions and suggestions. 2 Richard B. Miller, InterpretationsofConflict: Ethics, Pacifism, andtheJust-WarTradition (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1991), 16. Cf. James F. Childress, "Just-War Criteria," in War or Peace? The Search for New Answers, ed. Thomas A. Shannon (Maryknoll, N.Y.: Orbis Books, 1980), 40-58. 337 338 GREGORY M. REICHBERG Just war teaching has evolved ... as an effort to prevent war; only if war cannot be rationally avoided does the teaching then seek to restrict and reduce its horrors. It does this by establishing a set of rigorous conditions which must be met if the decision to go to war is to be moraily permissible. Such a decision, especially today, requires extraordinarily strong reasons for overriding the presumption in favor ofpeace and against war.3 By contrast, other authors have argued for a more proactive conception of military force. Moral thinking about war should begin, they argue, with a reflection on the duty of civic leadership to oppose grave wrongdoing. Its starting point, in the words of James Turner Johnson, is a presumption against injustice. [T]he development of Christian just-war tradition follows a line of reasoning focused on the rightness ofthe resort to force to combat the evil of injustice, and that development did not construe at any point the use of force to be a moral problem in itself. In classic just-war theory the use of force is morally problematical only when it is the source of injustice. But even then, wrong uses of force do not call force itself into question, but instead justify the resort to force to set matters right. What Christian just-war doctrine is about, as classically defined, is the use of the authority and force of the rightly ordered political community ... to prevent, punish, and rectify injustice. There is, simply put, no presumption against war in it at all.4 Significantly, each of these rival versions of just-war theory appeal to Thomas Aquinas as a source for their respective views. Thus, we read in the American Catholic Bishops' pastoral letter that in the twentieth century, papal teaching has used the logic of Augustine and Aquinas to articulate a right of self-defense for states in a decentralized international order and to state the criteria for exercising that right.5 From the opposing perspective, Johnson writes that 3 National Conference of Catholic Bishops, The Challenge ofPeace: God's Promise and Our Response (Washington, D.C.: United States Catholic Conference, 1983), p. 27. 4 James Turner Johnson, "The Broken Tradition," The National Interest (1996): 27-36, on30. 5 NCCB, The Challenge ofPeace, p. 27. A "PRESUMPTION AGAINST WAR" IN AQUINAS? 339 the pos1t1on of Thomas Aquinas looms as especially important [for the development of just war thinking along the lines of a presumption against injustice}.... What is morally condemnable in war [for Aquinas] ... is not force itself but the use of force with the...