Suchergebnisse

Armed conflict and natural disasters have plagued the twenty-first century. Not since the end of World War II has the number of armed conflicts been higher. At the same time, natural disasters have increased in frequency and intensity over the past two decades, their impacts worsened by climate change, urbanization, and persistent social and economic inequalities. Providing the first comprehensive analysis of the interplay between natural disasters and armed conflict, Catastrophes, Confrontations, and Constraints explores the extent to which disasters facilitate the escalation or abatement of armed conflicts - as well as the ways and contexts in which combatants exploit these catastrophes. Tobias Ide utilizes both qualitative insights and quantitative data to explain the link between disasters and the (de-)escalation of armed conflict and presents over thirty case studies of earthquakes, droughts, floods, and storms in Africa, the Middle East, Asia, and Latin America. He also examines the impact of COVID-19 on armed conflicts in Iraq, Afghanistan, Nigeria, and the Philippines.

Abstract
This study builds long-anticipated bridges between the literature on (i) climate/disaster security, (ii) women, peace, and security, and (iii) rebel group behavior. Specifically, I analyze how rebel groups react to disasters (like droughts, earthquakes, floods, or storms) by intensifying or reducing their armed activities. This addresses a crucial knowledge gap: While a large literature is dealing with the impacts of climate change and disasters on armed conflict onset or incidence, knowledge on how environmental factors shape the behavior of particular conflict actors remains scarce. I argue that rebel groups escalate fighting when disaster-related opportunities occur (e.g., easier recruitment) but scale back their armed activities if adversely affected by the disasters (e.g., loss of resources). However, this relationship is contingent of the rebels' inclusion of female combatants. Empirically, this study draws on a unique sample of thirty-six cases of disasters striking armed conflict zones and integrates quantitative and qualitative data via a qualitative comparative analysis. The results suggest that rebel groups intensify their armed activities to exploit disaster-related opportunities but can only do so when female combatants provide them with sufficient capabilities. Conversely, rebels have to reduce fighting when adversely affected by disasters unless they can draw on female members to cope with disaster impacts.

Sampling bias poses enormous challenges to research as it can undermine the validity of results, cause significant knowledge gaps, result in research that is driven by convenience rather than need and limit the ability to provide policy advice. In this study, I assess potential sampling biases in the rapidly emerging research field of environmental peacebuilding based on a systematic review of the peer-reviewed literature. The field frequently engages with difficult cases which are hard to access and/or unlikely to confirm theories, hence reducing concerns about sampling by convenience and result validity. By contrast, there are clear knowledge gaps regarding countries highly vulnerable to environmental change, regarding the Pacific region and Latin America, regarding intra-state peacebuilding dynamics in Asia, and regarding countries with weak or isolated civil societies. Voices from the Global South and female scholars are relatively well represented, but further improvements are desirable. Addressing these issues would support environmental peacebuilding in challenging one-sided environment-conflict narratives, adding to the wider peacebuilding literature, and providing policy advice on sustainable peace.

Abstract
Disasters play a key role in debates about climate change, environmental stress, and security. A qualitative comparative analysis (QCA) investigates how major climate-related disasters shape the dynamics of ongoing armed conflicts. Quantitative and qualitative data are presented for twenty-one cases across Africa, Asia, and the Middle East. After climate-related disasters, 29 percent of these armed conflicts escalated, 33 percent de-escalated, and 38 percent did not change. Furthermore, only countries highly vulnerable to disasters experienced changes in conflict dynamics. Armed conflicts tend to escalate when the disaster induces shifts in relative power, whereby one conflict party (usually the rebels) subsequently scales up its military efforts. But if at least one conflict party is weakened by a disaster and the other lacks the capability to exploit this change, armed conflict intensity declines. Findings provide empirical support for a proposed power differential mechanism connecting climate-related disasters to armed conflict dynamics via short-term shifts in power relations between the conflict parties. Climate change can also act as a threat reducer by temporarily causing lower conflict intensity.

The war on terror as a discourse assumes that terrorism is an essential threat of global proportions, is mostly perpetuated by Islamist networks, and requires a strong international response. This discourse had tremendous impacts on both domestic and international politics. Consequentially, a large number of studies analyse the assumptions underlying and the policies legitimised by the war on terror discourse. However, existing work mostly focusses on one or a few cases, predominantly in the global north. This article introduces a novel dataset containing information on the war on terror discourse in the school textbooks of 36 countries, representing around 64% of the world's population, for the period 2003–2014. Based on this dataset, I present the first comprehensive analysis of the global diffusion of the war on terror discourse. The study finds that the discourse has by no means globalised but is mostly limited to wealthy countries in Europe and North America. There are hence clear limits to the USA's soft power and the hyper-globalisation of terrorism discourses. Factors like terrorism intensity, armed conflict and authoritarian regime have little predictive power. This is despite clear incentives for challenged (authoritarian) regimes to adapt the war on terror discourse. Contrary to common assumptions in critical security and terrorism studies, the war on terror discourse is hardly associated with an emphasis on terrorists' irrationality and hatred or with the marginalisation of socio-political grievances.

The literature on environmental peacemaking claims that groups in conflict can put aside their differences and cooperate in the face of shared environmental challenges, thereby facilitating more peaceful relations between them. This study provides the first comprehensive review of the widely dispersed empirical evidence on such environment-peace links. In order to do so, it distinguishes three understandings of peace and identifies four mechanisms connecting environmental cooperation to peace. The results suggest that environmental cooperation can facilitate the absence of violence within states as well as symbolic rapprochement within and between states, although such links are strongly dependent on the presence of several contextual factors. The most relevant mechanisms connecting environmental cooperation to peace are an increase in understanding and trust and especially the build-up of institutions. By contrast, environmental peacemaking is unlikely to have an impact on substantial integration between states or groups. Based on these findings, the article offers four suggestions for future research: (i) assess the relevance of environmental cooperation vis-à-vis other (presumably less context-dependent) drivers of peacemaking, (ii) pay more attention to the mechanisms connecting environmental cooperation to peacemaking, (iii) focus on the interactions between and the different time horizons of the three understandings of peace, and (iv) study the downside of environmental peacemaking to provide a more nuanced assessment and identify further relevant contextual factors.

AbstractThe literature on environmental peacemaking claims that groups in conflict can put aside their differences and cooperate in the face of shared environmental challenges, thereby facilitating more peaceful relations between them. This study provides the first comprehensive review of the widely dispersed empirical evidence on such environment-peace links. In order to do so, it distinguishes three understandings of peace and identifies four mechanisms connecting environmental cooperation to peace. The results suggest that environmental cooperation can facilitate the absence of violence within states as well as symbolic rapprochement within and between states, although such links are strongly dependent on the presence of several contextual factors. The most relevant mechanisms connecting environmental cooperation to peace are an increase in understanding and trust and especially the build-up of institutions. By contrast, environmental peacemaking is unlikely to have an impact on substantial integration between states or groups. Based on these findings, the article offers four suggestions for future research: (i) assess the relevance of environmental cooperation vis-à-vis other (presumably less context-dependent) drivers of peacemaking, (ii) pay more attention to the mechanisms connecting environmental cooperation to peacemaking, (iii) focus on the interactions between and the different time horizons of the three understandings of peace, and (iv) study the downside of environmental peacemaking to provide a more nuanced assessment and identify further relevant contextual factors.

The literature on environmental peacemaking argues that cooperation in the face of shared environmental challenges can facilitate further cooperation, trust building, and eventually peace between states in conflict. Empirical research on environmental peacemaking, predominantly conducted in the form of single case studies, has so far been inconclusive. This article uses a cross-case, multimethod research design to test the environmental peacemaking proposition. More specifically, it argues that the conclusion of a cooperative environmental agreement can have a positive impact on reconciliation between rival states. Based on a new dataset on international rivalry termination, transboundary protected areas, and international freshwater agreements, this article first conducts a statistical analysis and a qualitative comparative analysis (QCA). The results are then verified and refined by six case studies. Triangulation of findings from the three studies suggests that the conclusion of a cooperative environmental agreement facilitates reconciliation in international rivalries. But this effect is contingent on a number of scope conditions, such as high environmental attention, internal political stability, wider patterns or traditions of environmental cooperation, and already ongoing processes of reconciliation. Still, the findings imply that environmental challenges do not only affect peace and security in a negative way. Addressing them jointly also opens opportunities for peacemaking and peacebuilding between states.