| Srl | Item |
| 1 |
ID:
072216
|
|
|
| 2 |
ID:
082465
|
|
|
|
|
| Publication |
2008.
|
| Summary/Abstract |
Systemic theories of international politics divide the world into anarchic and hierarchic systems. Conventionally, the boundary of each system is based on juridically defined territorial borders. This article argues that within collapsed and "fragmented" states there exist autonomous armed groups, which make these states by definition anarchic systems. Unlike earlier accounts of such "domestic anarchy," this article argues that the domestic anarchy is "open" or connected to the international anarchic system. By taking this approach, it is possible to integrate the theoretical understanding of the relations between armed groups and (external) states. Specifically, the article illustrates how there can be "mixed security dilemmas" between states and armed groups, and that other theoretical concepts usually reserved for describing interstate relations can potentially be used to describe state-armed group relations
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 3 |
ID:
085353
|
|
|
|
|
| Publication |
London, Routledge, 2009.
|
| Description |
x,167p.
|
| Standard Number |
9780415466226
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Copies: C:1/I:0,R:0,Q:0
Circulation
| Accession# | Call# | Current Location | Status | Policy | Location |
| 054007 | 327.112/VIN 054007 | Main | On Shelf | General | |
|
|
|
|
| 4 |
ID:
080866
|
|
|
|
|
| Publication |
2008.
|
| Summary/Abstract |
The United States and Al Qaeda represent two fundamentally different forms of warfare. The US, with its basis in the Western way of warfare, relies on an almost totally instrumental form of warfare and Al Qaeda, with its basis in the Islamic way of warfare, fights an expressive, existential form of warfare. This paper illustrates how both sides' ways of warfare are converging toward each other. It also argues that this is in fact a good thing because it will allow the US to understand its enemy and thereby allow the US to defeat him in terms he can understand
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 5 |
ID:
080880
|
|
|
|
|
| Publication |
2008.
|
| Summary/Abstract |
Existing analyses of non-state armed-group combat motivations are inadequate because they essentialize combat motivation, fail to recognize the polymorphous character of non-state warfare, and confound agency and structure by equating individual combatant motivation with the context of the conflict. In order to account for the more dynamic nature of combat motivation in armed groups versus conventional militaries, this article offers a two-dimensional framework for understanding combatant motivation. The first dimension is based on context-specifically, terrorist, insurgent and warlord forms of warfare-and the second on individual motivation-including communitarian, economic, and existential motivations. The article then illustrates the interplay between these two dimensions.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 6 |
ID:
076946
|
|
|
|
|
| Publication |
2007.
|
| Summary/Abstract |
This article argues that although the Lord's Resistance Army (LRA) may have begun its war for instrumental goals, such as to create political change, these goals have largely been replaced by existential motivations, in the sense that the LRA organization fights in order to continue providing security and a vocation to its members, which would be lost by a return to wider society. It is posited that the factor allowing for this turn from instrumental to existential motivation is that the LRA organization has effectively separated itself from wider society and created an autonomous political community. The implication of this is that it may be necessary to first reintegrate members of the LRA into the greater Acholi and Ugandan community and then to find a political settlement. The article also discusses lessons learned for dealing with other existentially motivated armed groups, such as Al Qaeda.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 7 |
ID:
075014
|
|
|
|
|
| Publication |
2006.
|
| Summary/Abstract |
Although the greed-grievance approach has brought significant insight to the causes and conduct of civil wars by providing a coherent explanation of armed group motivations, it is increasingly being called into question. This article reconsiders the approach in light of insights gleaned from International Relations theory, specifically Realism. In particular, it will use the levels of analysis approach and the analytical separation between means and ends and between rhetoric and action to critique both greed and grievance explanations. The paper then proposes that the fungible concept of power and the primary motivation of survival provide superior explanations of armed group motivation and, more broadly, the conduct of internal conflicts. A case study of the Lord's Resistance Army (LRA), an armed group which is poorly understood in terms of greed-grievance, will illustrate the functional utility of a power-security approach.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 8 |
ID:
068764
|
|
|
| 9 |
ID:
065412
|
|
|