Combatant recruitment and the outcome of war

Why do some civil wars terminate soon, with victory of one party over the other? What determines if the winner is the incumbent or the rebel group? Why do other conáicts last longer? We propose a simple model in which the power of each armed group depends on the number of combatants it is able to recruit. This is in turn a function of the relative ëdistanceíbetween group leaderships and potential recruits. We emphasize the moral hazard problem of recruitment: Öghting is costly and risky so combatants have the incentive to defect from their task. They can also desert altogether and join the enemy. This incentive is stronger the farther away the Öghter is from the principal, since monitoring becomes increasingly costly. Bigger armies have more power but less monitoring capacity to prevent defection and desertion. This general framework allows a variety of interpretations of what type of proximity matters for building strong cohesive armies ranging from ethnic distance to geographic dispersion. Di§erent assumptions about the distribution of potential Öghters along the relevant dimension of conáict lead to di§erent equilibria. We characterize these, discuss the implied outcome in terms of who wins the war, and illustrate with historical and contemporaneous case studies.

Corrective Justice vs. Social Justice in the Aftermath of War

How do we justify the practice of corrective justice for losses suffered during armed conflicts? This article seeks to show the force and relevance of this question, and to argue that, in cases of massively destructive wars, social justice should gain priority over corrective justice. Starting from a liberal Rawlsian conception of the relationship between corrective and social justice, it is argued that, paradoxically, the more destructive a war is, the less normative force corrective rights have and the higher priority policies of social justice, which guarantee basic rights to all citizens, should have.

The Construction of a State Peace Policy and the Process of Conflict Resolution

The academic literature specialized on processes of conflict resolution has focused on how third party intervention and mediation can contribute to end violent conflict, however it has also ignored the potential role of the state in countries affected by internal war. This article calls for a better understanding of the state, not only as a source of contemporary conflict but as a potential advocate of conflict resolution processes. It suggests that it is necessary and possible to involve the state in more effective processes of conflict resolution through the implementation of a State Peace Policy. The central argument is that some of the critical elements that should guide the state action when confronting the destructive logic of war and violence can be effectively undertaken through a public policy focused on building peace. After suggesting a general definition of State Peace Policy and highlighting some of its main attributes, the article recognizes that this sort of policy can also orientate the unfinished process of state consolidation in Colombia and other countries affected by internal conflict. The role of the state in the process of conflict resolution is crucial; however there are some issues normally ignored within the policy-making process, they must be seriously taken into account in order to eliminate the underlying structures that perpetuate conflict and delay the consolidation of sustainable peace.-----La literatura académica especializada en procesos de resolución de conflictos se ha centrado en el estudio de cómo la intervención de terceras partes y la labor de mediación pueden contribuir a poner fin a los conflictos violentos, sin embargo, también ha ignorado el rol potencial del estado en aquellos países afectados por la guerra interna. Este artículo llama la atención sobre la necesidad de estudiar al estado no sólo como la fuente de los conflictos contemporáneos, sino como un colaborador potencial en procesos de resolución de conflictos. Se sugiere que es necesario y también posible involucrar al estado en este tipo de procesos de una manera más efectiva a través de la implementación de una Política de Estado centrada en la Paz. El argumento central es que algunos de los elementos claves que deben guiar la acción del estado cuando éste se enfrenta a la lógica destructiva de la guerra y la violencia, pueden ser efectivamente tratados a través de una política pública que de prioridad a la construcción de la paz. Luego de sugerir una definición general y destacar algunos de los principales atributos de ésta clase de Política de Estado, el artículo reconoce que ésta podría también orientar el proceso inacabado de consolidación del estado en Colombia y en otros países afectados por conflictos internos. El rol del estado en el proceso para resolver los conflictos es crucial, sin embargo hay algunos aspectos normalmente ignorados durante el proceso de formulación de políticas que deben ser tomados en cuenta seriamente para eliminar las estructuras que perpetúan el conflicto y que retrasan la consolidación de la paz sostenible.

Between the headlines of the Israeli - Arabic conflict: the coverage of CNN and Al Jazeera

The purpose of this article is to analyze the coverage made by CNN and Al Jazeera (in Arabic) to operation Caste Lead and the Goldstone Report during 2008 and 2009. This investigation is based in the theory of Qualitative Analysis of Content, by Wildemuth and Zhang. The methodology follows up with the one proposed by the authors in the main theory, complementing it with the Gamson and Modigliani´s Framing theory. The methodology mention above display the different in the coverage development, determined by the geopolitical influences; being CNN more influenced by a Western pro USA and pro Israeli speech, while Al Jazeera is more prone to support the Palestinian cause, this is the thesis of this article. During the development of the investigation, the thesis was demonstrated to be only partially accurate as CNN was not completely supportive to the Israeli arguments during the coverage, but Al Jazeera did have preferential speech for the Palestinian cause.