Last summer we asked our readers to submit their questions about political violence for our contributors to take a crack at. We’d now like to do the same, again. Got a question about political violence and conflict? Submit your questions in the comments, and our team of contributors will try and answer. We will post the answer to the first question we’ve chosen next week.
You May Also Like
Weekly Links
- January 15, 2017
By Patrick Pierson. US citizens in Haiti have been attacked after a Haitian senator-elect was extradited to the…
Weekly Links
- June 6, 2013
By Taylor Marvin Foreign jihadis fight for shrines in Syria (via Toby Matthiesen, via Marc Lynch), and photojournalism from…
Weekly Links
- March 5, 2017
By Patrick Pierson. US and South Korean troops began annual joint military exercises this week. In a historic…
OAIS Awards Voting Ends Soon!
- February 5, 2014
By Taylor Marvin It is the final voting stretch in the 2014 Online Achievements in International Studies (OAIS) Awards,…
Weekly Links
- July 9, 2013
By Taylor Marvin In Egypt, how Mohamed Morsi’s time in office led liberals to warm to the military. Anthony Bubalo also examines…
Weekly Links
- January 24, 2014
By Taylor Marvin Burma’s Muslim Rohingya minority and a “countryside of concentration camps.” After the fall of the autocratic regimes that…
0 comments
1. What reforms should policy makers enact according to the peace and conflict literature you think is the most convincing in order to save greatest number of innocents’ lives?
2.What peace and conflict research do you think is the most groundbreaking of the last decade, and why?
How true is the assertion that drones actually have lower civilian death rates than more traditional methods? Is it even fair to make the comparison because it is so much easier for drones to hit targets than ground forces?
Why do different public agencies define terrorism differently? Would we be better off having a single definition?
Why does war not break out in cases in which, according to existing theories of civil war onset, violence technically should break out? In other words: why is there peace when we would expect war? (Other than GDP/per capita)
Does the level of ethnic fragmentation within a country affect the level of violence when conflict breaks out? Using the Arab Spring revolutions as case studies, can this possible association explain the varying degrees of conflict (from nonvoilent in some countries to very violent in others) witnessed throughout the Middle East and North Africa?
Along similar lines, does a minority group in a position of power predict higher levels of violence in suppressing popular anti-government revolutions? Was Syria’s initially nonviolent revolution thus doomed from the start? In such cases, I would think that high-level defections of important pillars of support for the ruling coalition (business elites, military officials, etc.) would be fewer and farther between, due to enhanced fear of reprisals from other ethnic groups not in power. Violent repression would thus persist and even increase on behalf of the government as it desperately hangs on to power, and the opposition would never truly benefit from military defections that could swing the chances of successful revolution in their favor.