The Pennsylvania State University The Graduate School College of the Liberal Arts VIOLENT NON-STATE ACTORS IN WORLD POLITICS: THEIR FORMATION, ACTIONS, AND EFFECTS A Thesis in Political Science By Diane L. Dutka Submitted in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy May 2006 The thesis of Diane L. Dutka was reviewed and approved* by the following: Glenn Palmer Associate Professor of Political Science Thesis Adviser Chair of Committee D. Scott Bennett Professor of Political Science Navin Bapat Assistant Professor of Political Science Catherine Wanner Assistant Professor of History and Religious Studies Marie Hojnacki Graduate Director, Department of Political Science *Signatures are on file in the Graduate School. ii Abstract In the recent past, terrorism has come to the fore as a major international problem. In addition, other violent non-state actors, such as insurgents or freedom fighters, have played an increasingly visible role in world affairs. A look at history, however, reveals that such actors have played an important part in world affairs for quite some time. Their role(s), however, have never been studied systematically. Instead, they are generally filtered out of studies on conflict; not even appearing on the radar screen of the typical scholar of international affairs. In this dissertation, I introduce a data set which I have compiled on such actors, and I perform some preliminary tests to determine the extent of their influence. I also discuss questions for future research on this topic. iii Table of Contents List of Tables………………………………………………………………..Page v Chapter 1: Introduction and Literature Review ……………………………Page 1 Chapter 2: Data Collection …………………………………………………Page 21 Chapter 3: Summary of Data ………………………………………………Page 51 Chapter 4: Research Design and Hypotheses ………………………………Page 107 Chapter 5: Results..…………………………………………………………Page 140 Chapter 6: Conclusions and Questions for Further Study …………………Page 173 Bibliography………………………………………………………………...Page 190 iv List of Tables Table 3.1 Number of APAGs Present ……………………………………….Page 104 Table 3.2 APAG Formation Years…………………………………………..Page 104 Table 3.3 APAG Fate………………………………………………………..Page 105 Table 3.4 Years of Existence………………………………………………...Page 105 Table 3.5 APAG Size………………………………………………………..Page 106 Table 3.6 APAG Goals……………………………………………………....Page 106 Table 4.1 Correlation Matrix of Control Variables for Full Sample………...Page 139 Table 4.2 Correlation Matrix of Control Variables for Escalation Sample….Page 139 Table 4.3 Correlation Matrix of Control Variables for 1890-1914 Period Only ………………………………………………………………..Page 139 Table 4.4 Correlation Matrix of Control Variables for 1990-2001 Period Only ………………………………………………………………..Page 139 Table 5.1 Correlation Matrix of Explanatory Variables for Full Sample…….Page 164 Table 5.2 Correlation Matrix of Explanatory Variables for 1890-1914 Period Only ………………………………………………………………...Page 164 Table 5.3 Correlation Matrix of Explanatory Variables for 1990-2001 Period Only ………………………………………………………………..Page 165 Table 5.4 Models of APAG Presence and Dispute Onset……………………Page 166 Table 5.5 Correlation Matrix of Explanatory Variables for Full Sample…….Page 167 Table 5.6 Correlation Matrix of Explanatory Variables for 1890-1914 Period Only v …………………………………………………………………Page 167 Table 5.7 Correlation Matrix of Explanatory Variables for 1990-2001 Period Only …………………………………………………………………Page 168 Table 5.8 Models of APAG Number and Dispute Onset………………………Page 169 Table 5.9 Correlation Matrix of Explanatory Variables for Full Sample……...Page 170 Table 5.10 Models of APAG Presence and Dispute Escalation……………….Page 171 vi Chapter 1 Introduction & Literature Review Introduction In recent years, political violence performed by non-state actors has come to the forefront of international relations. Terrorist groups have engaged in increasingly provocative activities, and in some cases, these activities have been the catalyst for interstate wars. The United States, in particular, has committed its military forces to defeating terrorism, in other words, to fighting a non-state, rather than a state, enemy. Intrastate conflict, which often does not involve regular military forces, has also proliferated during the past fifteen years. With the breakup of the Soviet Union, conflicts have broken out in the Caucasus and Central Asia. Some of these, such as at least part of the conflict between Armenia and Azerbaijan, can be characterized as interstate conflicts between newly independent states. Most of these conflicts, however, include a large non- state component. The conflict between Armenia and Azerbaijan, for example, began as an internal Soviet conflict in which the primary participants were non-state militias. This eventually grew into an interstate conflict, after Armenia and Azerbaijan achieved independence. Paramilitary forces continued to play a large part on both sides, however. The breakup of Yugoslavia is another instance in which non-state actors played an important role. Conditions in Bosnia were widely described throughout the media as a “war”, although few regular military forces participated. Instead, various paramilitaries, sometimes supported by state allies, prosecuted the “war” entirely on their own. The presence of non-state actors, be they terrorists, paramilitaries, insurgents, or some other type, has long been a part of international conflict, but this phenomenon has 1 traditionally been understudied. Realism, the traditionally dominant paradigm in international relations, looks exclusively at state actors, assuming that non-state actors do not have an impact on international relations. While Thucydides (1993), considered to be the father of both international relations and the realist paradigm, does consider the role of domestic institutions and cultural differences in the states that he studies, his study assumes that the main actors in conflict are states (or in his case, city-states). Later realists, such as Machiavelli (1995), and Hobbes (2000) emphasized the role of the state and advocated strong states as a bulwark against chaos. Later realists focused their analysis on the balance of power (see Claude 1962, Haas 1953, Bremer & Mihalka 1977, Wagner 1986), but that balance was always assumed to be maintained between states. It was taken for granted that no non-state actor could possibly act as a balancer against a state, and so non-state actors could effectively be ignored. Morgenthau (various years) discusses the concept of the national interest, which is by definition the interest of the state. In later years, neo-realists made important changes to the paradigm, but they continued to focus their explanations on the state. Waltz (1979) is particularly concerned with the centrality of the state. He argues against the idea that non-state actors (in this case corporations and other economic actors) have gained enough power in the international system to rival states. While non-state actors may have some importance, in the last analysis, it is states that really matter. Waltz does not even discuss the role of violent non-state actors in international relations, probably because such actors remained marginal at the time that he wrote. 2 Competing non-realist paradigms, such as liberalism or idealism, do consider the role of actors other than states. These paradigms, however, tend to emphasize the role of non-violent international organizations, as well as looking at the behavior of democratic governments in international affairs. The darker side of non-state actors in international relations, therefore, remains under-theorized. Liberal thinkers such as Locke, Kant and Wilson (see Walter 1996, Weinstein 2000, Williams & Booth 1996) concerned themselves with domestic and international institutions and how these institutions could be developed to prevent conflict (both domestic and international). In this view, non-state institutions are seen as mitigating conflict rather than causing additional conflict. Contemporary liberal thinkers look at the role of domestic politics and regime type in states’ international behavior (see Zacher & Matthew 1995, Moravcsik 1997, Keohane & Nye 2001), but they are more focused on how domestic audiences can mitigate conflict than on how certain types of non-state actors may increase conflict. In addition, liberals often look at democracies and at how the views of the majority of citizens influence the state’s international behavior. The scholar of terrorist, guerrilla, or insurgent movements, however, looks at how a very small group of people within a much larger state may have a disproportionate influence on the foreign policy and international behavior of that state. In addition to theoretical biases, historical biases also explain why the role of non- state actors in international relations is not well-understood. Most histories of wars and major conflicts between states emphasize the role of state actors to the exclusion of other actors. Considering World War II, for example, most historians concentrate entirely on the role of politicians, diplomats, and regular soldiers. Few historians of World War II 3 discuss the resistance movements that spread throughout occupied Europe and that even had strong followings in Germany and Italy. What role, if any, the members of these organizations, who were clearly not regular soldiers or representatives of an established government, played in the outcome of the war is not even discussed, except in a few specialized histories that concentrate