Citation

Horowitz S, Ye M. Stud. Conflict Terrorism 2013; 36(5): 372-393.

Copyright

(Copyright © 2013, Informa - Taylor and Francis Group)

DOI

10.1080/1057610X.2013.775455

PMID

unavailable

Abstract

In internal ethno-territorial conflicts, what explains why state or rebel group leaderships use civilian-targeting strategies--expulsion or mass killing strategies designed to punish enemy civilians or to decimate the enemy civilian presence on contested territory? One argument is that those living under the worst initial conditions--defined in terms of collective goods such as weak collective autonomy, policy outcomes, and material conditions--are most likely to target enemy group civilians. Another approach focuses on relative power--arguing that the enemy civilian population is targeted either because of weaker or stronger relative power. A third approach argues that differences in leadership preferences--in particular, more ideologically extreme or power-seeking preferences--are likely to drive direct assaults on enemy civilians. We examine these proposed mechanisms in terms of expected effects on benefits and costs in a simple ethno-territorial bargaining framework. We argue that relative power advantages and more extreme nationalist preferences seem most likely to predict decisions to target enemy civilian populations. We expect strongly power-seeking preferences to lead to civilian targeting more conditionally--where there is a greater internal political threat along with either greater relative power or a more moderate enemy. Last, we do not expect that variation in initial conditions will have a significant direct effect. We apply the framework to explain patterns of civilian targeting following the collapse of Yugoslavia in 1991. [Supplementary material is available for this article. Go to the publisher's online edition of Studies in Conflict & Terrorism for the following free supplemental resource: online appendix.]