Anastasia Shesterinina
“Overall, the conference pointed to the potential of moving from single- to multi-scalar analytical frameworks that incorporate various actors and their interactions as a particularly challenging but fruitful area for future cross-cutting research.”
The third Civil War Paths Conference returned in full force this year for not one but two full days of panels on some of the key issues in the study of internal armed conflict and peace. Outgoing Fellows of the Centre for the Comparative Study of Civil War showcased their latest research, welcoming the 2024-2025 cohort on board and engaging in thought-provoking discussions that involved over 50 participants over two weeks. Whereas last years’ conferences explored the broader theme of civil war as a social process that guides our research on the Civil War Paths project and specific conflict dynamics that Civil War Paths Fellows focus on in their work, this year brought 18 presentations across six panels in conversation on cross-cutting questions, from the importance of technology in our rethinking of conflict dynamics to the place of norms and culture in the study of civil war.
How far does digital technology go in reshaping conflict and peace processes?
Can we apply existing approaches to mobilization, armed group violence, protection of civilians, and peacebuilding in the context where technological advances, especially widespread access to social media, have profoundly reshaped these dynamics? How should we adapt or reimagine these approaches altogether to fit current realities of conflict and peace? What are the limits of digital technologies’ effects on these processes? Brian J. Phillips, Diksha Poddar, and Jennifer Hodge (with Isabella Aung) prompted these questions based on their studies of social media firms’ designation of militant groups as terrorists, technologies for peace in conflict prevention, mitigation, and transformation, and opportunities and challenges of women’s digital inclusion in political dialogues, respectively.
These studies invite further examination of the effects of digital technologies on the dynamics within and between the actors relevant to conflict and peace processes to understand what these technologies do and do not change. For example, how would the effects of exile on refugee political behavior that Josephine Lechartre explored in the Guatemalan internal armed conflict change with the use of social media?
Who is driving the effects?
These studies also connect to questions that emerged in subsequent panels. How social media firms’ designation intersects with the labels that states and international organizations apply to armed groups in shaping the evolution of conflict and peace was one cross-cutting question, sparked by Tom Buitelaar’s study of “spoilers.” What role having excluded groups in the room plays in generating provisions, for example, for women, that Elizabeth Good examined in peace negotiations was another. The effects of institutionalization of and resistance to these and other practices that Miranda Melcher raised in the context of United Nations peacekeeping unites these questions in an overarching research agenda.
But the look from above must be complemented by studies internal to the actors involved to fully understand these effects. How rebel leaders and cadres label themselves, as Nabin Bibhas discussed in Nepal, and spoiler- or terrorist-designated militants view their engagement and organizational loyalty, extra-lethal violence they resort to, or their different revenue sources that James Hewitt, Mark Berlin, and Joshua Fawcett Weiner investigated, respectively, are central to answering these questions.
From single- to multi-scalar frameworks
Such internal dynamics drive some of the main facets of armed group behavior, as Amelie Freiberg showed in her study of political education and conflict-related sexual violence. Yet, armed groups do not operate in isolation from other actors who influence their activities. Local elites contesting rebel governance, civilians under rebel control accepting or rejecting different armed actors’ legitimation strategies, and conflict-affected communities variously supporting reintegration of former combatants are some of the influences that Tessa Devereaux Evans, Wolfgang Minatti, and Laura Camila Barrios Sabogal drew our attention to, respectively.
Incorporating multiple violent actors that complete in the formation of political orders during armed conflicts, as Bilal Salayme showed in Northern Syria, considering interactions between different kinds of actors, among others, movements and governments, to address shifts from peaceful resistance to violence short of war to warfare that Barbora Valik explored in Latin America, and combining macro-, meso-, and micro-level lenses beyond a focus on single factors such as ideology that Silvia Carenzi applied to Islamist armed group trajectories are promising ways forward.
Overall, the conference pointed to the potential of moving from single- to multi-scalar analytical frameworks that incorporate various actors and their interactions as a particularly challenging but fruitful area for future cross-cutting research.
