Sadeen Haddad
“….the conference stimulated crucial discussions around inter- and intra-group relations, their continued pre-to-post war impact, and the role of spatial dynamics”
The fourth Civil War Paths Conference returned this year with some key conceptual questions and insights on internal armed conflict, and the diverse roles that armed groups can take on during and after civil wars. Through welcoming the incoming 2025-2026 Fellows into the Center for the Comparative Study of Civil War, outgoing Fellows gave thought provoking presentations on the nature of armed group engagement with broader communities. Although last year’s conference shed light on cross-cutting questions pertaining to the role of technology and culture in our rethinking of conflict dynamics, and more broadly civil wars, this year’s conference looked into intra and inter-group engagement, tackling questions around cohesion, the nature of grassroot mobilisation, and the impact of rebel group structures on post-war regime durability.
What can a closer assessment of inter- and intra-group relations tell us about the nature of mobilisation and cohesion within armed groups?
How might armed groups engage with members and non-members in non-material ways? And what impacts could these ‘performative’ engagements have on recruitment? Through looking into the case study of the PKK in Southern Turkey, Ilayda B. Onder provided insights on how performative governance both enhanced and limited mobilisation, through increasing the visibility of recruits. This provoked discussions around how rebel governance can be adapted to the spaces in which it is exercised, particularly in ‘contested spaces’ where performative acts can provide further legitimacy to rebels amongst potential recruits.
The importance of engaging with space was further reflected in Obayda Ghabdan’s research on socio-spatial analysis of micro-level dynamics in Syria. This research drew us to consider how insurgency can unfold in specific micro-contexts in a manner that is disjunct from overarching political narratives. Engaging with the locality, and disaggregating the different social identities and understandings within it, can provide more nuanced insights into how different spaces and societies transform in conflict – subsequently moving away from a unitary assumption on how insurgencies develop and unfold.
This further highlights the importance of developing a more comprehensive understanding of intricate intra-group relations, and the social networks that produce and reproduce these. Here, Jéssica Höring discussed the ‘logic of radicalisation’ in armed groups, demonstrating how the institutionalisation of ‘hierarchical ambiguity’ in organisations can both facilitate internal mistrust – and subsequently create a culture of rumours and gossip within these groups, whilst equally creating cohesion through this very fragmentation.
Fragmentation arose as a key theme here, both in terms of its instrumental use that can be adopted or internalised to sow distrust within organisations as part of an overarching strategy, but equally as a lens through which we can consider space to better understand how rebels act and organise.
How do these relations translate into the post-war period?
Through focusing on the relations and spatial dynamics that impact rebel group behaviour, another important layer of discussion was introduced– that is, what can these dynamics mean for the post-war durability of regimes established by rebel victors? Sean Paul Ashley tackled this question by highlighting how the organisation of rebellion informs rebel regime durability. In particular, rebels engaged in ‘people’s war’ that had developed extensive wartime governance structures were more capable of supporting their reconstruction efforts in post-war periods, thereby sustaining prolonged rule. This drew the discussion towards the importance of considering the organisational structure of rebel groups during conflict, and their continued social impact and positioning after conflicts have subsided.
Building on this, discussants then took to consider what this means for peace. Anna Marie Obermeier provided insights into the inclusion of provisions for women in ceasefire agreements, provoking important questions about the frequency of these provisions, as well as their nature and what this means for gender inclusivity in post-war societies.
Concludingly, the conference stimulated crucial discussions around inter- and intra-group relations, their continued pre-to-post war impact, and the role of spatial dynamics. Thus, this urges us to consider the importance of focusing on the nature of engagement within and around groups, and the diverse nature of these engagements, which can reveal significant insights on the overarching trajectories of conflict.
