Working Papers
The Politics of Violence in Latin America's Left Turn
Francisco Gutiérrez Sanín and Pablo Policzer
Working Paper #11 | September 2008
Are there Left-wing politics of violence in Latin America? The emergence of Left-wing governments has renovated the political leadership in the region, and prompted discussions about the nature of Latin America's "Left turn(s)." To varying degrees, new Left-wing leaders aim to redistribute wealth and power, and to bring traditionally marginalized sectors into the political mainstream. By contrast to what might have been the case in the recent past, none of Latin America's new leaders have come to power by force. This paper sketches a framework for making sense of these emerging politics, by:
a) distinguishing among a "Hobbesian" position that prioritizes results (such as order) and a "Lockean" position that prioritizes rights and rules;
b) distinguishing among several different arenas in which new patterns of violence and conflict can be observed; and
c) by arguing that, in response to these new patterns, the Hobbesian and Lockean positions do not map neatly onto traditional left and right positions.
In short, the politics of violence fragments the Latin American Left in unique ways, which do not
necessarily reflect these governments' policies in other areas.
Click here to download Working Paper #11.
Politics, Arms and Opportunities: A Comparative Analysis of the FARC and EZLN
Jan Boesten
Working Paper #10 | July 2008
Why do some armed groups change course from violence to peaceful politics? Using a most similar case design, this paper compares the evolution of two groups that at one point shared similare characteristics as Marxist insurgencies in Latin America: the FARC in Colombia and the EZLN (Zapatistas) in Mexico, yet eventually diverged widely. It addresses the question of why the FARC stayed the course of violent militarism, whereas the Zapatistas turned into a largely political and non-violent armed group. The paper argues that the reasons that gave rise to the different nature of both armed groups is rooted in endogenous factors rather than internal ideological factors - the respective political and miliatry opportunity structures in each country. Political opportunities closed for the FARC mainly due to the attacks of paramilitaries on its political wing, whereas military opportunities opened due to the resources available through the drug trade - legal politics were more dangerous than armed struggle. The Zapatistas on the other hand faced complete annihilation in their own armed uprising, and survived only because of the impact of NGOs and international media attention. Essentially, legal politics were safer than armed struggle for the Zapatistas in Mexico, and armed struggle was safer than legal politics for the FARC in Colombia.
Jan Boesten is a former Research Affliate with the AGP. He is currently a graduate student at the University of British Colombia.
Click here to download Working Paper #10.
Rethinking the Link between Civil Society and Civil War: The Case of Colombia
Juliana Ramirez
Working Paper #9 | June 2008
This paper questions the widely held belief that an active civil society can help to reduce levels of violence in civil war. It does so by examining the links between civil society and political violence in Colombia, through a controlled comparison between two regions and using Stathis Kalyvas' framework to study the incidence of violence during civil wars. The paper demonstrates that, at least in these two cases, it is not possible to establish a causal link between an active civil society and reduced levels of violence. Instead, the evidence suggests that levels of violence in armed conflicts vary according to the logic of territorial control between competing armed groups. However, the evidence also demonstrates that, contrary to what the framework suggests, neutrality during territorial competition is possible.
Click here to download Working Paper #9.
The Doctrine of Guanranteeing Law and Order: The increased role of the Brazilian Army in public security actitvities
Jorge Zaverucha
Working Paper #8 | June 2008
An important indicator of a country's progress toward institutionalized democracy is whether the distinctions between the police and the army are clear. By this measure, although the authoritarian regime in Brazil ended in 1985, the Army's role in public security is increasing rather than decreasing. Indeed, the new Doctrine of Guaranteeing Law and Order gives the Army policy powers when it intervenes in public security operations. In conjunction with this, a mechanized brigade has been transformed into a light brigade, and one of the aims of Brazil's sending troops to Haiti is to train them to be deployed back in Rio de Janiero's slums, against the country's own citizens. This article shows empirically how the Army is being used to preform police duties, and explains why this role is accepted by most politicians as well as by the population at large.
Click here to download Working Paper #8.
Is There a Tension Between Human Rights and Conflict Resolution? A Conflict Resolution Perspective
Ram Manikkalingam
Working Paper #7 | June 2006
The relationship between pursuing human rights and resolving conflict is by and large complementary, as one generally advances the other. This paper explores the areas of complementarity among both agendas, as well as some of the ways in which they clash. Notwithstanding these clashes, it argues, such tensions can generally be resolved with political skill and deft institutional design.
Click here to dowload Working Paper #7
Promoting Democracy Beyond the State
Pablo Policzer
Working Paper #6 | June 2006
Over the past generation, two of the central bodies of norms to regulate state behavior – human rights and humanitarian law – have been extended to incorporate non-state armed groups. This paper examines the potentials and pitfalls of the next possible step in this normative shift, namely to promote democracy among non-state armed groups. It argues that democracy promotion beyond the state should at least be considered, based on what the author labels the principle of "humanitarian realism."
Click here to download Working Paper #6
Neither Terrorists nor Freedom Fighters
Pablo Policzer
Working Paper #5 | February 2005
While non-state armed groups have always existed, to this day there is no clear consensus on how to describe or define them, or on what should be expected from them. On the one hand, the humanitarian and human rights communities struggle with ways to bring armed groups into the basic normative frameworks that bind states. On the other hand, the "War on Terror" is premised on the idea that armed groups cannot be held to the same standard as states, and should instead, be simply defeated. This paper argues that the humanitarian and human rights communities cannot hope to change the terms of the "War on Terror" debate without a reasonable consensus themselves on what constitutes an armed group. Such a consensus has proven elusive, and most of the current working definitions do not accurately reflect the kinds of groups with which humanitarian and human rights agencies are forced to contend in conflict zones around the world. The paper proposes an alternative working definition, which better reflects the diversity of groups we observe.
Click here to download Working Paper #5
Armed Groups, Weapons Availability and Misuse: An Overview of the Issues and Options for Action
David Capie
Working Paper #4 | May 2004
Controlling the proliferation and misuse of small arms by all actors in civil wars is a key challenge on the human security agenda. This paper provides an overview of the linkages between small arms and armed groups and identifies some of the key challenges non-state actors present for small arms control. The paper discusses why it is important to focus specifically on armed groups. It outlines the various means used by armed groups to obtain weapons and ammunition and identifies the humanitarian and disarmament challenges raised by their activities during and after conflicts. The paper examines efforts to curb the supply of arms to non-state actors and concludes by offering some suggestions for possible new policy initiatives. It stresses the need to go beyond a supply-side approach to small arms and to deal directly with armed groups in order to reduce violations of humanitarian law and human rights norms.
Click here to download Working Paper #4
Keeping the Promise of Protection: Holding Armed Groups to the Same Standard as States
David Capie and Pablo Policzer
Working Paper #3 | January 2004
Over the past generation, the international community has come to expect that non-state armed groups respect the same human rights and humanitarian standards as states. However, the policy instruments to enforce these standards remain focused on states. UN organizations are de facto experimenting with different ways to bring groups to account, albeit without strong political support from Member States. The brief argues that better policies require greater attention to the problem of armed groups at the political level.
Click here to download Working Paper #3
Targeting Diasporas: The Canadian Counter- Terrorism Experience
Margaret Purdy
Working Paper #2 | October 2003
Most terrorism-related activities in Canada are extensions of foreign conflicts, with individuals and groups using Canada as a base for fundraising, lobbying through front organizations, planning operations, and arranging logistical and other kinds of support for homeland struggles. This paper will use specific examples to describe the complex, multi-dimensional nature of the relationship between diasporas and the federal government in Canada, including situations where tensions arise between counterterrorism policies and programs and those with different goals and objectives. Against this background, the paper will consider what lessons can be drawn from Canada’s counter-terrorism experience for application in broader strategies aimed at the more general problem of human rights violations and humanitarian law abuses by non-state armed groups.
Click here to download Working Paper #2
Human Rights and Armed Groups: Toward a New Policy Architecture
Pablo Policzer
Working Paper #1 | July 2002
Some of the most serious human rights violations today are not committed by states but by non-state armed groups. A generation ago the international community barely paid attention to such violations. As a result, even gross violations by non-state groups were defined as merely "criminal" violence that fell within the domestic jurisdiction of sovereign states. But nowadays the old assumptions no longer hold.
Click here to download Working Paper #1
Submissions
|
The Armed Groups Project welcomes paper submissions. Works should address the challenges armed groups pose for policy makers and practitioners, and/or provide new accounts of an armed group's structure, activities or motivations. Draft may be submitted in electronic (MS Word) format to: Publication in this does not preclude subsequent publication elsewhere. |