Rivalry and State Support of Non-State Armed Groups (NAGs), 1946-2001

This study examines the conditions under which states engaged in strategic rivalries choose to support Non-state Armed Groups (NAGs) that target their rivals. NAGs include ethnic or religious insurgents, guerilla organizations, and terrorists. We develop a rational choice model of state support for...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:International studies quarterly 2012-12, Vol.56 (4), p.720-734
Main Authors: Maoz, Zeev, San-Akca, Belgin
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
Competition
Cooperation
Datasets
Decision Making
Democracy
Dyadic relations
Escalation
Government
Insurgency
International alliances
International Cooperation
International politics
International Relations
International studies
Radical groups
Rational Choice
Retaliation
Risk
Rivalry
Terrorism
War
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Description
Summary:This study examines the conditions under which states engaged in strategic rivalries choose to support Non-state Armed Groups (NAGs) that target their rivals. NAGs include ethnic or religious insurgents, guerilla organizations, and terrorists. We develop a rational choice model of state support for NAGs. We focus on state support of NAGs as cooperation between states and NAGs emerging out of a mutual and purposive decision-making process. The model suggests that decisions of states to support NAGs targeting a rival are affected by dissatisfaction with the status quo and the expected risk of retaliation. Rivalries create opportunities for NAGs that operate against one of the rivals, allowing them to acquire resources to sustain their operations. The presence of rivalry increases the likelihood of state-NAG cooperation. In turn, state-NAG cooperation increases the likelihood of rivalry escalation. We test the propositions of the model using an original data set that includes observations for 175 NAGs and 83 state supporters in the post-WWII period. We find consistent support for our propositions. We discuss the implications of these results for the theory and practice of international relations.
ISSN:0020-8833
1468-2478
DOI:10.1111/j.1468-2478.2012.00759.x