This book examines a question generally neglected in the study of international relations: why does a militarily and economically less powerful state initiate conflict against a relatively strong state? T. V. Paul analyses this phenomenon by focusing on the strategic and political considerations, domestic and international, which influence a weaker state to initiate war against a more powerful adversary. The key argument of deterrence theory is that the military superiority of the status quo power, coupled with a credible retaliatory threat, will prevent attack by challengers. The author challenges this assumption by examining six twentieth-century asymmetric wars, from the Japanese offensive against Russia in 1904 to the Argentine invasion of the Falkland Islands in 1982. The book's findings have wide implications for the study of war, power, deterrence, coercive diplomacy, strategy, arms races, and alliances.

How do the weak win wars? The likelihood of victory and defeat in asymmetric conflicts depends on the interaction of the strategies weak and strong actors use. Using statistical and in-depth historical analyses of conflicts spanning two hundred years, in this 2005 book Ivan Arregúin-Toft shows that, independent of regime type and weapons technology, the interaction of similar strategic approaches favors strong actors, while opposite strategic approaches favors the weak. This approach to understanding asymmetric conflicts allows us to makes sense of how the United States was able to win its war in Afghanistan (2002) in a few months, while the Soviet Union lost after a decade of brutal war (1979–89). Arreguín-Toft's strategic interaction theory has implications not only for international relations theory, but for policy makers grappling with interstate and civil wars, as well as terrorism.

This volume combines qualitative research with the analysis of available data on trends in modern terrorism and the use of primary sources and writings. It puts forwad an original typology of terrorism based on the overall level of a militant group's goals and the extent to which its terrorist activities are linked to a broader armed conflict.

Since the end of World War II a paradigm shift has occurred in armed conflict. Asymmetric, or fourth-generation warfareùthe challenge of nonstate belligerents to the authority and power of the stateùhas become the dominant form of conflict, while interstate conventional war has become an increasingly irrelevant instrument of statecraft. In asymmetric conflicts the enemy is often a fellow citizen with a different vision for the future of the countryùwaging war among the people, maneuvering on the borderlines between parliamentary politics, street politics, criminal activity, and combat operations. Winning Wars amongst the People analyzes the special circumstances of asymmetric conflicts in the domestic context and seeks to identify those principles that allow a democratic stateÆs security forces to meet the challenge, while at the same time obey their homelandÆs laws, protect its culture, observe its values, and maintain its liberties, traditions, and way of life. Using five detailed case studies, Peter A. Kiss explains the fundamental differences between the paradigm of conventional warfare and that of asymmetric warfare as well as the latterÆs political, social, and economic roots and main characteristics. Most important, he identifies the measures a government must take to prepare its security forces and other institutions of state for an asymmetric conflict.

Social media increasingly shapes the way in which we perceive conflicts and conflict parties abroad. Conflict parties, therefore, have started using social media strategically to influence public opinion abroad. This book explores the phenomenon by examining, (1) which strategies of external communication conflict parties use during asymmetric conflicts and (2) what shapes the selection of these communication strategies. In a comprehensive case study of the conflict in Israel and Palestine, Bernd Hirschberger shows that the selection of strategies of external communication is shaped by the (asymmetric) conflict structure.

This book explores the conditions under which non-state armed groups (NSAGs) participate in post-war security and political governance. The text offers a comprehensive approach to post-war security transition processes based on five years of participatory research with local experts and representatives of former non-state armed groups. It analyses the successes and limits of peace negotiations, demobilisation, arms management, political or security sector integration, socio-economic reintegration and state reform from the direct point of view of conflict stakeholders who have been central participants in ongoing and past peacebuilding processes. Challenging common perceptions of ex-combatants as "spoilers" or "passive recipients of aid", the various contributors examine the post-war transitions of these individuals from state challengers to peacebuilding agents. The book concludes on a cross-country comparative analysis of the main research findings and the ways in which they may facilitate a participatory, inclusive and gender-sensitive peacebuilding strategy. Post-War Security Transitions will be of much interest to students of peacebuilding, security governance, war and conflict studies, political violence and IR in general.

All armed conflicts, whether international or non-international, are characterized by some sort of asymmetry. Disparities between parties to armed hostilities have always been an issue as a matter of fact, although not necessarily addressed by International Humanitarian Law (IHL) as a matter of law. IHL remains a stranger to such situations, for it is based on its equal applicability to all parties of a conflict. Nonetheless, contemporary conflicts have shown that the said equality may no longer be the rule, but rather the exception. This refers in particular to non-international armed conflicts where parties are inherently asymmetrical and the weaker ones tend to act in straightforward violation of universally hailed rules in order to engage their technologically advanced and more resourceful enemy. Accordingly, the ways in which asymmetric actors behave during armed conflicts challenge IHL’s basic foundations, and the fact that civilians still endure the burden of hostilities, as their primary victims, underpins the necessity for further efforts in the attempt to promote respect for IHL. This work assesses diverse alternatives to respond to these brutal forms of asymmetric confrontations, with a view on those mechanisms which best address the causes why non-state actors deny not only complying with IHL from a legal perspective but also contemplating policy-making considerations.