2019 Cedric Smith Prize Winner

Posted by: Tamsin Tags: There is no tags | Categories: Current News


The Conflict Research Society congratulates Robert Ulrich Nagel, winner of the Cedric Smith Prize
2019. Robert received his PhD from the University of Kent in May 2019 and is currently an adjunct
professor at Clark University.

The Cedric Smith Prize is awarded annually to the best research paper in peace and conflict research
by a UK or ROI based PhD student.

Robert’s winning article “Sexual violence and conflict recurrence” shows that sexual violence
perpetrated after conflict is associated with a high likelihood of conflict recurrence. Building on
research that shows an association between recruitment and rape as a socialization method during
war, Robert argues that when rebels perpetrate sexual violence in inactive periods, it indicates
ongoing mobilization efforts. The implications of this argument for the risk of conflict recurrence are
tested on a global dataset of post-conflict years from 1989 and 2015. The jury was impressed by the
overall high quality of this submission, including a strong review of and embeddedness in previous
research, a compelling and well-founded theoretical argument, sophisticated statistical analysis, and
clarity in writing. The jury also appreciated the author’s reflections on the notion and category of
“post-conflict” if one or both sides continue to mobilize and perpetrate sexual violence after the
fighting stops. Where Robert’s research really stands out, however, is with regard to the implications
for policy – a point that the jury attaches particular importance to when selecting the winner of the
prize. While there is a profound normative argument to prevent and battle sexual violence, the
knowledge that sexual violence can be an early warning sign of impending conflict recurrence
presents an additional security-based incentive to pay more attention to these human rights abuses
during peacetime.

The CRS received 10 excellent submissions for the prize, and the winner was selected by an
international jury consisting of Nadine Ansorg (University of Kent), Jonathan Pinckney (Norwegian
University of Science and Technology), and Corinne Bara (Uppsala University, Chair of the Jury).

2018 Cedric Smith Prize Winners

Posted by: Tamsin Tags: There is no tags | Categories: Current News


The Conflict Research Society congratulates Philipp Schulz and Margherita Belgioioso, winners of the Cedric Smith Prize 2018. Philipp received his PhD from Ulster University in December 2017 and is now a postdoctoral researcher at the University of Bremen in Germany. Margherita received her PhD from the University of Essex in March 2018 and is currently a Lecturer in International Relations at Brunel University London.

The Cedric Smith Prize is awarded annually to the best research paper in peace and conflict research by a UK or ROI based PhD student. This year, the CRS decided to honour the exceptionally high quality of submissions by awarding two prizes.

Belgioioso’s winning article “Going Underground: Resort to Terrorism in Mass Mobilization Dissident Campaigns” is published in the Journal of Peace Research. While most previous research studies the use of terrorist tactics in civil wars and (previously nonviolent) mass civil resistance movements separately, Margherita Belgioioso bridges this division and finds that groups involved in either face similar organizational pressures, which encourage the initiation of terrorism due to higher tactical effectiveness. Specifically, leaders of organizations that participate in mass dissident campaigns decide to initiate terrorist campaigns with the aim of preserving the commitment of their followers and as a strategy of outbidding. The jury was particularly impressed by the sophisticated and creative theorizing in this piece: Belgioioso draws on and integrates scholarship on social movements, civil wars, and terrorism. The article also stands out for the clarity of argument and the rigorous empirical analysis. In addition, the author offers a new dataset on terrorism occurrence in 189 mass dissident campaigns between 1948 and 2006, which in itself is a contribution to the academic community and permits further research on this topic. In terms of policy implications, Margherita’s work offers us important information on the conditions under which we should expect more terrorist attacks by groups involved in mass dissident campaigns.

Schulz’ winning article “Displacement from Gendered Personhood – Sexual Violence andMasculinities in Northern Uganda” is published in International Affairs. While most existing studies on the topic treat the effects of sexual violence as linked to one-off events, Philipp Schulz builds on seven months of fieldwork in northern Uganda to show how the impact of sexual violence is a process that is compounded over time and strikes at multiple levels of what it means to be a man. The contribution of this research goes beyond the scholarship on wartime sexual violence against men: By critically challenging the dominant terminologies in his field, Philipp is able to offer a lens that can help us understand the impact of sexual violence on male, female and gender non-confirming survivors. The jury was very impressed by the reflective, ethical and conscientious way this research was conducted in a very challenging setting, as well as the careful treatment of concepts and nuanced argument. For policy and practice, the findings of this study offer some hope: Acknowledging that the aftermath of experiencing sexual violence plays out in the long term also acknowledges that effects on gendered identity are potentially temporal and can possibly be alleviated. By amplifying the seldom-heard voices of male survivors, the paper contributes to an understanding of how they could be assisted in this process.

The CRS received 12 excellent submissions for the prize, and the winner was selected by an international jury consisting of Hugh Miall (University of Kent), Enzo Nussio (ETH Zurich), Johanna Söderström (Uppsala University), and Corinne Bara (Uppsala University, Chair of the Jury).

Winner of 2018 Conflict Research Society Book of the Year Prize

Posted by: Tamsin Tags: There is no tags | Categories: Current News


The Conflict Research Society congratulates Ana Arjona on winning the 2018 Conflict Research Society Book of the Year Prize for her book titled Rebelocracy: Social Order in the Colombian Civil War published by Cambridge University Press (November, 2016).

The prize committee received over 40 nominations from conflict/peace researchers, institutions, practitioners and publishers from around the world. The committee chose the winning title out of 4 short-listed books based on criteria such as how well the book demonstrates a significant contribution to conflict/peace studies, impact factor, methodological rigour, robustness and credibility of the findings, the extent to which it is interdisciplinary, quality of writing and presentation. The committee also prioritized first time book authors.

Judges on the prize committee described Rebelocracy: Social Order in the Colombian Civil War as a “truly innovative and a unique study.” They praised the way this study “shed light on another under-explored area that of social order during civil wars, non-state actor governance, and the dynamics of combatant-civilian interaction.” Judges highlighted the “meticulous” approach “in terms of the question it asks, the theroetical innovation, and the methods used.” Pointing to the “theoretical contribution and substantial potential to influence practice,” the judges agreed this book is a deserved winner for its outstanding scholarship.

This year’s prize committee chose this year’s winner out of four short-listed excellent books. Our congratulations are extended to the following running up titles (in no particular order):

Kaplan, Oliver. Resisting War: How Communities Protect Themselves. Cambridge University Press (July 20, 2017)

Balcells, Laia. Rivalry and Revenge: the Politics of Violence during Civil War CUP, 2017.

Matanock, Alia. Electing Peace: From Civil Conflict to Political Participation. Cambridge University Press, 2017

Two other excellent books only just missed the short-list. We would like to also give these books an honourable mention to:

Ramsbotham, Oliver. When Conflict Resolution Fails, Polity Press, 2016

Dara Kay Cohen Rape during Civil War Cornell University Press, 2016

Thank you also to the CRS Book Prize Judges -, Isabel Phillips, Govinda Clayton, Judith Large, Kyle Beardsley, Sabrina Karim, and Andrew Thomson (facilitator).

The winner of this year’s CRS Book Prize, Ana Arjona, is invited to the CRS annual conference to receive her prize and to provide a short presentation on her work. This year the CRS conference will be held at University of Birmingham on the September 17-18, 2018. It is titled “Rethinking the Transition from Violence to Peace in Uncertain Times”.

Dresden Forum for International Politics, February 2018

Posted by: Tamsin Tags: There is no tags | Categories: Current News


Member of CRS Council and Senior Research Fellow at CARC, University of Kent Judith Large gave an opening address at the Dresden Forum on International Politics 8/9 February 2018, on the theme of ‘Sustaining Peace through democratic governance: Challenges for the International Agenda’. The forum was organised by the Development and Peace Foundation SEF in conjunction with both the Government of the Free State of Saxony and the Federal Ministry for Economic Cooperation and Development. This event was held in tandem with the United Nations’ current process of reviewing its conflict resolution strategy, and subsequent to the release on 18 January 2018 of the Secretary General’s report on Peacebuilding and Sustaining Peace, with its four pillars of the rule of law, accountability, democracy and human rights. For the Dresden Forum ‘sustaining peace’ means a challenge to overcome more than a decade of hard security statist dominance and move to responsive political systems, which can act on and manage social grievance.

Judith’s talk highlighted the contradiction between a rise in claimed electoral democracies (125 worldwide in 2015) and the sharp decline in human rights and civil liberties, documented by the recently released 2018 Rule of Law Index which found that fundamental human rights have declined in almost 2/3 of the 113 countries surveyed. With concerns including non-discrimination, freedom of expression and religion, right to privacy and workers’ rights, there is growing recognition that populism, authoritarian nationalism and the general retreat from international legal obligations are trends which pose grave dangers. Moreover, seven years after the demonstrations for democracy referred to as the ‘Arab Spring’ we have ample and tragic evidence of expressed social need but too often repressive responses and war, with international agendas further complicating domestic politics.

Pointing to the paradox of democratic success but liberal decline, Judith pointed to the importance of ‘governance’ – that is, the means of systems, relationships and institutions –which manage and meet needs and changes in a given society. If Democracy is the What, Governance is the How; response and delivery processes, use of authority, decision-making, accountability. She had three key questions for deliberation in the forum: 1) Is democratic governance a means for providing wider human security, or is it an ideal too often suspended for special powers in the name of ‘security’? (as per counter-terrorism and now prevention of violent extremism agendas). 2) In the promotion of democracy – (also as part of post-war settlements) has emphasis been too much on the redistribution of power through elections and not enough on delivery- that is, measures which meet the development and human needs of citizens? 3) When does the pursuit of national security produce domestic insecurity, particularly played out in urban spaces – in the modern city?

Thematic workshops deliberated spectrums of violent extremism (including the rise of the far right in Europe); secessionist movements and grievances; and cities as sites for migration and development or urban warfare and siege. Panellists for these workshops included (to name a few): Mohamed Yahya, Africa Regional Programme Coordinator UNDP, Addis Ababa; Vera Baboun, Former Mayor of Bethlehem; Hajer Sharief Co-founder of Maan Nabniha (Together We Build It), Triopli; Ambassador
 Ekkehard Brose, Special Envoy for Crisis Prevention and Stabilization German Foreign Office,
Berlin; Professor Samir Kumar Das, University of Calcutta, Kolkata; and Dr Marc Sanjaume-Calvet, Universitat Pompeu Fabra, Barcelona.

Sustaining peace was seen as encompassing prevention and proactive social policies, a continuous responsibility for all countries and the communities within them. In a fitting tribute to the power of history and transformation, a public event was also held, in the Dresden Frauenkirche, the majestic cathedral-like protestant baroque structure destroyed by the UK/US firebombing aerial attack in February 1945, then left as rubble for fifty years under the DDR. The church was rebuilt between 1995 and 2005, a counterpart to Coventry Cathedral in the UK – both now living centres for work on peace and reconciliation. Also attended by all conference participants, the public meeting was addressed by Michael Kretschmer, Minister-President of the Free State of Saxony, and H.E. Ramzy Ezzeldin Ramzy, Deputy Special Envoy of the United Nations Secretary General for Syria. Ambassador Ramzy’s overview of recent developments in Syria was a sobering reminder of the magnitude of tasks and challenges ahead.


So, What is Democracy Anyway? Peter Emerson @ TEDxVienna

Posted by: Tamsin Tags: There is no tags | Categories: Current News


In many instances, a majority vote identifies not the will of the people, not even the will of the majority of them, but the will of those who wrote the question. Most political problems are complex; to reduce them to a win-or- lose binary vote, or even a series of such dichotomies, often turns what should be a discussion into an argument. Preferential voting in contrast can be win-win: indeed, a points system can identify that option which, if not the most popular, is at least the most generally acceptable. Peter Emerson is the director of the de Borda Institute. He has written ten books on voting systems and published several articles on democracy in peer reviewed journals. A vocal critic of the Majority Rule, he has helped design an app for multi-option voting. His talk was given at a TEDx event using the TED conference format but independently organized by a local community.

Click here for the video.

Drone Wars

A wake-up call on how robots could change conflicts

Posted by: Tamsin Tags: There is no tags | Categories: Current News


Steve Wright is a Reader in the Politics and International Relations Group at Leeds Beckett University and a member of the International Campaign for Armed Robot Control.

The Campaign Against Killer Robots‘ terrifying new short film “Slaughterbots” predicts a new age of warfare and automated assassinations, if weapons that decide for themselves who to kill are not banned. The organisation hopes to pressure theUN to outlaw lethal robots under the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons (CCW), which has previously banned antipersonnel landmines, cluster munitions and blinding lasers on the battlefield.

Some have suggested that the new film is scaremongering. But the technologies needed to build such autonomous weapons – intelligent targeting algorithms, geo-location, facial recognition – are already with us. Many existing lethal drone systems only operate in a semi-autonomous mode because of legal constraints and could do much more if allowed. It won’t take much to develop the technology so it has the capabilities shown in the film.

Perhaps the best way to see the film is less a realistic portrayal of how this technology will be used without a ban and more a wake-up call about how it could change conflicts. For some time to come, small arms and light weapons will remain the major instruments of political violence. But the film highlights how the intelligent targeting systems supposedly designed to minimise causalities could be used for a selective cull of an entire city. It’s easy to imagine how this might be put to use in a sectarian or ethnic conflict.

No international ban on inhumane weapons is absolutely watertight. The cluster munitions treaty has not prevented Russia from using them in Syria, or Saudi Arabia bombing Yemeni civilians with old British stock. But the landmine treaty has halved the estimated number of casualties – and even some of those states that have not ratified the ban, such as the US, now act as if they have. A ban on killer robots could have a similar effect.

Similarly, a ban might not remove all chance of terrorists using these weapons. The international arms market is too promiscuous. But it would remove potential stockpiles of killer robots by forcing governments to limit their manufacture.

Some have argued armed robotic systems might actually help reduce suffering in war since they don’t get tired, abuse captives, or act in self-defence or revenge. They believe that autonomous weapons could be programmed to uphold international law better than humans do.

But, as Prof Noel Sharkey of the International Campaign for Armed Robot Control points out, this view is based on the fantasy of robots being super smart terminators when today “they have the intelligence of a fridge”. While the technology to enable killer robots exists, without the technology to restrain them, a ban is our best hope of avoiding the kind of scenario shown in the film.

Extract from: http://theconversation.com/should-we- fear-the- rise-of- drone-assassins-two-experts-debate- 87699