Johan Brosché

Heritage under attack: motives for targeting cultural property during armed conflict

Abstract Although attacks on cultural property have caused international outcry, our understanding of this phenomenon is still limited. In particular, little research has been directed towards exploring the motivations for such attacks. Therefore, we ask: What are the motives for attacking sites, buildings or objects representing cultural heritage? By combining insights from peace and conflict research with findings from heritage studies we present a typology of motivations for attacking cultural property. We identify four, not mutually exclusive, broad groups of motives: (i) attacks related to conflict goals, in which cultural property is targeted because it is connected to the issue the warring parties are fighting over (ii), military-strategic attacks, in which the main motivation is to win tactical advantages in the conflict (iii), signalling attacks, in which cultural property is targeted as a low-risk target that signals the commitment of the aggressor, and (iv) economic incentives where cultural property provides funding for warring parties. Our typology offers a theoretical structure for research about why, when, and by whom, cultural property is targeted. This is not only likely to provide academic benefits, but also to contribute to the development of more effective tools for the protection of cultural property during armed conflict.

Crisis of governance in South Sudan: electoral politics and violence in the world's newest nation

Since mid-December 2013, thousands of people have been killed in armed conflict in South Sudan. The fighting is entrenched in a power struggle between the main political contenders ahead of elections which were scheduled for 2015. This article examines the violence in South Sudan since the North–South war ended with a focus on the consequences of the introduction of electoral politics. Our research contributes to the literature on state-building and peace-building in war-torn societies, by exploring how the extreme levels of violence are linked to three groups of factors. First, the stakes involved in being part of the government are extremely high, since it is the only way to secure political and economic influence. Second, the actors involved in political life are dominated by individuals who held positions within the rebel groups, which increases the risk of political differences turning violent. Third, the institutions important for a legitimate electoral process, and which work to prevent violence, are weak or non-existent.

A Responsibility to Talk: Mediation and Violence Against Civilians

Does the killing of civilians in civil wars motivate third party action? While there is some evidence that cases with humanitarian atrocities are more likely to attract peacekeeping missions (Mullenbach 2005; Melander 2009; Hultman 2013), this study addresses the topic of mediation selection: do mediators primarily focus on civil wars where civilians are killed? There is an intuitive logic that suggests that this may be the case. A conflict in which civilians are deliberately targeted typically draws more attention. Thus, to solve it would render more prestige while inaction would render greater domestic audience costs. Political leaders’ concern for domestic opinion has been utilized by several recent campaigns drawing attention to humanitarian atrocities in, for example, Sudan (Save Darfur), Burma (Support the monks’ protest), and Uganda (Kony 2012). That mediation can be used for the purpose of protecting civilians is also evident in practitioners’ experience. Mediators commonly pursue several objectives beyond the ultimate aim of solving conflict. As recounted by Jan Eliasson, drawing on mediation experience from Burma, Iran-Iraq, Nagorno-Karabakh and Darfur:

Hurdles to peace: a level-of-analysis approach to resolving Sudan’s civil wars

Abstract Why do some peace agreements end armed conflicts whereas others do not? Previous studies have primarily focused on the relation between warring parties and the provisions included in peace agreements. Prominent mediators, however, have emphasised the importance of stakeholders at various levels for the outcome of peace agreements. To match the experience of these negotiators we apply a level-of-analysis approach to examine the contextual circumstances under which peace agreements are concluded. While prominent within the causes of war literature, level-of-analysis approaches are surprisingly scant in research about conflict resolution. This article compares two Sudanese Peace Agreements: the Comprehensive Peace Agreement (2005) that ended the North–South war and led to the independence of South Sudan, and the Darfur Peace Agreement (2006) which failed to end fighting in Darfur. We find that factors at the local, national and international level explain the different outcomes of the two agreements. Hence, the two case studies illustrate the merit of employing a level-of-analysis approach to study the outcome of peace agreements. The main contribution of this article is that it presents a new theoretical framework to understand why some peace agreements terminate armed conflict whereas others do not.

Dehumanization amidst massacres: An examination of Dinka-Nuer intergroup attitudes in South Sudan.

Previous research on dehumanization has been conducted primarily in Western contexts, and outside of periods of ongoing and highly violent conflict. The present study, in contrast, examines grassroots-level dehumanization between South Sudan’s two largest ethnic groups—Dinka and Nuer—during an episode of extreme interethnic violence. Using a mixed-methods approach we study levels of dehumanization and how these attitudes are related to and structured around ongoing and/or very recent extreme violence. Whereas the results demonstrated mechanistic dehumanization by the Dinka participants vis-à-vis the Nuer, no similar dehumanization was found among the Nuer: although there were clear signs of intergroup bias. Our focus groups demonstrated that dehumanization attitudes in South Sudan are to a great degree structured around recent event of mass violence. In fact, practically all dehumanizing attitudes were related to these recent events and not to events previous, or to historicized stereotypes. The core contribution of this article is threefold. First, we deepen understanding of dehumanization by examining a non-Western case with ongoing, highly violent, conflict. Second, we further knowledge about the psychological effects of events of mass violence. Third, we provide new insights to the situation in South Sudan by our analysis of intergroup perceptions.