【新刊速递】《冲突解决杂志》, Vol. 65, Issue. 7-8, 2021
期刊简介
《冲突解决杂志》（The Journal of Conflict Resolution）是一份关于人类冲突的社会科学研究和理论的跨学科期刊。除了关于国际冲突以外，也探究国内冲突、群际冲突和人际冲突。根据Journal Citation Reports的数据，2021年该期刊的影响因子为3.530。
本期编委
编译：张曼娜 房宇馨 常佳艺 胡瑞琨 廖泽玉
审校：张曼娜 房宇馨 常佳艺 胡瑞琨 廖泽玉 李源
排版：陆霜滢
美编：云琪布日
本期目录
1. 反叛组织对公民抵抗的战术运用——以印度毛派叛乱为例
The Tactical Use of Civil Resistance by Rebel Groups: Evidence from India’s Maoist Insurgency
2. 从主张到暴力：民族冲突中的信号、竞标与升级
From Claimsto Violence: Signaling, Outbidding, and Escalation in Ethnic Conflict
3. 环境冲突的决定因素：社区何时动员起来反对化石燃料生产？
Determinants of Environmental Conflict: When Do Communities Mobilize against Fossil Fuel Production?
4. 重新评估理论和机制学习在预测内战中的作用
Reassessing the Role of Theory and Machine Learning in Forecasting Civil Conflict
5. 危机谈判中的决心声誉和高阶信念
Reputations for Resolve and Higher-Order Beliefs in Crisis Bargaining
6. 理论对预测冲突有用吗？对贝格（Beger）、摩根（Morgan）和沃德（Ward）的回应
Is Theory Useful for Conflict Prediction? A Response to Beger, Morgan, and Ward
01
反叛组织对公民抵抗的战术运用——以印度毛派叛乱为例证
题目：The Tactical Use of Civil Resistance by Rebel Groups: Evidence from India’s Maoist Insurgency
作者：Roman Krtsch，奥斯纳布吕肯大学博士研究生，研究助理。
摘要：对冲突中反叛行为的传统研究集中在暴力战术的使用上。然而，来自几场内战的证据表明，武装组织偶尔也会发动大罢工——这是一种非暴力组织通常使用的公民抵抗方法。但是反叛者什么时候会发动大罢工呢?本文认为，这些战术有一个特殊的功能，可以抵消叛军在先前战斗中遭受损失后的潜在风险：通过大罢工，叛军向当地居民显示持续性权威。这一观点通过使用印度东部地区毛派冲突期间有关争议行动的最新汇编和分类数据得到了验证。本文从两个方面对关于战时平民行动主义的新兴研究作出了贡献：首先，本文表明武装组织本身在特定情况下依赖于平民动员。其次，本文研究了冲突的内源性条件对这些战术选择的影响。
Research on rebel behavior during conflicts has traditionally focused on the use of violent tactics. However, evidence from several intrastate wars suggests that armed groups also occasionally employ general strikes—a method of civil resistance that has typically been associated with nonviolent groups. But when do rebels resort to general strikes? I argue that these tactics have a particular function which can offset potential risks for rebels after they have suffered losses in previous battles: Through general strikes, rebels signal sustained authority to the local population. The argument is tested for districts in Eastern India using newly compiled, disaggregated data on contentious action during the Maoist conflict. The paper contributes to a burgeoning literature on wartime civilian activism in two ways: First, it shows that armed groups themselves rely situationally on civilian mobilization. Second, it investigates the effect of conditions endogenous to the conflict on these tactical choices.
编译：张曼娜
审校：房宇馨
02
从主张到暴力：民族冲突中的信号、竞标与升级
题目：From Claims to Violence: Signaling, Outbidding, and Escalation in Ethnic Conflict
作者：Manuel Vogt，伦敦大学学院政治学副教授；Kristian Skrede Gleditsch，埃塞克斯大学政治学教授；Lars-Erik Cederman，苏黎世联邦理工学院国际冲突研究教授。
摘要：激进的政治主张会增加民族内部爆发冲突的风险吗？另外，为什么民族运动爆发之初会产生激进的主张？本文认为，当民族运动分崩离析时，其内部的个别组织会提出某种激进的政治主张来吸引政府的注意力和争取可能的让步。同时，面对民族运动内部的竞争，提出激进的政治主张也有利于提升组织内部的纪律性和凝聚力。此外，在与政府的谈判过程中，这种主张也有助于该组织的竞标以超过民族内部的其他竞争对手。然而，这种激进的主张也增加了冲突升级的风险。本文通过使用一个关于民族政治组织及其政治主张的新数据集，从族群和其内部组织两个层面对这一论点进行了验证。研究结果表明，在民族层面，民族运动中存在的组织越多，组织提出的政治主张（政府权力和领土权）的规模就越大。并且，这种激进的主张增加了爆发内部冲突的风险。这种效应是政府与该民族运动之间二元互动所特有的现象，与该国其他族群无关。此外，在组织层面，主张的激进化增加了组织卷入民族内部冲突的可能性。
Do radical political demands increase the risk of ethnic civil conflict? And why do ethnic movements make radical demands in the first place? We contend that when movements are fragmented, individual organizations use far-reaching claims relative to the status quo to attract attention from the government, boost intra-organizational discipline, and outbid rivals. Yet, such radical claims also increase the risk of conflict escalation. We test our arguments at both the ethnic group and organizational levels, using a new dataset on ethno-political organizations and their political demands. Our results show that the scope of demands increases the more organizations exist within an ethnic movement and that radical demands increase the risk of civil conflict onset. This effect is specific to the dyadic government-movement interaction, irrespective of other ethnic groups in the country. Moreover, at the organizational level, radicalization in demands increases the likelihood that an organization becomes engaged in civil conflict.
编译：房宇馨
审校：胡瑞琨
03
环境冲突的决定因素：社区何时动员起来反对化石燃料生产？
题目：Determinants of Environmental Conflict: When Do Communities Mobilize against Fossil Fuel Production?
作者：Andrew Cheon，约翰霍普金斯大学助理教授；Shi-Teng Kang，大自然保护协会研究员；Swetha Ramachandran，日内瓦高级国际关系及发展学院博士生。
摘要：原住民和其他受负面影响的人群何时会动员起来反对化石燃料公司？我们重新审视了社会运动理论和环境文献，识别出塑造相关人员社会动员决策的三个可能因素——民主体制、由土地使用权的安全性塑造的社区对政府的看法以及公司属性。与非民主体制相比，民主体制为受影响的人群提供了更多的机会，使他们能够通过抗议来表达他们的不满。由政府保障的土地使用权的安全性使受影响人群认为政府调解是比抗议更有效的手段。化石燃料公司的特点，如国家所有权，也影响了抗议民众对政府作为调解人的可信度的看法。通过对1990年至2013年期间57个国家的分析，我们发现民主政体和国家对化石燃料公司的所有权与抗议活动正相关，而与土地使用权的安全性负相关。
When do indigenous and other negatively affected populations mobilize against fossil fuel companies? We revisit social movement theory and environmental literature to identify three factors that may plausibly shape mobilization decisions of negatively affected populations—democratic institutions, community perceptions of government shaped by land tenure security, and firm attributes. Democratic institutions afford more opportunities for affected populations to air their grievances through protests than non-democratic ones. Land tenure security guaranteed by government contributes to the perception among affected populations that their objectives are better achieved through government mediation than protests. Characteristics of fossil fuel firms, such as state ownership, also shape activist perceptions of government credibility as a mediator. By analyzing fifty-seven countries over the period 1990 to 2013, we find that democracy and state ownership of fossil fuel firms are positively associated with protests, whereas land tenure security is negatively associated.
编译：常佳艺
审校：房宇馨
04
重新评估理论和机制学习在预测内战中的作用
题目：Reassessing the Role of Theory and Machine Learning in Forecasting Civil Conflict
作者：Andreas Beger ，美国预测探索（Predictive Heuristics）政治科学部研究员、佛罗里达州立大学政治学博士；Richard K. Morgan，独立研究员、埃默里大学政治学博士；Michael D. Ward，美国预测探索（Predictive Heuristics）政治科学部研究员、杜克大学政治科学系荣休教授。
摘要：本文检测了布莱尔（Blair）和桑巴尼斯（Sambanis）近期文章中关于预测内战的研究规定。该研究认为，相比其他涉及国家结构因素的替代性理论或模型，以理论为基础的模型可以更好地预测内战的爆发。本文认为，这一研究中存在一些重大错误，并且认为在计算精确度时参数化地使用平滑的接收者操作特征曲线（ROC曲线）而非使用在文献中占据主导地位的标准经验类ROC曲线是完全存在条件的。布莱尔等人的研究认为，扩充后的以理论为基础的模型优于其他的模型，然而，纠正这些错误后，就会得出相反的结论。这一模型已经被其设计和检验的那些临时的、假定的非理论模型所超越。更为重要的是，本文认为，比起尝试对比预测模型中理论和“非理论”机制学习的重要性，聚焦有加强作用的预测模型和机制学习的研究会更有成效。不仅如此，本文认为预测模型和机制学习对于理论检验而言均是有效的研究工具。
We examine the research protocols in Blair and Sambanis’ recent article on forecasting civil wars, where they argue that their theory-based model can predict civil war onsets better than several atheoretical alternatives or a model with country-structural factors. We find that there are several important mistakes and that their key finding is entirely conditional on the use of parametrically smoothed ROC curves when calculating accuracy, rather than the standard empirical ROC curves that dominate the literature. Fixing these mistakes results in a reversal of their claim that theory-based models of escalation are better at predicting onsets of civil war than other kinds of models. Their model is outperformed by several of the ad hoc, putatively non-theoretical models they devise and examine. More importantly, we argue that rather than trying to contrast the roles of theory and “atheoretical” machine learning in predictive modeling, it would be more productive to focus on ways in which predictive modeling and machine learning could be used to strengthen extant predictive work. Instead, we argue that predictive modeling and machine learning are effective tools for theory testing.
编译：廖泽玉
审校：胡瑞琨
05
危机谈判中的决心声誉和高阶信念
题目：Reputations for Resolve and Higher-Order Beliefs in Crisis Bargaining
作者：Tarik Abou-Chadi，苏黎世大学政治学系的助理教授；Thomas Kurer，苏黎世大学政治学系研究员。
摘要：决心声誉被称为是少数值得为之奋斗的事情之一，但人们对其理解仍然不够充分。有关声誉的讨论大多数仅注重一阶信念的变化，即甲持坚定立场，乙根据甲的决心更新其信念。这种一阶声誉效应很重要但并非全部。高阶的信念，即甲对乙的信念的认知等同样举足轻重。当甲开始相信乙更有决心时，这可能会降低甲的决心，反过来可能会增加乙的决心。换言之，决心是相互依存的。本文提供了一个估算高阶效应的框架，并在关于准精英的调查实验中找到了这种推理的证据。本研究结果表明，国家和领导人都可以为其决心建立强有力的声誉，而高阶信念通常在很大程度上会从中产生影响（在本文实验环境中为40%到70%）。最后，本文用定性证据进行补充调查，并为未来的研究奠定基础。
Reputations for resolve are said to be one of the few things worth fighting for, yet they remain inadequately understood. Discussions of reputation focus almost exclusively on first-order belief change—A stands firm, B updates its beliefs about A’s resolve. Such first-order reputational effects are important, but they are not the whole story. Higher-order beliefs—what A believes about B’s beliefs, and so on—matter a great deal as well. When A comes to believe that B is more resolved, this may decrease A’s resolve, and this in turn may increase B’s resolve, and so on. In other words, resolve is interdependent. We offer a framework for estimating higher-order effects, and find evidence of such reasoning in a survey experiment on quasi-elites. Our findings indicate both that states and leaders can develop potent reputations for resolve, and that higher-order beliefs are often responsible for a large proportion of these effects (40 percent to 70 percent in our experimental setting). We conclude by complementing the survey with qualitative evidence and laying the groundwork for future research.
编译：胡瑞琨
审校：常佳艺
06
理论对预测冲突有用吗？对贝格（Beger）、摩根（Morgan）和沃德（Ward）的回应
题目：Is Theory Useful for Conflict Prediction? A Response to Beger, Morgan, and Ward
作者：Robert A. Blair，布朗大学政治学和国际公共事务助理教授；Nicholas Sambanis，宾夕法尼亚大学政治学总统特聘教授、身份与冲突实验室主任。
摘要：贝格、摩根和沃德对作者先前一篇预测内战的文章的结果提出了质疑。他们认为，本文基于理论的冲突升级模型表现得不如更机械、更归因的替代方案。这种主张是错误的。他们的批评是错误的，或者说是不合理的，他们的结论取决于一个关于接收者操作特征曲线 (ROC)的细微技术问题:曲线应该被平滑处理，还是应该使用经验类曲线?他们认为应该使用经验类曲线，他们的所有结论都依赖于这种主观的模型选择。本文扩展了最初的分析，以表明作者的理论模型在一系列性能指标和稳健性规范中表现得与更加非理论的替代方案一样好，甚至更好。如同先前的文章一样，作者最后鼓励冲突预测者不要把理论的附加值当作一个假定（assumption），而是作为一个待检验的假设（hypothesis）。
Beger, Morgan, and Ward (BM&W) call into question the results of our article on forecasting civil wars. They claim that our theoretically-informed model of conflict escalation under-performs more mechanical, inductive alternatives. This claim is false. BM&W’s critiques are misguided or inconsequential, and their conclusions hinge on a minor technical question regarding receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves: should the curves be smoothed, or should empirical curves be used? BM&W assert that empirical curves should be used and all of their conclusions depend on this subjective modeling choice. We extend our original analysis to show that our theoretically-informed model performs as well as or better than more atheoretical alternatives across a range of performance metrics and robustness specifications. As in our original article, we conclude by encouraging conflict forecasters to treat the value added of theory not as an assumption, but rather as a hypothesis to test.
编译：张曼娜
审校：廖泽玉