Picture courtesy of Erwin Franzen

Intervention, War Expansion, and the International Sources of Civil War

My dissertation develops an international theory of civil war and examines when and why civil wars become international conflicts. I currently have two working papers based on chapters of the dissertation.

"Intervention, War Expansion, and the International Sources of Civil War" (working paper, PDF)
Why do some civil wars turn into interstate wars? I analyze a formal model of civil war onset, rebel-sided intervention, and interstate retaliation where the domestic government, but not the rebels, are uncertain about whether a third party will intervene. The domestic government risks war with the rebels when it is uncertain about intervention, but the type of war that follows depends on how much the government can gain from war expansion and the autonomy costs the rebels incur for external support. Interstate war occurs when the domestic government has much to gain from expansion and the rebels pay low costs for support. The model also provides an international and informational explanation for civil war; it shows that common predictors of civil war, such as intervener-rebel relations, have conditional effects on conflict onset; and it demonstrates that uncertainty over intervention can cause peace or interstate war, depending on the stakes.

"International Competition and the Onset of Civil War" (Revise and resubmit at the Journal of Peace Research, PDF)
Expectations over external intervention can disrupt domestic bargaining and cause the on- set of civil war. The risk of civil war depends on a country’s international environment, because it determines whether the government, the rebels, or both get support if fighting breaks out. I hypothesize two pathways to civil war. Politically moderate countries are at higher risk of experiencing civil war in politically heterogenous neighborhoods than homogenous ones, because these countries are trapped in the middle of competing factions willing to support the rebels. In homogenous neighborhoods, outliers are at higher risk of conflict than politically moderate countries, because the dominating states seek to homogenize the area by ousting the outlier’s government. I estimate several empirical models using spatial regression techniques and find robust evidence for my hypotheses. The results are robust to alternative specifications, including binning and kernel estimators.

Data collection: Civil War Expansion Dataset (CWED)
As part of the dissertation project, I am also collecting data on the expansion of civil wars. CWED measures whether and what type(s) of retaliation civil war governments conduct against external rebel supporters. The Department of Government and the Clements Center on National Security and Strategy at the University of Texas at Austin have provided generous support for research assistance.

Oil Discovery, Oil Production, and Coups d’État

In a project co-authored with Curtis M. Bell and Scott Wolford (Revise and resubmit at International Interactions, PDF), I explore how the discovery and production of oil affect the risk of coups d’état. We analyze a model of bargaining between government and military in which oil rents (a) increase the value of capturing the state but also (b) allow leaders to coup-proof their governments and/or appease potential plotters. These mechanisms offset each other once oil wealth is realized; incentives to topple the government are countered by the government’s capacity to thwart or discourage coups. But when oil is newly discovered and rents have not yet been realized, plotters may launch a coup before power shifts decisively against them. Coup attempts are uniquely likely in such windows of opportunity, but those same coup attempts are exceptionally likely to fail. We uncover these relationships in an analysis of coup attempts and outcomes, oil production, and oil discovery in a global sample of states from 1980-2010.

Cyber Security and Power

Before coming to UT Austin, I spent several years working on the theoretical, strategic, and policy dimensions of cyber security, resulting in various publications. My main interest revolves around questions about power, and how the information revolution has affected states' ability to coerce other states. I am currently working on a theoretical paper addressing these issues.

"Mutually Assured Vulnerability: An Ecological Approach to the Study of Coercion and Power in Cyberspace" (working paper, PDF)
Despite years of debate and a growing body of scholarship, the future of cyber conflict remains unclear. The discussion has hinged on the arrival (or lack thereof) of some kind of cyber war, but the almost exclusive focus on a very specific phenomenon has stymied efforts to understand the actual object of analysis: cyberspace. This paper proposes a new study to cyber security where cyberspace is conceived of as an ecological system where the actors and the structure interact. By identifying the defining characteristics of cyberspace itself we can better understand the sources of cyber power, and thus how actors can achieve their political goals. Because cyberspace is a malleable system, the implication is that actors will attempt to change the structure itself in order to achieve strategic advantages. Coupled with asymmetric information and offensive advantage, this causes severe collective action problems between states and the deterioration of the viability of cyberspace as open system. (For the NUPI working papers series version, see here. For the most recent version, shoot me an email.)

"Cyber Security Capacity Building: Security and Freedom." NUPI Report, 2016.
The threats associated with ICT are multifaceted. The present report posits that cyber capacity building (CCB) should not be considered simply a risk management endeavor. The potential for malware, cyber attacks, and cyber crime are not the only challenges associated with the rapid spread of ICT. Policymakers must also consider the intersection of technology and politics, particularly in developing countries still transitioning into democracies.

"Den Akademiske Debatten om Cybersikkerhet" (in English, "The Academic Debate Regarding Cyber Security"). Internasjonal Politikk 71, no. 2 (May 2013): 229-240.

"Competing Academic Approaches to Cyber Security." In Conflict in Cyber Space, edited by Karsten Friis and Jens Ringsmose. London: Routledge, 2016. (NUPI working paper version)
Much has been written on the subject of cyber security over the past two decades, but there remain significant shortcomings in the literature. Cyber security is a field filled with fundamental conceptual, theoretical and empirical disagreements, making any systematic analysis of cyberspace difficult. This paper seeks to categorize the various approaches, here referred to as schools of thought, to cyber security and identify the sources of their disagreements. Much of the academic and policy debate has revolved around the “revolutionist” and “traditionalist” schools of thought, with debates over cyberwar and the efficacy of strategic information warfare. However, none of the schools offer a systematic approach to understanding the strategic utility of cyberspace. This paper identifies a third, less known approach that is best described as “environmentalist.” The “environmentalist” school’s approach to cyber power and analysis of cyberspace as a distinct environment or system offers the best way forward for the field.