Research
Peer-reviewed Publications
Meta-Analysis & the Integration of Terrorism Event Databases
Timothy L. Jones “Meta-Analysis & the Integration of Terrorism Event Databases,” International Journal of Cyber Warfare & Terrorism (IJCWT) 13 (1), 1-20. Publisher’s Version
Abstract
Why do terrorist attacks occur in certain places and times but not others? Despite advances in collection and empirical methods, the literature has produced divergent results and reached little consensus for common hypotheses about the economic, political, and social causes of terrorism. It is hard to know what to make disagreements as studies adopt disparate research designs using different datasets covering different locations and times. This article applies the xSub data protocol to conduct a meta-analysis of terrorism event datasets and isolate explanations for variations in findings. Although the datasets are constructed for different purposes by different research teams, with different inclusion standards, processing data onto a common event typology, and conducting analysis across common coverage reduces heterogeneity in findings. This protocol also facilitates comparisons with general conflict event datasets, providing researchers, policymakers, and practitioners with a broader context for understanding terrorism in relation to other forms of violence.Editor-reviewed Publications
Peace Agreements and the Persuasive Authority of International Law
Gregory H. Fox & Timothy L. Jones “Peace Agreements and the Persuasive Authority of International Law,” Minnesota Journal of International Law, 34 (1) 1-86. Publisher’s Version
Abstract
Non-international armed conflicts, or “NIACs,” are the most common form of warfare in the contemporary era. Not surprisingly, agreements ending NIACs are the most common type of peace agreement. But NIAC agreements appear permanently suspended in an international legal limbo: they do not qualify as binding treaties and neither international actors nor scholars agree on another legal status.This article is the second in a series to explore alternatives to the binding/non-binding dichotomy in understanding NIAC agreements’ relation to international law. We collected and coded all final NIAC agreements from 1991 to 2017 for incorporation of a range of international law principles, grouped primarily as those related to governance in the post-conflict state and those pertaining to transitional justice. We proposed a series of hypotheses as to why some agreements might have higher rates of incorporation and some lower.
Our primary findings reveal: (i) a notable increase in the incorporation of transitional justice principles, not governance principles, when the United Nations assumes roles such as party, mediator, observer, or witness; (ii) a decrease in international law incorporation, when regional organizations are involved in any capacity; and (iii) an associated decrease in overall international law incorporation, specifically governance principles, as conflicts become more lethal or focus on territorial disputes.
The UN’s association with higher inclusion of international norms, as well as the ubiquity of including governance norms when any third party joins a NIAC peace process, casts the agreements as important vehicles for implementing and enforcing international legal principles. This role for international law is not dependent on the agreements’ formal status. But the critical participation of the UN -- an organization not only built on fidelity to international law but that instructs its representatives to employ international law as a framework for peace process -- is also a marker of this role’s fragility. Recent gridlock in the UN may have dire implications for this mode of legal influence.
General Audience Publications
What the candidates can learn from two former presidents about foreign policy
Timothy L. Jones “What the candidates can learn from two former presidents about foreign policy,” [w/ David Dezso] The Hill, 21 January, 2024. Link
Submitted Papers
Adapting Under Pressure: Diversification of Rebel Violence in Civil Wars, Revise & Resubmit
Abstract
In civil wars, why do some rebel groups adopt diversify portfolios of violence, while others specialize? This article proposes that rebels expand and contract repertoires in response to fluctuating external pressure. An analysis of 623 rebel groups across 30 civil wars reveals that diversification allows rebels to increase attack rates, appearing to stretch state resources and evade defensive measures. Leveraging a natural experiment from decapitation strikes in Pakistan, I find that adaptation to pressure better explains rebel dynamics than alternative theories, such as principal-agent problems. While diversification enhances survivability, it appears to undermine rebels' ability to achieve strategic objectives.Frogmen and Fast Boats: The Future of Irregular Warfare in the Maritime Domain [co-author with John Willingham and Kenneth Walls] Revise & Resubmit
Abstract
This article examines how Irregular Warfare in the Maritime domain (IW-M) can strengthen national defense strategies for smaller states confronting more powerful naval adversaries. It argues that integrating special operations forces (SOF) into IW-M efforts provides a cost-effective, adaptable approach to defending littoral spaces, imposing costs, and enhancing deterrence. Drawing on historical examples and contemporary force design, this article identifies key conditions for success: strategic purpose, political backing, feasible objectives, and SOF integration. It offers practical insights for defense planners, emphasizing how purpose-built SOF units can address gaps in conventional naval posture. The article also highlights opportunities for SOF to assist partners through training, joint exercises, and low-cost technological adaptation. As great power competition increasingly plays out in contested waters, IW-M offers policymakers and military leaders a scalable, flexible toolset to counter aggression, defend sovereignty, and improve regional resilience—particularly where conventional options may be limited, unaffordable, or politically constrained.The Sequencing of Territorial Control and Wartime Aid [co-author with Daniel Karell, Yale University] Under Review
Abstract
How does development aid affect insurgent violence, and under what conditions can it contribute to stabilization? While existing studies emphasize the importance of service provision in population-centric counterinsurgency, they often overlook how the effectiveness of aid varies across time and territory. This study examines the conditional effects of development aid on violence during the US-led war in Afghanistan. We construct and analyze twelve years of newly generated, fine-grained monthly estimates of territorial control, paired with data on over 63,000 development projects implemented through Afghanistan’s National Solidarity Program (NSP)—a low-cost, community-driven aid initiative. We contend that the effectiveness of aid depends on its sequencing relative to state consolidation: aid delivered into contested territory provokes violence, while aid introduced after the establishment of control helps to reduce it. This pattern holds across multiple conflict phases, with aid most effective during lower-intensity periods and least effective during large-scale military operations. The results are consistent across alternative measures of aid and estimates of territorial control. Together, the findings offer new insight into the political logic of wartime aid and underscore the importance of aligning development interventions with both micro- and macro-level security dynamics.Selected Works in Progress
Taking Out the Competition: Lessons from Algeria on Rebel Targeting of Non-violent Rivals [co-author with Martin Macias-Medellin, University of Michigan]
Abstract
To what extent does competition shape rebel behavior in civil war? While scholars have increasingly scrutinized the impact of multiple armed rebel groups on conflict dynamics, this study considers a less examined aspect: the influence of non-violent rivals. We posit that rebel groups strategically target high-profile social personalities during periods of fragmented opposition, viewing them as a threat to their political relevance and authority, to bolster their support base, and eliminate alternative means to challenge the state. As non-violent campaigns diminish or disappear, rebel groups pivot their attention towards targeting rival militant factions, state security forces, and the general population. Our theory is substantiated through an original dataset detailing violent events in Algeria from 1988 to 2001. This research sheds new light on the targeting behavior of rebel groups and underscores the significance of considering both violent and non-violent dimensions in understanding civil conflict dynamics.Securing Decision Dominance: The Role of Special Intelligence in Complex Environments