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 Iternational Law, (forthcoming).
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
Working Papers
Under Pressure: Diversification in Rebel Strategies
Abstract
Why and when do rebels bundle different violent strategies in pursuit of desired objectives in civil war? Answering this question is complicated as different forms of contention are often studied in isolation at high levels of temporal aggregation. However, militant organizations in civil wars frequently adopt and discard a range of strategies over the course of a conflict. This paper advances and tests the theory that strategic diversification by rebel groups is part of the interdependent process of violence amongst belligerents in civil wars. By introducing a dynamic measure of state lethal operations, I find that militant groups expand and contract violent repertoires in response to variation in pressure levied upon them by the state. The findings provide new insight into adaptive behavior of rebel groups and the timing of violence. This work has important implications in the evaluation of countermeasures and the formation of policies seeking to prevent and reduce the occurrence of political violence.Taking Out the Competition: Lessons from Algeria on Rebel Targeting of Nonviolent Resistance Campaigns [co-author with Martin Macias-Medellin, Univesity 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 also considers a less examined aspect: the influence of nonviolent 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 nonviolent resistance 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, supplemented by a large-N analysis encompassing 36 civil wars spanning from 1972 to 2020. This research sheds new light on the targeting behavior of rebel groups and underscores the significance of considering both violent and nonviolent dimensions in understanding civil conflict dynamics.Changes: Patterns of Violence in Civil War
Abstract
What explains variation in patterns of violence across time and space in armed conflict? Understanding the sources of heterogeneity in violence over time and across different locations can provide insights into the ways in which armed conflict adapts and evolves, and potential ways to anticipate and respond to these changes with more effective policies and countermeasures. However, identification of and insight into patterns can be limited by the reliance upon narrow and incomplete measures. This paper introduces a novel measurement strategy to consider patterns of violence POV in civil wars. This approach integrates and organizes data from leading conflict event datasets along the following dimensions: target, force, and magnitude for government forces and challengers in 33 civil wars in 26 countries from 1997 to 2021. This approach and accompanying dataset provides a unique opportunity to analyze mechanisms shaping heterogeneity in violence and explore under what conditions different patterns of violence may emerge. In this paper, I demonstrate how the this measurement strategy improve identification and analysis of trends and illustrate the research questions it could help answer. By leveraging this approach, scholars and policymakers can gain a better understanding of the drivers of violence in armed conflict and develop more effective strategies to reduce its occurrence.The Dynamics of Territorial Control and Wartime Aid