Violence & Security
Lecture 1- Concepts and approaches-> Pettersson & Hoover Green
Trends of Political Violence:
o Johnathan Galtung (1969)- conceptualize two types of violence:
Direct violence- behaviors carried out by a clearly identifiable agent with the
intent of bodily harm
Structural violence- violence as present when humans systematically cannot
fulfill their physical and/or mental potential. Violence does not intent and does
not require a clear agent.
Course focus on direct and political violence: occurring during war time, electoral
violence, ethnic riots etc.
o Peace & Security: Galtung again in Typology of Peace.
Negative peace- freedom from interference; the absence of direct violence
Positive peace- a self-sustaining condition that protects the human security
(physical and psychological place where humans can thrive) of a population
The paradigms and approaches: the actors involved, what lead to war and violence, what allows
peace and security
o What is a paradigm-> the lenses of what we focus on
o Two main distinctions in the field-> approaches to interstate conflict & approaches to
intrastate conflict
o Realism: Interstate
Actors- the state is a principal actor of international politics
Nature of the state: national security as a first order preference, the state is
unitary and rational actor seeking to maximize its own interests- the natural
anarchial state of no order is a danger to the sovereign state (there is always a
risk of war and violence and safety is not guaranteed)
Understanding of conflict/ order-> likelihood of war, power (generally defined
as material capabilities) as a central conflict, anarchy as a natural state, security
is not guaranteed
For a realist material capability is of importance, the likelihood of war is shaped
by the definition of power in the international system.
,o Liberalism: Interstate
Actors-> state and non-state actors are important
Nature of the state-> state preferences are an aggregate of preferences of a
wide range of state and societal actors (national security is not always the most
important to consider)
Preferences are not always opposing (not necessarily a zero-sum game)
Understanding on conflict- cooperation and mutual gain are possible, conflict is
not inevitable through economic independence and fee trade, international
institutions and democratic institutions (aka DPT).
o Constructivism: Interstate
Actors-> actors and interests that drive and shape institutions are socially
constructed
Assumption about the actor’s behavior (based on identity and how the said
actor is identified both by themselves and perceived by others, who the actors
are shaped by identities and interests)
Conflict and peace are therefore shaped by the content of identities and
interests, which are socially constructed and dependent and why norms matter
so much for constructivism
o Instrumentalism: elites are primary explanatory variable for the presence/absence of
conflict Intrastate
Assumptions of instrumentalism:
Elites seek to maximize political power and other material gains and will
foment violence to meet their interests
o Institutionalism: Intrastate
Seeks to understand how political struggles are mediated by the institutional
setting in which they take place
o Constructivism: Intrastate
Groups as socially constructed and not unitary actors (such as in ethnic conflict)
Violence as a means of delineating and assessing group boundaries
, Lecture 2- Violence and State Formation-> Tilly & Stubbs
What is the relationship between violence and state? Does war make stronger states?
Key Concepts:
o State-> “the organization that has monopoly over the legitimate use of physical force
within a given territory in the enforcement of its order” (Weber). (an interesting idea of
what the state is-> the state as organized crime?!?)
o State formation-> the long-term process leading to the centralization of political power
within a sovereign territory. (archiving the ability to use force over a given territory- the
state law enforcement)
o State capacity-> the ability of states to accomplish their goals
often measured by states military power and its bureaucratic/administrative
capacity
The “bellicist” approach to state formation: “War made the state and state made war”- Tilly
o State formation according to Tilly:
War is costly, therefore states going to
war have to find sources of income
Therefore, War making requires
extraction
Extraction leads to protection and
state building
State building also leads to protection
Tilly’s State as an Organized Crime Text:
3. Protection racket: Tilly suggests that states, particularly in their early stages, resemble protection rackets. States
Charles Tilly's concept
offer protection of "war
to their making
citizens and state
in exchange formaking as resources,
financial organized crime"
just as iscriminal
based on the idea that
organizations theprotection
offer activities of
to
the state, particularly
businesses in itsfor
in exchange early stagespayments.
regular of development, bear striking
This protection maysimilarities to those of criminal
involve safeguarding organizations.
individuals Here
from external
are the main
threats points of Tilly's
or maintaining argument:
internal order.
1.4. Monopoly
Bureaucraticonstructures:
violence: Tilly argues
Both statesthat
andboth statesorganizations
criminal and criminal develop
organizations seek to establish
bureaucratic structuresa to
monopoly
carry outontheir
the
legitimate use of violence. While states claim a legal monopoly on violence within their
operations. States create administrative apparatuses to collect taxes, enforce laws, and provide public services. territories, criminal
organizations
Similarly, rely
criminal on violence and
organizations coercion
develop to assertstructures
hierarchical control over
to specific illicittheir
coordinate activities.
illicit activities, manage finances,
2.andResource extraction:
ensure the States and of
smooth functioning criminal organizations engage in resource extraction, but through different means.
their operations.
States extract resources through taxation and other forms of economic control, while criminal organizations extract
5. Legitimization strategies: States and criminal organizations employ strategies to legitimize their actions. States
resources through extortion, racketeering, and illegal activities such as drug trafficking or smuggling.
establish ideologies, legal systems, and narratives that justify their rule and seek to gain the consent of the governed.
Criminal organizations may engage in bribery, corruption, or the use of force to influence or co-opt state officials,
creating a semblance of legitimacy for their illegal activities.
6. Continuity and change: Tilly also acknowledge that the relationship between war making, state making, and
organized crime is not static. Over time, as states consolidate their power, they often suppress criminal activities and
establish stricter law enforcement. Criminal organizations, on the other hand, may seek to infiltrate or corrupt state
institutions to further their interests.
Lecture 1- Concepts and approaches-> Pettersson & Hoover Green
Trends of Political Violence:
o Johnathan Galtung (1969)- conceptualize two types of violence:
Direct violence- behaviors carried out by a clearly identifiable agent with the
intent of bodily harm
Structural violence- violence as present when humans systematically cannot
fulfill their physical and/or mental potential. Violence does not intent and does
not require a clear agent.
Course focus on direct and political violence: occurring during war time, electoral
violence, ethnic riots etc.
o Peace & Security: Galtung again in Typology of Peace.
Negative peace- freedom from interference; the absence of direct violence
Positive peace- a self-sustaining condition that protects the human security
(physical and psychological place where humans can thrive) of a population
The paradigms and approaches: the actors involved, what lead to war and violence, what allows
peace and security
o What is a paradigm-> the lenses of what we focus on
o Two main distinctions in the field-> approaches to interstate conflict & approaches to
intrastate conflict
o Realism: Interstate
Actors- the state is a principal actor of international politics
Nature of the state: national security as a first order preference, the state is
unitary and rational actor seeking to maximize its own interests- the natural
anarchial state of no order is a danger to the sovereign state (there is always a
risk of war and violence and safety is not guaranteed)
Understanding of conflict/ order-> likelihood of war, power (generally defined
as material capabilities) as a central conflict, anarchy as a natural state, security
is not guaranteed
For a realist material capability is of importance, the likelihood of war is shaped
by the definition of power in the international system.
,o Liberalism: Interstate
Actors-> state and non-state actors are important
Nature of the state-> state preferences are an aggregate of preferences of a
wide range of state and societal actors (national security is not always the most
important to consider)
Preferences are not always opposing (not necessarily a zero-sum game)
Understanding on conflict- cooperation and mutual gain are possible, conflict is
not inevitable through economic independence and fee trade, international
institutions and democratic institutions (aka DPT).
o Constructivism: Interstate
Actors-> actors and interests that drive and shape institutions are socially
constructed
Assumption about the actor’s behavior (based on identity and how the said
actor is identified both by themselves and perceived by others, who the actors
are shaped by identities and interests)
Conflict and peace are therefore shaped by the content of identities and
interests, which are socially constructed and dependent and why norms matter
so much for constructivism
o Instrumentalism: elites are primary explanatory variable for the presence/absence of
conflict Intrastate
Assumptions of instrumentalism:
Elites seek to maximize political power and other material gains and will
foment violence to meet their interests
o Institutionalism: Intrastate
Seeks to understand how political struggles are mediated by the institutional
setting in which they take place
o Constructivism: Intrastate
Groups as socially constructed and not unitary actors (such as in ethnic conflict)
Violence as a means of delineating and assessing group boundaries
, Lecture 2- Violence and State Formation-> Tilly & Stubbs
What is the relationship between violence and state? Does war make stronger states?
Key Concepts:
o State-> “the organization that has monopoly over the legitimate use of physical force
within a given territory in the enforcement of its order” (Weber). (an interesting idea of
what the state is-> the state as organized crime?!?)
o State formation-> the long-term process leading to the centralization of political power
within a sovereign territory. (archiving the ability to use force over a given territory- the
state law enforcement)
o State capacity-> the ability of states to accomplish their goals
often measured by states military power and its bureaucratic/administrative
capacity
The “bellicist” approach to state formation: “War made the state and state made war”- Tilly
o State formation according to Tilly:
War is costly, therefore states going to
war have to find sources of income
Therefore, War making requires
extraction
Extraction leads to protection and
state building
State building also leads to protection
Tilly’s State as an Organized Crime Text:
3. Protection racket: Tilly suggests that states, particularly in their early stages, resemble protection rackets. States
Charles Tilly's concept
offer protection of "war
to their making
citizens and state
in exchange formaking as resources,
financial organized crime"
just as iscriminal
based on the idea that
organizations theprotection
offer activities of
to
the state, particularly
businesses in itsfor
in exchange early stagespayments.
regular of development, bear striking
This protection maysimilarities to those of criminal
involve safeguarding organizations.
individuals Here
from external
are the main
threats points of Tilly's
or maintaining argument:
internal order.
1.4. Monopoly
Bureaucraticonstructures:
violence: Tilly argues
Both statesthat
andboth statesorganizations
criminal and criminal develop
organizations seek to establish
bureaucratic structuresa to
monopoly
carry outontheir
the
legitimate use of violence. While states claim a legal monopoly on violence within their
operations. States create administrative apparatuses to collect taxes, enforce laws, and provide public services. territories, criminal
organizations
Similarly, rely
criminal on violence and
organizations coercion
develop to assertstructures
hierarchical control over
to specific illicittheir
coordinate activities.
illicit activities, manage finances,
2.andResource extraction:
ensure the States and of
smooth functioning criminal organizations engage in resource extraction, but through different means.
their operations.
States extract resources through taxation and other forms of economic control, while criminal organizations extract
5. Legitimization strategies: States and criminal organizations employ strategies to legitimize their actions. States
resources through extortion, racketeering, and illegal activities such as drug trafficking or smuggling.
establish ideologies, legal systems, and narratives that justify their rule and seek to gain the consent of the governed.
Criminal organizations may engage in bribery, corruption, or the use of force to influence or co-opt state officials,
creating a semblance of legitimacy for their illegal activities.
6. Continuity and change: Tilly also acknowledge that the relationship between war making, state making, and
organized crime is not static. Over time, as states consolidate their power, they often suppress criminal activities and
establish stricter law enforcement. Criminal organizations, on the other hand, may seek to infiltrate or corrupt state
institutions to further their interests.
