Masaryk university

1.5Structure of the Study

In order to address the research questions outlined in the first chapter of this dissertation, the second chapter provides a theoretical framework for this study. By operationalization of aspect of issues at stake at the end of the each analytical category, the second chapter offers typological theorizing and grounds the dissertation within the literature on the causes of armed conflict. Chapter 3 illustrates the methodological tools in order to conduct typological theorizing and a process-centered approach to conflict evolution, namely, categorization of conflict and conflict dynamics, explaining the logic of vicious cycles during conflict. These tools are important in structuring the empirical data in the next sections.

Chapter 4 to 6 present the main empirical evidence in the Nagorno-Karabakh, Abkhazian, and South Ossetia armed conflicts. Each case study provides in-depth observations of particular conflict phases. The objective of these parts is not to provide a comprehensive description of the whole conflict dynamics but to focus on the scope of analyses pertaining to the issues at stake that transformed the conflict from one phase to another.

The conclusion reflects upon the argument and utilizes debate on a theoretical level. It also illustrates divergent trajectories of mobilization leading to escalation processes and contributes to our understanding of the types of armed conflict in the South Caucasus. Synthesis and the combination of particular issues at stake and the way they evolve over time have significant implications for conflict resolution efforts in the future.

Chapter 2:Theoretical Framework

2.1Typology of Issues at Stake in Armed Conflicts

Conflict research has a long tradition in the field of International Relations. Conflict behavior is an integral part of social life and unfortunately will never end. In order to address and explain inter- and intra-state conflict situations, conflict dynamic, motivations of conflicting actors and external dimension of intra-state rivalry, many scholars have advanced theories to explain conditions under which a conflict may escalate. In conflict research literature, there is an ongoing debate over such issues as the relationship between ethnic diversity and armed conflict,²⁵ the role of political institutions, a process of democratization and violence,²⁶ the linkages between religious beliefs and armed conflict.²⁷ Many scholars study the economic dimension of a conflict and explore the impact of trade ties²⁸ or apply greed and grievance models to explain the outbreak of wars.²⁹ The nature and the level of territorial claims have been identified as the most war-prone issue in conflict studies.³⁰

This dissertation deals with unresolved conflicts and puts its emphasis on the issues at stake. The reason why the conflicts in the South Caucasus region have never reached a resolution rests upon contented issues at stake that have never diminished. In other words, understanding the issues at stake in each phase of the conflict – starting with the latent conflict to the escalation phase – is important if we want to explore why such conflicts can last over two decades and what the issues are that hamper the peaceful settlement of these disputes. Unlike many explanations about the causes of conflicts in the South Caucasus region, this research goes beyond a static study of the factors that contributed to the escalation of the conflicts. More nuanced study of conflict processes assists us in understanding the conflict cycle. This is of particular importance for the South Caucasus people, who still have to learn how to live in peace and build sustainable peace across the region.

Typological theorizing can be a powerful tool in conflict studies. In particular, explanatory typology is based on explicitly stated preexisting theory. It is a complement to deductive approaches. The creation of each type requires working through the logical implication of a particular theory to identify the key aspects of a particular conflict type. Thus, typological theorizing may have a classificatory function too. When applied to case studies, we can determine to which “type” this case belongs. Empirical data could be coded as falling into one category or another. It allows us to trace if there is congruence between categories. By placing cases in different categories, we can make the most productive comparisons for testing theories.

As stated by Jeffrey Checkel, it is critically significant to think about the dialog between the conceptual and operational levels of our analysis.³¹ The problem remains how to assess the causal impact of one factor in relation to others. One of the possible ways for establishing the relation between operationalization and measurement lies in the case-oriented view. Within-case causal process observation involves the reconstruction of an empirical sequence of conditions, which are postulated by the theory. The challenge for further research is to explore not only the combination of issues at stake in armed conflict, but also the correlation and causal relationships among these aspects.

Such an approach allows us to bridge theory with practice and assess the extent to which a conflict is about ethnicity, political claims, ideology, territoriality, or a combination of these factors. However, no conflict is motivated by a single factor, and to avoid oversimplification of our analysis, we have to be aware of some challenges in the process of assessment at the extent to which an individual case conforms to the stipulated causal logic outlined in the theory or shows variation in causal explanations. In within-case causal process observation, the empirical question is to identify not only whether antecedent conditions are linked with the outcome but also whether they do so through the stipulated causal mechanisms too.

Each conflict differs and may include ethnicity, religion, as well as political, economic, and territorial aspirations. The question is how these dimensions interrelate in the whole process of conflict dynamics and how far each contributes to armed conflict. This dissertation provides operationalization of issues at stake in the outlined types of conflict mentioned above. The logic of inferences is grounded in empirical evidence. The case-oriented research goes beyond the concept formation and explores specific kinds of issues at stake, which could be studied individually. In this way, we can address each aspect of the conflict separately. This can explain the existence or absence of particular issues during each phase of the armed conflict, allowing us to overcome simplistic and probabilistic explanations through the use of more asymmetrical explanations of conflict processes.

The aim of this chapter is to provide a typology of conflict. The created typology helps to explore the characteristic features of the phenomena and utilize discussion on the theoretical level. Such nuanced distinction relies on a better understanding of conflict processes. Even though it is hard to grasp the entire dynamics of an armed conflict within a single study, it is important to distinguish the nature of conflicting groups, conflict onset, its escalation, the context of conflict termination, and peacekeeping efforts. A conflict may erupt, for example, from ethnically defined groups, ignited by incompatibility goals over a political issue, which may result in secession at the stage of conflict termination. In other words, ethnic mobilization can be useful for explaining some aspects of armed conflicts, but not useful for explaining others: in time, other features may become a much more powerful identifier of the conflict relationship. By analyzing the heterogenic nature of internal armed conflict, we can promote academic study, explore the causes of the conflict and how they change over time, which will contribute to resolution efforts in the future.

In this respect, typology of conflict by issues at stake is necessary. Academic research focuses on such aspects as religion, ideology, language, ethnicity, resources and markets, dominance, equality, and territory.³² This classification is widely accepted in political science, and conflict research illuminates the significance of each aspect at the stage of conflict outset, its escalation, and its resolution. This section differentiates the major aspects in conflict research in order to explain five major types of conflict: (1) ethnic conflict, (2) conflict over political arrangements, (3) ideological, (4) economic, and (5) territorial cross-border conflict. Such analytical categories present a definition of a particular conflict type and illuminate aspects that are at stake during the entire conflict dynamics. As mentioned above, the aim is to provide a typology of conflict with regards to issues at stake. By identifying clusters of characteristics that differentiate instances of the conflict phenomenon, typological theorizing contributes a powerful tool in conflict studies.