Letter from the Editor

Abstract

Dear Dynamics of Asymmetric Conflict Readers: Welcome to the twelfth volume, third issue of the Dynamics of Asymmetric Conflict: Pathways toward Terrorism and Genocide Journal. I will start this letter with a brief overview of the five articles in this Issue, followed by an introduction to our new Editor Board members as well as our new Editorial Assistant Michael Logan. We have four exceptional articles to share with you in this Issue, ranging from Udi Sommer and colleagues’ analysis of extrajudicial killings to Laura Bell’s research on social unrest in Africa. While they are varied in style, from authors with distinct academic training, and cover a range of issues, the commonality across them is that they are all focused on the dynamics of asymmetric conflict. Moreover, in their own unique way, each addresses a specific tactic or strategy underlying conflict among actors and/or its effects on different segments of the population. For example, in the first article, Udi Sommer and Victor Asal examine why States engage in extrajudicial killings. Using data collected from 146 countries between 1981 and 2004, the authors found that infringements in the form of extrajudicial killings or in the form of political disappearances are less likely when there is an independent judiciary. Furthermore, armed conflicts increase the likelihood of extrajudicial killings and of political imprisonment. In another study, Victor Asal, William Ayres, and Yuichi Kubota explore why States seek to influence political outcomes in other states by supporting non-governmental groups. The authors pay specific attention to ethnopolitical organizations and the influence of the use of violence, sociopolitical events, and organizational characteristics on State support. Drawing from the Middle East Minorities at Risk Organizational Behavior (ME-MAROB) dataset, the authors find that violent organizations are more likely to than nonviolent organizations to obtain external support in both the Cold War and the post-Cold War periods. Only in the post-Cold War period did organizational popularity, capability, and kinship with the state sponsor encourage state support. The authors suggest these findings illustrate how state actors reconsidered their behaviours in supporting ethnopolitical organizations after the Cold War. In the third article, Christopher Linebarger, Angela Nichols and Andrew Enterline examine how revolutionary threats influence the likelihood that status quo states will intervene to assist governments confronting civil violence. Using the Uppsala Conflict Data Programme’s External Support Data, the authors find that status quo states respond to the proximity of a revolutionary state, but not to the proximity of support for rebels. In other words, the likelihood status quo states engage in counterrevolutionary foreign policies is based on the relative closeness of a revolutionary state. In the fourth article, Laura Bell analyse the intersection between social unrest and terrorist assassinations in Africa. Drawing from multiple data sources including the Global Terrorism Database and Social Conflict Analysis Database, she finds that DYNAMICS OF ASYMMETRIC CONFLICT 2019, VOL. 12, NO. 3, 183–184 https://doi.org/10.1080/17467586.2019.1664066