Journal of

Peace Research
http://jpr.sagepub.com/

Understanding nonviolent resistance: An introduction

Erica Chenoweth and Kathleen Gallagher Cunningham
Journal of Peace Research 2013 50: 271
DOI: 10.1177/0022343313480381
The online version of this article can be found at:
http://jpr.sagepub.com/content/50/3/271

Published by:
http://www.sagepublications.com

On behalf of:
Peace Research Institute Oslo

Journal of Peace Research Replication Data

Additional services and information for Journal of Peace Research can be found at:
Email Alerts: http://jpr.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts
Subscriptions: http://jpr.sagepub.com/subscriptions
Reprints: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.nav
Permissions: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav

>> Version of Record - May 16, 2013

What is This?

Downloaded from jpr.sagepub.com at UQ Library on February 22, 2014

jour nal of

peace
R

Introductions

Understanding nonviolent resistance: An

introduction

E S E A R C H

Journal of Peace Research

50(3) 271276
The Author(s) 2013
Reprints and permission:
sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.nav
DOI: 10.1177/0022343313480381
jpr.sagepub.com

Erica Chenoweth
University of Denver & Peace Research Institute Oslo (PRIO)
Kathleen Gallagher Cunningham
University of Maryland & Peace Research Institute Oslo (PRIO)

Abstract
The events of the Arab Spring of 2011 have made clear the importance and potential efficacy of nonviolent resistance, as
well as the fields inability to explain the onset and outcome of major nonviolent uprisings. Until recently, conflict scholars have largely ignored nonviolent resistance. This issue features new theoretical and empirical explorations of the
causes and consequences of nonviolent resistance, stressing the role that unarmed, organized civilians can play in shaping the course of conflicts. Contributors demonstrate the importance of treating nonviolent and violent strategies, as
well as conventional politics strategies, as alternative choices for engaging the state, show how gender ideology can influence which opposition groups use nonviolent resistance, and suggest that the causes of civil war and nonviolent resistance often differ. Other pieces highlight the role of public attitudes regarding whether nonviolent resistance and
violence are employed, how experience with activism and repression by the state can shape activists perceptions of justice, and how the perceptions of resistance leaders can influence strategic choices. Moreover, several articles examine the
key role that security force defections can play in the success of nonviolent resistance, how micro-level nonviolent tactics
can improve security in civil war, and how nonviolent campaigns can influence the stability of autocratic states. These
contributions suggest that rigorous empirical study of civilian-based contentious politics (rather than only violent contention by armed non-state actors) must be incorporated into the conflict literature. Improved theory and data on the
subject will help researchers and policymakers to shape strategies to support these movements when appropriate, and to
manage changes in the international system that result from the success of nonviolent uprisings.
Keywords
armed conflict, civil conflict, civil resistance, civilians, contentious politics, insurgency, nonviolent resistance,
nonviolent struggle, repression

Introduction
This special issue of the Journal of Peace Research focuses
on the study of nonviolent resistance also called civil
resistance or nonviolent struggle (Sharp, 2005) as a
strategy for political change. We define nonviolent resistance as the application of unarmed civilian power using
nonviolent methods such as protests, strikes, boycotts,
and demonstrations, without using or threatening physical harm against the opponent. Civilians challenging the
state through nonviolent struggle employ irregular

political tactics, working outside the defined and

accepted channels for political participation defined by
the state. As will become clear from the contributions
of this special issue, ordinary people use nonviolent resistance to pursue a wide variety of goals, from challenging
entrenched autocrats to seeking territorial self-

Corresponding author:
Erica.Chenoweth@du.edu

Downloaded from jpr.sagepub.com at UQ Library on February 22, 2014

journal of PEACE RESEARCH 50(3)

272

determination to contesting widespread discriminatory

practices.
The events of the Arab Spring of 2011 have made
clear the importance and potential efficacy of nonviolent
resistance as well as the fields inability to explain the
onset, dynamics, and outcomes of major nonviolent
uprisings. In January and February 2011, nonviolent
activists, protestors, and labor organizations in Tunisia
and Egypt were able to accomplish what years of violent
rebellion could not fundamental regime change. The
following series of upheavals shook regimes across the
Arab world and led to the removal of long-time autocrats
in Tunisia and Egypt, full-fledged civil wars in Libya and
Syria, and massive repression in other states such as
Bahrain. In many of these instances, the general lines
of conflict between governments and dissatisfied segments of their population are similar stagnant economies with high unemployment and lack of political
freedom. However, the precise motivations for mobilization, the strategies pursued by dissidents, opposition
groups, and governments, and the divergent outcomes
of the conflicts beg systematic explanation.
Until quite recently, scholarship on nonviolent
struggle has been primarily applied (Martin, 1984,
1993; Sharp, 1973, 2005), descriptive (Ackerman &
DuVall, 2000), or normative (Holmes & Gan, 2004).
With important exceptions (Bond, 1988), researchers
have only recently begun to analyze civil resistance from
a more empirical and analytical perspective (Chenoweth & Stephan, 2011; Stephan & Chenoweth,
2008; Nepstad, 2011; Schock, 2005; Shaykhutdinov,
2010; Svensson & Lindgren, 2010, 2011). Bonds
(1988) analysis of nonviolent action and Chenoweth
& Stephans (2008, 2011) work on nonviolent campaigns are among the first comprehensive, large-N
studies on the topic. Chenoweth & Stephan (2011)
demonstrate how and why civil resistance works, arguing that popular participation is an essential ingredient
for success. Yet in doing so, such studies have opened
up a host of other questions. Under what conditions
will nonviolent campaigns gain momentum with the
populace? How do political entrepreneurs mobilize and
sustain commitment to nonviolent methods? When
and why do organizations seeking political change
remain committed to nonviolence when their brethren
employ violent tactics? And under what conditions do
insurgent groups abandon violent strategies in favor
of nonviolent civil disobedience? These are but a few
of the questions that have emerged at the forefront of
the burgeoning literature focused on the scientific study
of nonviolent conflict.

We argue that until recently, conflict scholars (particularly those focused on empirical analysis) have largely
ignored nonviolent resistance for three key reasons. First,
violence is often viewed as a more pressing and troubling
global problem, distracting researchers from the equally
common, civilian-led, unarmed struggles and revolutions
that have always been present around the world. Second,
nonviolent resistance may be viewed as extraordinarily
difficult to measure empirically a preconception that
has no doubt deterred interest and efforts to collect data
that could shed light on some of the questions highlighted above. Third, there has been a trend in studies
of conflict to equate the word nonviolent with passive,
weak, pacifist, or activist (Schock, 2003).
As a consequence of these three factors, many scholars
assume that the absence of violent conflict means that no
conflict exists at all. The persistent focus on violence has
therefore led many scholars to assume that cases without
overt violence are equivalent, masking the myriad of strategies for political change that avoid physically harming
the opponent (Chenoweth & Lawrence, 2010; Schock,
2003).1 It is our belief that the rigorous empirical study
of nonviolent, civilian-based contentious politics (rather
than only violent contention by armed non-state actors)
can and must be incorporated into the conflict literature
to improve our understanding of the changing global
landscape.

Violence as the focus of conflict studies

For decades, conflict research has been dominated by
concerns about the use, management, and control of violence. There are clear and compelling reasons for this: the
20th century saw hundreds of millions of people killed as
a result of political violence. And although recent
decades have seen a relative decrease in violence around
the globe (Pinker, 2011; Goldstein, 2011), violence
remains a pressing problem in world affairs. Some consider violence to be the most severe and troubling form
of conflict, which in itself justifies attention to it, whereas
others identify psychological or cognitive processes as
explaining attention to violence (Elbert, Weierstall &
1

Much of the quantitative scholarship on violent challenges to states

has become actor focused, which increases our understanding of who
engages in conflict and why. However, the necessity of identifying
actors and their specific conflict behaviors is somewhat at odds
with collecting data on nonviolent resistance, where potential actors
are difficult to assess in advance, observed mobilization can happen
quickly, and methods of struggle are organized in fundamentally
different ways than armed rebellion.

Downloaded from jpr.sagepub.com at UQ Library on February 22, 2014

Chenoweth & Cunningham

273

Schauer, 2010). The technological development of open

media, which brings violence into peoples homes, may
also explain growing attention to contemporary violent
episodes. The televised nature of the Rwandan genocide,
for example, comes to mind as an instance of how visible
political violence can be to the average person.
This focus on violence, however, obscures the fact
that violence is neither the only nor necessarily the most
potent form of conflict (Ackerman & DuVall, 2000). In
fact, all over the world, unarmed civilians routinely prosecute conflicts without resorting to arms and they do
so extremely forcefully and to great effect at times. A
forthcoming book documents the need to recover nonviolent resistance as a form of struggle used globally during many different historical periods (Bartkowski, 2013),
suggesting the need to demystify violence and pay more
attention to its real alternatives.

Problems in researching nonviolent resistance

In this issue, Kurt Schock (2013) lays out the origins of
the field of civil resistance studies, concentrating on how
its applied character has distinguished it from much academic scholarship on social movements and political
change (for additional overviews, see Carter, 2010;
Roberts, 2010). Researchers may have eschewed the systematic study of nonviolent resistance in part because of
practical difficulties in defining, observing, and measuring the concept in accordance with disciplinary standards.2 Therefore, it is perhaps fitting to begin this
issue with a precise definition and description of what
civil resistance is, and what it is not.
For our purposes, civil resistance, nonviolent resistance, nonviolent struggle, and strategic nonviolence
all refer to the same concept defined above. In most
cases, people who wage nonviolent struggle are doing
so instrumentally, rather than because of a moral commitment to avoid arms. This contrasts with the term
nonviolence, which refers to a conceptually different
phenomenon the eschewing of violent or armed action
because of a moral, philosophical, or principled commitment. Nonviolence practitioners are often engaged in
instrumental action as well, but remaining committed
to nonviolent means is as important to them for moral
2

There is also debate about measurement standards for the study of

violence, but there are at least a few points of convergence regarding
the number of fatalities that mark a war (see Uppsala Conflict Data
Project and the Correlates of War). Even within violent conflict, we
are seeing a more nuanced approach, such as Nords & Cohens
(2012) project on sexual violence.

reasons as winning the conflict is. Thus, nonviolence

overlaps with civil resistance in that practitioners of nonviolence often engage in civil resistance, but engaging in
civil resistance does not require one to accept nonviolence in principle. Whereas Gandhi was committed to
nonviolence as an ethical principle as well as a strategic
asset, for instance, Serbian activists seeking the ouster
of Slobodan Milosevic saw civil resistance as an effective
method of struggle without asserting its morality.
Civil resistance is, by its own definition, transgressive
and non-institutional, whereas a variety of actor strategies
may be nonviolent, legal, and institutionally sanctioned or
recognized, such as participating in elections or engaging
in government-sanctioned protest. Therefore, we also distinguish nonviolent struggle from different forms of nonviolent institutional action. Cunninghams article in this
issue demonstrates the benefits of distinguishing between
violent action, nonviolent action, and nonviolent political
participation (often conceived of as conventional politics), illuminating that the three forms of strategic choice
often have distinct causes and processes (Cunningham,
2013).
A final key characteristic of civil resistance is its organization, coordination, and purposive quality, in which civilians bring to bear certain methods toward a particular
political, social, or economic goal. Civil resistance often
has a civic quality to it, meaning that the grievances
expressed are often widely shared among the general population (Roberts, 2010). This may be distinguished from
behavior that is simply not violent such as certain types
of speech, protest actions, or other contentious performances that do not do physical harm but are also shortlived, spontaneous, incidental, or not aimed at mobilizing
further support. For instance, one may observe a group of
people protesting a particular government policy, but the
protest does not endure more than a day and the people
do not expect to effect long-term policy change. In other
words, occasional demonstrations in the streets do not
necessarily mean that a civil resistance campaign is underway. Most researchers would consider such events as distinct from civil resistance, which is generally more
purposive, coordinated, and sustained in nature.
In addition to focusing on civil resistance as a distinct
form of contention, scholars must then choose a unit of
analysis by which to analyze it. Here, the field of civil
resistance has been limited by a reliance on aggregate,
campaign-level data. This has a number of distinct benefits (see Chenoweth & Lewis, 2013, for a discussion of
these) but sacrifices important levels of nuance about the
dynamics of contention. In this issue, we see multiple
levels of analysis employed to identify causal processes

Downloaded from jpr.sagepub.com at UQ Library on February 22, 2014

journal of PEACE RESEARCH 50(3)

274

related to nonviolent struggle. The articles included variously study individuals (Davenport & Trivedi, 2013),
events (Shellman, Levey & Young, 2013), organizations
(Asal et al., 2013), country-years (Chenoweth & Lewis,
2013; Cunningham, 2013; Rivera Celestino & Gleditsch, 2013), and combinations of micro-level quantitative and qualitative data (Kaplan, 2013). The issue also
includes articles whose analysis of comparative cases generates new hypotheses for further inquiry (Nepstad,
2013; Dudouet, 2013). Much like conflict scholarship
in general, we are hopeful that such methodological
diversity will enhance the richness of the empirical study
of nonviolent conflict.
Finally, scholarship on nonviolent resistance is daunting because of concerns about underreporting. Although
all scholarship on conflict suffers from underreporting
concerns, the problems with studying nonviolent action
may be particularly acute because of the lack of attention
to such issues in open source media reports the most
common source of information for data collection
compared with media attention to violence. The challenges associated with this problem can be met, in part,
by gathering data from primary sources, such as eyewitness reports, on-the-ground interviews, and surveys. This
special issue uses state-of-the-art data, including data collected locally through primary sources (Davenport &
Trivedi, 2013; Kaplan, 2013), and explores systematically the causes, dynamics, and outcomes of nonviolent
resistance. It also features a dataset that will allow
researchers to better understand the conditions under
which nonviolent mass mobilization erupts and succeeds
(Chenoweth & Lewis, 2013).
An additional reason that nonviolent resistance has
received little attention by conflict scholars may be
related to connotations. For instance, some observers
may equate the concept of nonviolent resistance with
activism (Schock, 2003, 2005). Because of norms of
neutrality in the field, scholars typically eschew topics
that connote activism (Martin, 1998). Others may see
the study of violence as more inherently interesting or
more of a priority given the state of the world.
Recent research shows, however, that nonviolent
resistance is neither passive nor weak. Those who rigorously study nonviolent resistance need not embrace
pacifism, nor must they become activists although the
tendency to marginalize pacifists in the scholarly and
policy debate is in itself an interesting and odd trend.
In fact, if more conflict scholars take civil resistance seriously and engage in rigorous empirical research on its
causes, dynamics, and outcomes, we may see less skepticism about the power of nonviolent resistance as a viable

alternative to violence and as a force for change in the

world. We hope that this special issue will demonstrate
the value of bridging the divide between scholars of conflict and scholars of civil resistance.

Issue contributions
The articles in this issue each seek to push forward our
understanding of the use of nonviolent strategies and
their relationship to the use of violence. After a rich overview of civil resistance research (Schock, 2013), the issue
proceeds in four substantive parts: explaining the types
and use of nonviolent action in different strategic contexts (Part I), the dynamics of contention (Part II), outcomes (Part III), and a special data feature (Part IV).
Within these larger themes, the articles focus on a multitude of issues, including the different methods of nonviolent contention available to dissidents (Shellman,
Levey & Young, 2013), the determinants of the choice
to use nonviolent or violent resistance (Asal et al.,
2013; Chenoweth & Lewis, 2013; Cunningham,
2013; Dudouet, 2013), the determinants and consequences of participation in nonviolent resistance
(Davenport & Trivedi, 2013), explaining defection of
security forces to nonviolent resistance (Nepstad,
2013), the effects of nonviolent resistance on authoritarian stability (Rivera Celestino & Gleditsch, 2013), and
the reasons why armed insurgencies abandon violence
in favor of nonviolent resistance (Dudouet, 2013). The
articles feature a diverse array of quantitative and qualitative articles, with a number of articles featuring large-N
statistical analysis and others featuring comparative cases
in the Middle East, North Africa, Latin America, and
Asia. The contributors also represent a diverse set of
scholars from a variety of related fields, resulting in distinct perspectives on the topic.
In Part I, Cunningham (2013) explores why selfdetermination groups choose irregular political strategies, and what determines whether these tend towards
violence or nonviolent campaigns. She finds a variety
of contextual factors to be important predictors. Asal
et al. (2013) highlight the importance of ideational factors such as organizations orientation toward women
in determining when violent or nonviolent tactics are
used.
In Part II, Shellman, Levey & Young (2013) demonstrate that the dynamic processes of conflict between state
and non-state actors and mass attitudes toward dissident
strategies strongly influence when dissident groups choose
violence. Nepstad (2013) suggests that security force
defections, a potentially key factor for the success of any

Downloaded from jpr.sagepub.com at UQ Library on February 22, 2014

Chenoweth & Cunningham

275

regime change campaign, are also to some extent dependent on the strategies used by dissidents. Kaplan (2013)
shows that civilians employing nonviolent tactics have
improved their security during civil war in Colombia.
In Part III, Davenport & Trivedi (2013) highlight
how some forms of nonviolent action make activists even
more aware of the oppressive behaviors they are resisting.
Rivera Celestino & Gleditsch (2013) show how, along
with civil war, nonviolent campaigns influence the stability of autocratic states. Dudouet (2013) explores the role
of social movement leaders perception of their groups
decisionmaking as well as external factors in determining
whether groups choose to de-escalate from violence to
nonviolent strategies.
Finally, in Part IV, Chenoweth & Lewis (2013) introduce the NAVCO 2.0 dataset, the first cross-national
time-series dataset on major nonviolent and violent armed
campaigns from 1945 to 2006. They employ the data to
show that nonviolent campaigns and civil wars are likely
to be driven by different, and at times opposing, factors.
This special issue should be of interest to the field in
general and to readers of JPR in particular in that this
issue complements the expansive literature on violence
strategies that has been published in JPR. Nonviolent
civilian-led action is ubiquitous throughout the world,
and it is increasingly frequent as a method by which ordinary people seek to change circumstances they find intolerable. Indeed, a common theme emerging from our
contributors is the powerful role of civilians in conflict
processes. Instead of seeing civilians as either victims or
passive spectators of violence, this special issue points to
them as active agents of political and social change despite
adverse conditions. Improved theory and data on the subject will help researchers and policymakers shape strategies
to support such movements when appropriate, and to
manage changes in the international system that result
from the success of nonviolent uprisings.

Acknowledgements
Many of the articles in this special issue benefitted from
constructive comments obtained during a day-long
workshop at the 2012 International Studies Association
Annual Meeting in San Diego, for which we gratefully
acknowledge an ISA Workshop Grant. The authors and
co-editors are especially grateful to Eliot Assoudeh,
Adriana Lins de Albuquerque, Kanisha Bond, David
Cunningham, Virginia Page Fortna, Scott Gates, Will
Moore, Ragnhild Nords, Jakana Thomas, Reed Wood,
Julian Wucherpfennig, and other workshop participants
for their excellent comments. All of the articles herein

also underwent additional rounds of peer review, some

of which required extremely timely turnarounds. We are
enormously grateful to the anonymous reviewers who
contributed their knowledge and expertise in such a
short time frame. Chenoweth benefited from a research
sabbatical from Wesleyan University and a course release
from the University of Denver to complete the work, as
well as useful contributions from Orion Lewis in framing
the research problems identified in this introduction.
Cunningham benefited from additional and timely feedback from the JFW group at the University of Maryland.
Chenoweth and Cunningham are grateful for helpful
guidance from Henrik Urdal and Bertrand LescherNuland throughout the creation of the special issue.

Funding
The authors received support from an International Studies
Association Workshop Grant, Wesleyan University, and
the University of Denver.

References
Ackerman, Peter & Jack DuVall (2000) A Force More Powerful: A Century of Nonviolent Conflict. New York:
Palgrave-Macmillan.
Asal, Victor; Richard Legault, Ora Szekely & Jonathan Wilkenfeld (2013) Gender ideologies and forms of contentious
mobilization in the Middle East. Journal of Peace Research
50(3): 305318.
Bartkowski, Maciej, ed. (2013) Recovering Nonviolent History:
Civil Resistance in Liberation Struggles. Boulder, CO: Lynne
Rienner.
Bond, Douglas (1988) The nature and meanings of nonviolent direct action: An exploratory study. Journal of Peace
Research 25(1): 8189.
Carter, April (2010) People power and protest: The literature
on civil resistance in context. In: Adam Roberts & Timothy
Garton Ash (eds) Civil Resistance and Power Politics.
Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2542.
Chenoweth, Erica & Adria Lawrence, eds (2010) Rethinking
Violence: States and Non-State Actors in Conflict. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Chenoweth, Erica & Orion A Lewis (2013) Unpacking nonviolent campaigns: Introducing the NAVCO 2.0 dataset.
Journal of Peace Research 50(3): 415423.
Chenoweth, Erica & Maria J Stephan (2011) Why Civil Resistance Works: The Strategic Logic of Nonviolent Conflict.
New York: Columbia University Press.
Cunningham, Kathleen Gallagher (2013) Understanding strategic choice: The determinants of civil war and nonviolent
campaign in self-determination disputes. Journal of Peace
Research 50(3): 291304.

Downloaded from jpr.sagepub.com at UQ Library on February 22, 2014

journal of PEACE RESEARCH 50(3)

276
Davenport, Christian & Priyam vada Trivedi (2013) Activism
and awareness: Resistance, cognitive activation, and seeing
untouchability among 98,316 Dalits. Journal of Peace
Research 50(3): 369383.
Dudouet, Veronique (2013) Dynamics and factors of transition from armed struggle to nonviolent resistance. Journal
of Peace Research 50(3): 401413.
Elbert, Thomas; Roland Weierstall & Maggie Schauer (2010)
Fascination violence: On mind and brain of manhunters.
European Archives of Psychiatry and Clinical Neuroscience
260(2): 100105.
Goldstein, Joshua (2011) Winning the War on War: The
Decline of Armed Conflict Worldwide. New York: Plume.
Holmes, Robert L & Barry L Gan (2004) Nonviolence in Theory and Practice, 2nd edn. Long Grove, IL: Waveland.
Kaplan, Oliver (2013) Protecting civilians in civil war: The
institution of the ATCC in Colombia. Journal of Peace
Research 50(3): 351367.
Martin, Brian (1984) Uprooting War. London: Freedom.
Martin, Brian (1993) Social Defence, Social Change. London:
Freedom.
Martin, Brian (1998) Advice for the dissident scholar. Thought
& Action 14(1): 119130.
Nepstad, Sharon Erickson (2011) Nonviolent Revolutions:
Civil Resistance in the Late 20th Century. New York: Oxford
University Press.
Nepstad, Sharon Erickson (2013) Mutiny and nonviolence in
the Arab Spring: Exploring military defections and loyalty
in Egypt, Bahrain, and Syria. Journal of Peace Research
50(3): 337349.
Nords, Ragnhild & Dara Kay Cohen (2012) Sexual violence
in armed conflict. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting
of the International Studies Association. San Diego, CA,
1-4 April.
Pinker, Steven (2011) The Better Angels of our Nature: Why
Violence Has Declined. New York: Viking.
Rivera Celestino, Mauricio & Kristian Skrede Gleditsch
(2013) Fresh carnations or all thorn, no rose? Nonviolent
campaigns and transitions in autocracies. Journal of Peace
Research 50(3): 385400.
Roberts, Adam (2010) Introduction. In: Adam Roberts &
Timothy Garton Ash (eds) Civil Resistance and Power
Politics. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 124.

Schock, Kurt (2003) Nonviolent action and its misconceptions: Insights for social scientists. PS: Political Science and
Politics 36(4): 705712.
Schock, Kurt (2005) Unarmed Insurrections: People Power
Movements in Nondemocracies. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press.
Schock, Kurt (2013) The practice and study of civil resistance.
Journal of Peace Research 50(3): 277290.
Sharp, Gene (1973) The Politics of Nonviolent Action, 3 vols.
Boston, MA: Porter-Sargent.
Sharp, Gene (2005) Waging Nonviolent Struggle: 20th Century
Practice and 21st Century Potential. Boston, MA:
Porter-Sargent.
Shaykhutdinov, Renat (2010) Give peace a chance: Nonviolent protest and the creation of territorial autonomy
arrangements. Journal of Peace Research 47(2): 179191.
Shellman, Stephen; Brian P Levey & Joseph K Young (2013)
Shifting sands: Explaining and predicting phase shifts by
dissident organizations. Journal of Peace Research 50(3):
319336.
Stephan, Maria J & Erica Chenoweth (2008) Why civil resistance works: The strategic logic of nonviolent conflict.
International Security 33(1): 744.
Svensson, Isak & Mathilda Lindgren (2010) Community and
consent: Unarmed insurrections in nondemocracies.
European Journal of International Relations 17(1): 97120.
Svensson, Isak & Mathilda Lindgren (2011) From bombs to
banners? The decline of wars and the rise of unarmed uprisings in East Asia. Security Dialogue 42(3): 219237.
ERICA CHENOWETH, b. 1980, PhD in Political Science
(University of Colorado, Boulder, 2007); Assistant
Professor, Josef Korbel School of International Studies,
University of Denver; Associate Senior Researcher, Peace
Research Institute Oslo; current research interests: political
violence and its alternatives.
KATHLEEN GALLAGHER CUNNINGHAM, b. 1977,
PhD in Political Science (University of California, San
Diego, 2007); Assistant Professor, University of Maryland;
Senior Researcher, Peace Research Institute Oslo; current
research interests: civil war, self-determination, secession,
organizational behavior.

Downloaded from jpr.sagepub.com at UQ Library on February 22, 2014