Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Despite their untold human suffering, widespread destruction and loss, and far-reaching destabilization, the fires of many of the world’s most violent civil wars continue to burn. In light of their devastating effects, how can we explain the intractability of costly and stalemated, yet seemingly endless, civil wars? By situating internal conflicts within the broader geopolitical environment in which they take place, this book provides an answer. It highlights the critical role of competitive intervention—opposing, simultaneous transfers of military assistance from different third-party states to both government and rebel combatants—in the dynamics, duration, and global prevalence of internal conflict. Providing a comprehensive theoretical and empirical account of this form of external meddling, it brings together battlefield bargaining dynamics, the escalatory pressures of interstate competition, and the systemic dimensions of geopolitical rivalry in civil wars to explain how protracted fighting within states is linked to enduring competition between them. In doing so, it challenges traditional conceptions of “proxy war” by deriving new propositions about the strategic logics that motivate it, offering new and productive angles on the behaviors of armed groups, the strategies of foreign interveners, and the trajectories of internal wars. Combining statistical analyses with detailed case studies drawing on fieldwork, original interviews, declassified intelligence reports, and archival research, the book explains competitive intervention’s pernicious effects, documents its consequences for civil wars, and proposes policy prescriptions aimed at resolving some of today’s most intractable conflicts.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 0.006 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".