Matching Items (2)
Filtering by
- Creators: Siroky, David
Description
This paper examines the Syrian Civil War using seven different civil war settlement theories in order to assess the likelihood of a negotiated settlement ending the conflict. The costs of war, balance of power, domestic political institutions, ethnic identity, divisibility of stakes, veto player, and credible commitment theories were used in a multi-perspective analysis of the Syrian Civil War and the possibility of a peace settlement. It was found that all of the theories except for costs of war and balance of power predict that a negotiated settlement is unlikely to resolve the conflict. Although the Syrian government and the Syrian National Coalition are currently engaged in diplomatic negotiations through the Geneva II conference, both sides are unwilling to compromise on the underlying grievances driving the conflict. This paper ultimately highlights some of the problems inhibiting a negotiated settlement in the Syrian Civil War. These obstacles include: rival ethno-religious identities of combatants, lack of democratic institutions in Syria, indivisibility of stakes in which combatants are fighting for, number of veto player combatant groups active in Syria, and the lack of a credible third party to monitor and enforce a peace settlement.
ContributorsRidout, Scott Jeffries (Author) / Grossman, Gary (Thesis director) / Siroky, David (Committee member) / Barrett, The Honors College (Contributor) / Economics Program in CLAS (Contributor) / School of Politics and Global Studies (Contributor)
Created2014-05
Description
Existing work suggests that intergroup negativity is caused by dissimilarities of values between groups. In contrast, I propose that incompatible values--regardless of whether they are similar or dissimilar--cause intergroup negativities. Because values act as cues to tangible goals and interests, groups' values suggest desired outcomes that may conflict with our own (i.e., incompatible values). The current study conceptually and empirically disentangles value-dissimilarity and value-incompatibility, which were confounded in previous research. Results indicated that intergroup negativities were strongly predicted by value-incompatibility, and only weakly and inconsistently predicted by value-dissimilarity. I further predicted that groups' values cue specific threats and opportunities to perceivers and that, in reaction to these inferred affordances, people will experience threat-relevant, specific emotional reactions (e.g., anger, disgust); however, results did not support this prediction. I also predicted that, because the inferred threats that groups pose to one another are not always symmetric, the negativities between groups may sometimes be asymmetric (i.e., Group A feels negatively toward Group B, but Group B feels neutral or positively toward Group A). This prediction received strong support. In sum, reframing our understanding of values as cues to conflicts-of-interest between groups provides principles for understanding intergroup prejudices in more nuanced ways.
ContributorsVarley Lee, Allison (Author) / Neuberg, Steven L. (Thesis advisor) / Siroky, David (Committee member) / Aktipis, C Athena (Committee member) / Cohen, Adam B. (Committee member) / Arizona State University (Publisher)
Created2017