Explaining outcomes of asymmetric conflicts revisited

The Arauco War

Datos Bibliográficos

ID9348255
AutoresRodolfo Disi Pavlic (0000-0003-4655-153X, Universidad Católica de Temuco, autor de correspondencia)
Año2018
Volumen50
Número189
Páginas97-119
Fecha de publicación2018-04-23
Peer ReviewedSí
Open AccessSí
TipoARTICLE
RevistaEstudios Internacionales (JOURNAL)
Identificadores de la revistaISSN: 0716-0240 • E-ISSN: 0719-3769
EditorialUniversidad de Chile. Instituto de Estudios Internacionales (PUBLISHER • CL)
DOI10.5354/0719-3769.2018.49062
OpenAlexW2800509355
IdiomaEN
Citas recibidas2
Referencias citadas14

This article evaluates two theories that seek to explain the outcomes of asymmetric conflicts. It uses evidence from a case study of the Arauco War (1536-1883). The war resulted, unlike most other instances of European colonization, in the victory of the weaker side. The first theory argues that in asymmetrical warfare, opponents choose between direct (conventional) and indirect (guerrilla) approaches; the stronger side is more likely to win same-approach interactions, while the weaker side is more likely to prevail in different-approach interactions. The second theory advances the claim that when armies become mechanized, they gather less intelligence from the ground, and are therefore less likely to solve the information problem - telling combatants apart from noncombatants. The analysis of the Arauco War shows the limitations of the first theory: the stronger side can easily win some different-approach (indirectdirect) interactions, while the weaker can win same-approach (indirect-indirect) ones. The study lends support to the second theory, especially once it is generalized to include cultural differences as factors that exacerbate the identification problem

Citizen journalism · Economics · Guerrilla warfare · Identification (biology · Law and economics · Political economy · Political science · Politics · Positive economics · Sociology · Victory · Anthropology: Ethics, History, Culture · Law · Peacebuilding and International Security · Political Conflict and Governance