Explaining outcomes of asymmetric conflicts revisited

The Arauco War

Dados Bibliográficos

ID9348255
AutoresRodolfo Disi Pavlic (0000-0003-4655-153X, Universidad Católica de Temuco, autor correspondente)
Ano2018
Volume50
Fascículo189
Páginas97-119
Data de publicação2018-04-23
Peer ReviewedSim
Open AccessSim
TipoARTICLE
PeriódicoEstudios Internacionales (JOURNAL)
Identificadores do periódicoISSN: 0716-0240 • E-ISSN: 0719-3769
EditoraUniversidad de Chile. Instituto de Estudios Internacionales (PUBLISHER • CL)
DOI10.5354/0719-3769.2018.49062
OpenAlexW2800509355
IdiomaEN
Citações recebidas2
Referências 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