Journal Article - Quarterly Journal: International Security
Why Civil Resistance Works: The Strategic Logic of Nonviolent Conflict
Summary
The historical record indicates that nonviolent campaigns have been more successful than armed campaigns in achieving ultimate goals in political struggles, even when used against similar opponents and in the face of repression. Nonviolent campaigns are more likely to win legitimacy, attract widespread domestic and international support, neutralize the opponent’s security forces, and compel loyalty shifts among erstwhile opponent supporters than are armed campaigns, which enjoin the active support of a relatively small number of people, offer the opponent a justification for violent counterattacks, and are less likely to prompt loyalty shifts and defections. An original, aggregate data set of all known major nonviolent and violent resistance campaigns from 1900 to 2006 is used to test these claims. These dynamics are further explored in case studies of resistance campaigns in Southeast Asia that have featured periods of both violent and nonviolent resistance.
Want to Read More?
The full text of this publication is available via the original publication source.
For more information on this publication:
Please contact
International Security
For Academic Citation:
Maria J. Stephan and Erica Chenoweth. “Why Civil Resistance Works: The Strategic Logic of Nonviolent Conflict.” Quarterly Journal: International Security, vol. 33. no. 1. (Summer 2008): 7-44 .
- Recommended
- In the Spotlight
- Most Viewed
Recommended
Analysis & Opinions
- The Boston Globe
Biden Needs to Act on Nagorno-Karabakh
Journal Article
- Quarterly Journal: International Security
The Cult of the Persuasive: Why U.S. Security Assistance Fails
Newspaper Article
- Harvard Crimson
Belfer Center Fellow Discusses Nigerian Election Violence at HKS Seminar
In the Spotlight
Most Viewed
Analysis & Opinions
- Slate
The Internet Enabled Mass Surveillance. A.I. Will Enable Mass Spying.
Analysis & Opinions
- Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs, Harvard Kennedy School
AI and Trust
Analysis & Opinions
- Foreign Policy
Was Henry Kissinger Really a Realist?
Summary
The historical record indicates that nonviolent campaigns have been more successful than armed campaigns in achieving ultimate goals in political struggles, even when used against similar opponents and in the face of repression. Nonviolent campaigns are more likely to win legitimacy, attract widespread domestic and international support, neutralize the opponent’s security forces, and compel loyalty shifts among erstwhile opponent supporters than are armed campaigns, which enjoin the active support of a relatively small number of people, offer the opponent a justification for violent counterattacks, and are less likely to prompt loyalty shifts and defections. An original, aggregate data set of all known major nonviolent and violent resistance campaigns from 1900 to 2006 is used to test these claims. These dynamics are further explored in case studies of resistance campaigns in Southeast Asia that have featured periods of both violent and nonviolent resistance.
Want to Read More?
The full text of this publication is available via the original publication source.- Recommended
- In the Spotlight
- Most Viewed
Recommended
Analysis & Opinions - The Boston Globe
Biden Needs to Act on Nagorno-Karabakh
Journal Article - Quarterly Journal: International Security
The Cult of the Persuasive: Why U.S. Security Assistance Fails
Newspaper Article - Harvard Crimson
Belfer Center Fellow Discusses Nigerian Election Violence at HKS Seminar
In the Spotlight
Most Viewed
Analysis & Opinions - Slate
The Internet Enabled Mass Surveillance. A.I. Will Enable Mass Spying.
Analysis & Opinions - Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs, Harvard Kennedy School
AI and Trust
Analysis & Opinions - Foreign Policy
Was Henry Kissinger Really a Realist?