Civil war and third-party non-combatants : Understanding the logic of violence against humanitarian aid workers in the setting of intrastate conflict

Abstract: Attacks against humanitarian aid workers are a concerning global trend that has been noted since the end of the Cold War. Despite this, limited research is available that combines overt theoretical testing with empirical procedures. A new typology that is grounded in peace and conflict literature was created to uncover rebel perspectives on aid workers within the context of intrastate conflicts. Borrowing from inclusive goods provision and rebel governance work, a theory was developed that predicted that secessionist rebels are less likely to attack aid workers. Aid-Worker Security Database, Uppsala Conflict Data Program databases, and Peace Research Institute of Oslo GRID datasets were used to conduct large-n-study research at country and sub-country levels. The zero-inflated negative binomial mixed model showed no significant effect of secessionism on violence against aid workers at country and sub-country levels of analysis. Logistic mixed model regression showed some evidence that secessionist conflict results in higher odds of violence against aid workers. The potential implication is that conflict types can have an effect on the security of aid workers in the field. The counter-theoretical findings may point to the issues in the methodological approach employed in the study and the limited information. Additionally, one of the key axioms of the theory was the neutral perception of the aid-workers by rebel groups. As this perception was not captured in models, it can be a potential explanatory variable to account for theoretical deviation. Logistic mixed model regression showed some evidence that secessionist conflict results in higher odds of violence against aid workers. The potential implication is that conflict types can have an effect on the security of aid workers in the field. The counter-theoretical findings may point to the issues in the methodological approach employed in the study and the limited information. Additionally, one of the key axioms of the theory was the neutral perception of the aid-workers by rebel groups. As this perception was not captured in models, it can be a potential explanatory variable to account for theoretical deviation. Logistic mixed model regression showed some evidence that secessionist conflict results in higher odds of violence against aid workers. The potential implication is that conflict types can have an effect on the security of aid workers in the field. The counter-theoretical findings may point to the issues in the methodological approach employed in the study and the limited information. Additionally, one of the key axioms of the theory was the neutral perception of the aid-workers by rebel groups. As this perception was not captured in models, it can be a potential explanatory variable to account for theoretical deviation. The counter-theoretical findings may point to the issues in the methodological approach employed in the study and the limited information. Additionally, one of the key axioms of the theory was the neutral perception of the aid-workers by rebel groups. As this perception was not captured in models, it can be a potential explanatory variable to account for theoretical deviation. The counter-theoretical findings may point to the issues in the methodological approach employed in the study and the limited information. Additionally, one of the key axioms of the theory was the neutral perception of the aid-workers by rebel groups. As this perception was not captured in models, it can be a potential explanatory variable to account for theoretical deviation.