Peer-Reviewed Articles
Davutoglu, Perisa. 2024. “The Logic of Sexual Violence by State Security Forces in Civil Wars.” International Interactions.
Abstract: Wartime sexual violence exhibits significant variation both across and within civil conflicts. When explaining this variation, existing scholarly work primarily focuses on rebel groups and overlooks state actors engaged in sexualized civilian victimization. This paper extends the literature by concentrating on states as perpetrators of wartime sexual violence, linking the variation in state-perpetrated sexual violence to battlefield outcomes. It argues that when states suffer from battlefield losses, sexual violence by state security forces is likely to become more prevalent due to changes in motivations at both the command level and the rank-and-file level. Moreover, it suggests that the effect of battle losses on state-perpetrated sexual violence is greater if the states are particularly strong in terms of their military capabilities. Time-series cross-sectional analyses of all armed conflicts between the years 1989 and 2020 provide support for these theoretical expectations, indicating that the effect of battle losses on sexual violence is conditional on states’ military strength. The findings have important implications for the prevention of sexual violence in conflict zones.
Morrison, Kelly, Daniela Donno, Burcu Savun, and Perisa Davutoglu. 2024. “Competing Judgements: Multiple Election Monitors and Post-Election Contention.” Review of International Organizations.
Abstract: By influencing beliefs about electoral quality, international election observation missions (EOMs) play an important role in shaping post-election contention. As the number and variety of international organizations (IOs) involved in election observation has grown, many elections host multiple missions and disagreement among them is common. This phenomenon of competing judgments is particularly prevalent in electoral authoritarian regimes, as leaders seek to invite ‘friendly’ IOs to counteract possible criticism from more established EOMs. Drawing from research about the varying domestic credibility of EOMs and the demobilizing effects of disinformation, we argue that compared to unified criticism, competing judgments among EOMs increase uncertainty about electoral quality, which in turn dampens post-election contention. Using newly available data on EOM statements as reported in the international media, we show that competing judgments reduce post-election contention in a sample of 115 countries from 1990–2012. A survey experiment in Turkey solidifies the micro-foundations of our argument: individuals exposed to competing judgments have more positive perceptions of election quality and less support for post-election mobilization, compared to those receiving information only about EOM criticism. Our findings provide systematic evidence that governments holding flawed elections have incentives to invite multiple election observation missions to hedge against the political risks of criticism.
Under Review
“Beyond the First Battle: Navigating the Uncertainty of War’s Second Stage.” (with Zhejun Qiu and William Spaniel) (R&R at International Studies Quarterly)
Abstract: Many wars are fought in distinct phases, where some underlying capabilities in one portion may have no bearing on later portions. However, existing models of bargaining while fighting treat battles as identical. We relax that assumption and examine what happens when a source of uncertainty only affects some phases. Under such conditions, standard convergence results fail. More specifically, we find that separating equilibria do not exist in the current period if types have identical likelihoods of winning the upcoming battle, even if later battles do depend on type. Thus, we have a natural information-based explanation for long wars. A case study of the Shining Path in Peru illustrates the mechanism
“Towards an Objective Measure: Quantifying Forced Repatriation of Refugees”
Abstract: Despite the established principle of non-refoulement in international law, which prohibits the return of refugees to places where their lives or freedoms could be threatened, forced repatriations remain a recurring issue. However, the lack of data on forced repatriation has made systematic analysis difficult. Using a novel quantitative approach, this paper develops a measure to distinguish between voluntary and forced repatriations, filling a significant gap in the existing literature. It constructs a baseline regression model predicting refugee return patterns based on factors associated with voluntary repatriation. By comparing these predictions with actual repatriation data, instances of potential forced repatriation are identified. The analysis reveals that almost half of the repatriations between 1989 and 2018 were influenced by coercive factors. By identifying the major cases of forced repatriation during this period, this study provides a foundation for further exploration of the dynamics of these events in violation of international law. Additionally, it advances the scholarship on refugee treatment and international law compliance while offering insights for policymakers to address the complexities of refugee repatriation.
Working Papers
“Understanding Public Support for Refugee Policy Liberalization: Evidence from a Survey Experiment"
"Sending them back home? Understanding the Politics of Refugee Repatriation”
“Verdicts from International and Domestic Election Observer Missions.” (with Kelly Morrison, Daniela Donno and Burcu Savun)