The DOI matches its Crossref record; 4 of the 4 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Governments, Informal Links to Militias, and Accountability
Open accessAbstract
From Syria to Sudan, governments have informal ties with militias that use violence against opposition groups and civilians. Building on research that suggests these groups offer governments logistical benefits in civil wars as well as political benefits in the form of reduced liability for violence, we provide the first systematic global analysis of the scale and patterns of these informal linkages. We find over 200 informal state–militia relationships across the globe, within but also outside of civil wars. We illustrate how informal delegation of violence to these groups can help some governments avoid accountability for violence and repression. Our empirical analysis finds that weak democracies as well as recipients of financial aid from democracies are particularly likely to form informal ties with militias. This relationship is strengthened as the monitoring costs of democratic donors increase. Out-of-sample predictions illustrate the usefulness of our approach that views informal ties to militias as deliberate government strategy to avoid accountability.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Ethnicity, Insurgency, and Civil War
FEARON, J. D., & LAITIN, D. D. (2003) · American Political Science Review · doi:10.1017/s0003055403000534 · Cited by 7,366
Armed Conflict 1946-2001: A New Dataset
GLEDITSCH, N. P., WALLENSTEEN, P., ERIKSSON, M., SOLLENBERG, M., & STRAND, H. (2002) · Journal of Peace Research · doi:10.1177/0022343302039005007 · Cited by 3,846 · cited 4×
“Militia–government cooperation is most likely in but not limited to episodes of armed conflict, as 42 percent of our country-year observations with informal PGMs occur outside of armed conflict, using the threshold of twenty-five battle-related deaths (Gleditsch et al. 2002).”
BackgroundMethodInfluentialCompetitive Authoritarianism: Hybrid Regimes after the Cold War
Levitsky, S., & Way, L. A. (2010) · doi:10.1017/cbo9780511781353 · Cited by 3,459
Democracy and the Violation of Human Rights: A Statistical Analysis from 1976 to 1996
Davenport, C., & Armstrong, D. A. (2004) · American Journal of Political Science · doi:10.1111/j.0092-5853.2004.00086.x · Cited by 652
Cited by
Organized violence, 1989–2018 and peace agreements
Pettersson, T., Högbladh, S., & Öberg, M. (2019) · Journal of Peace Research · doi:10.1177/0022343319856046 · Cited by 432
Carey, S. C., & Mitchell, N. J. (2017) · Annual Review of Political Science · doi:10.1146/annurev-polisci-051915-045433 · Cited by 106
Self-citation“Thugs-for-Hire”: Subcontracting of State Coercion and State Capacity in China
Ong, L. H. (2018) · Perspectives on Politics · doi:10.1017/s1537592718000981 · Cited by 74
Precipitating state failure: do civil wars and violent non-state actors create failed states?
Aliyev, H. (2017) · Third World Quarterly · doi:10.1080/01436597.2017.1319276 · Cited by 38
Metadata
- Authors
- Carey, S. C., Colaresi, M. P., & Mitchell, N. J.
- Venue
- Journal of Conflict Resolution
- Publisher
- SAGE Publications
- Published
- 2015-04-07
- Volume
- 59
- Issue
- 5
- Pages
- 850-876
- ISSN
- 0022-0027 (ISSN-L)
- 1552-8766
- OpenAlex
- W2104164810
- Cited by
- 191
- References
- 4
- FWCI
- 42.08
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Governments, Informal Links to Militias, and Accountability. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1177/0022002715576747
- The paper
- Carey, S. C., Colaresi, M. P., & Mitchell, N. J. (2015). Governments, Informal Links to Militias, and Accountability. Journal of Conflict Resolution. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022002715576747
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.