A structural-relational analysis of party dynamics in proxy wars
| Date | 01 December 2018 |
| Author | Vladimir Rauta |
| DOI | 10.1177/0047117818802436 |
| Published date | 01 December 2018 |
| Subject Matter | Articles |
https://doi.org/10.1177/0047117818802436
International Relations
2018, Vol. 32(4) 449 –467
© The Author(s) 2018
Article reuse guidelines:
sagepub.com/journals-permissions
DOI: 10.1177/0047117818802436
journals.sagepub.com/home/ire
A structural-relational
analysis of party dynamics
in proxy wars
Vladimir Rauta
University of Reading
Abstract
Proxy wars are still under-represented in conflict research and a key cause for this is the
lack of conceptual and terminological care. This article seeks to demonstrate that minimising
terminological diffusion increases overall analytical stability by maximising conceptual rigour. The
argument opens with a discussion on the terminological ambivalence resulting from the haphazard
employment of labels referencing the parties involved in proxy wars. Here, the article introduces
an analytical framework with a two-fold aim: to reduce label heterogeneity, and to argue in favour
of understanding proxy war dynamics as overlapping dyads between a Beneficiary, a Proxy, and a
Target. This is then applied to the issues of defining and theorising party dynamics in proxy wars.
It does so by providing a structural-relational analysis of the interactions between the above-
mentioned parties based on strategic interaction. It presents a tentative explanation of the proxy
relationship by correlating the Beneficiary’s goal towards the Target with the Proxy’s preference
for the Beneficiary. In adding the goal-preference relational heuristic, the article advances the
recent focus on strategic interaction with a novel variant to explanations based on interest,
power, cost–benefit considerations or ideology.
Keywords
conceptual analysis, external support, proxy war, strategic interaction, terminology
Introduction
Conceptual debates stand to correct theoretical and methodological ambivalences
across a wide range of sub-fields in international relations. Often disregarded as meta-
theoretical trivia,1 concept analyses focus on the perils of operating with notions with
unclear boundaries, conflicting meanings, and divergent empirical referents. Their aims
are straightforward: attaining clarity, ensuring precision, and building stable conceptual
Corresponding author:
Vladimir Rauta, University of Reading, Reading, RG6 6AA, UK.
Email: V.rauta@reading.ac.uk
802436IRE0010.1177/0047117818802436International RelationsRauta
research-article2018
Article
450 International Relations 32(4)
standing(s). Security,2 terrorism,3 and war4 are a small sample of terms subjected to
conceptual scrutiny in the discipline of International Relations. Nevertheless, even
established research clusters, such as that addressing civil war, still use concepts incon-
sistently and imperfectly.5 Given the nascent state of proxy wars research, it comes as
no surprise that such discussions are almost entirely absent, despite having important
consequences to our understanding of the topic, chiefly of which is their effect on
knowledge cumulation.6
As recently noted by Brown, ‘the issue of proxy warfare has again been rising up the
international agenda’.7 Notwithstanding the erroneous overlap between proxy warfare
and proxy war,8 Brown highlights the growing interest in the topic.9 As the gap in the
knowledge of proxy wars slowly narrows, it is striking to note, however, that this cluster
of research is still at a critical, pre-theoretical stage. For example, attempts at theoretical
examinations of causal dynamics in proxy wars are rather scarce. On one hand, Salehyan,
Gleditsch, and Cunningham put forward a theory of external support hinging on princi-
pal–agent assumptions and a demand–supply logic.10 On the other, San-Akca developed
a strategic interaction model involving two simultaneous selection pathways: from the
state towards the non-state actor, and from the non-state actor towards the state.11 These
are complemented by country- or region-focused research which reveals interesting,
albeit partial, insights into why proxy wars are waged.12 However, no overarching theory
has emerged, and the existing models complement, rather than integrate each other.
This article argues that a first step in overcoming this issue is a joint terminological-
conceptual exploration of the term ‘proxy war’. Essentially, the article focuses on con-
ceptual assessment as constitutive of the theoretical micro-foundations of proxy war
research. However, for proxy wars, this is not as straightforward, for conceptual inquiry
requires a deconstruction of the meaning of proxy wars as acts of violence taking the
form of indirect intervention. As Mumford put it, proxy wars are indirect third-party
engagements in conflicts aimed at influencing strategic outcomes. They are constitutive
of ‘a relationship between a benefactor, who is a state or non-state actor external to the
dynamic of an existing conflict, and their chosen proxies who are the conduit for weap-
ons, training and funding from the benefactor’.13 From a conceptual point of view, this
implies ordering meaning across the complex interactions resulting between the party
requiring indirect intervention, the party carrying it out, and the actual target of indirect
intervention.
Nevertheless, it is at this level that research has produced a theoretically misleading
terminological diffusion. Specifically, the three parties engaged in proxy wars display
extraordinary label variance that not only presents limited substantive utility but adds
unnecessary polemic to an already contentious topic. In the literature, the use of labels
has followed the path of adapting terminology into ‘novel’ conceptualisations of proxy
wars: choices over pairs of labels, for example, ‘patron’ – ‘client’ or ‘benefactor’ –
‘pawn’, are usually deemed semantically sufficient to mark conceptual innovation. This
is a significant issue and the argument the article makes is simple, yet relevant: by mini-
mising and reducing the semantically crowded field of labels ascribed to the parties
involved in proxy wars, we develop a more stable and easily definable concept, allowing
it to maximise both academic and policy tracts.
To continue reading
Request your trial