![Sample our Area Studies journals, sign in here to start your access, latest two full volumes FREE to you for 14 days]({"type":"image" , "src" : "/sda/5922/TOC-Subject-Sample-2021-Area-Studies.jpg"})
ABSTRACT
Integrating theoretical assumptions from peace and conflict research and insights from development and agricultural studies, the paper scrutinises the specific mechanisms linking large-scale land acquisitions (LSLAs) and different types of violence and crime in post-war societies. The case study of Cambodia is used to demonstrate how the particular mechanisms work and interact. Insights from the paper indicate that, under the given post-war context conditions, LSLAs contribute to the perpetuation and consolidation of an illegal and violence-inducing entanglement of political power and economic interests among agro-investors, state actors and military forces. This nexus can be traced back to the historical legacy of civil war through various mechanisms – notably, the interplay of weak political institutions, widespread corruption and extreme power asymmetries. The legacy of war also continues through the persistence of war economy structures such as illegal logging, which is becoming intertwined with large-scale agricultural investments.
Acknowledgements
I thank Madeleine Hatfield along with two anonymous reviewers for their very helpful comments on my article. I am also grateful for the highly useful feedback I received from Sabine Kurtenbach, Angelika Rettberg, and other researchers of the “War Economies and Postwar Crime“ project funded by the Alexander von Humboldt Foundation.
Notes
1. In accordance with prevailing notions about the phenomenon, LSLAs can be provisionally defined as transactions that entail a transfer through sale or concession of the right to use or own large amounts of arable land for commercial purposes (see also Anseeuwe et al., Transnational Land Deals, VI).
2. Nolte, Chamberlain and Giger, International Land Deals, 7. Some sources indicate much higher numbers besides (see for example Deininger et al., Rising Global Interest).
3. The definition of an internal armed conflict used in this article is based on the commonly used definition and data of the Correlates of War Project. The Correlates of War Project defines an internal armed conflict as an ‘intra-state war’ if it involves organized armed forces, and results in a minimum of 1000 battle-related deaths in one calendar year (Sarkees and Wayman, Resort to War).
4. Such as those of Geuder-Jilg, Land Acquisitions and Impact; Nolte, Chamberlain and Giger, International Land Deals; and Thaler, Large-Scale Land Acquisitions. For a discussion of the reasons for this tendency, see, for example, Nolte, Chamberlain and Giger, International Land Deals, or Sturgess and Flower, Land and Conflict.
5. In this paper the concepts of ‘post-war’ and ‘post-conflict’ are used synonymously. The definition of an internal armed conflict employed in this paper is based on the definition of intra-state wars by the widely used Correlates of War (COW) Project (see endnote 3).
6. Following Tilly (2003) within this article the term ‘violence’ is used in the sense of collective violence, excluding purely individual actions, nonmaterial damage, and accidents (Tilly, Politics of Collective Violence, 4).
7. For example, Bottazi, Goguen and Rist, “Conflicts of Customary Land”; Hall et al., “Resistance, Acquiescence”; Martiniello, “Social Struggle”; and Oberlack et al., “Sustainable Livelihoods.”
8. Collier and Hoeffler, “Greed and Grievance”; and Suhrke and Berdal, The Peace in Between.
9. Nolte, Chamberlain and Giger, International Land Deals, 18.
10. Collier and Venables, Greening Africa; Deininger et al., Rising Global Interest; Kleemann et al., Rural Welfare Implications; and Rist et al., “Livelihood Impacts.”
11. Görg and Greenaway, “Much Ado about Nothing”; see also Hennings, Resistance against Large-Scale.
12. Lund, Odgaard and Sjaastad, Land Rights; and Rulli, Saviori and D’Odorico, “Global Land and Water.”
13. DeSchutter, “How Not to Think”; and Kleemann and Thiele, Rural Welfare.
14. Álvaro Roa, “Expansion des Ölpalmanbaus”; Bues, Increasing Pressure; Hennings, “Das Konfliktpotenzial”; Hornung, Zucker für den EU-Markt; Siagian et al., The Loss of Reason; Springer, “Articulated Neoliberalism”; and Thorburn, “The Plot Thickens.”
15. Hennings, “Das Konfliktpotenzial.”
16. See for example Baird, “Resistance and Contingent”; Geuder-Jilg, Land Acquisitions; Sändig and Schramm, “Protest und Widerstand”; and Sturgess and Flower, Land and Conflict.
17. Gerber, “Conflicts over Industrial”; Hall et al., “Resistance, Acquiescence”; and Temper et al., “Mapping the Frontiers.”
18. Bottazzi, Goguen and Rist, “Conflicts over Customary.”
19. Baird, “Resistance and Contingent”; Hall et al., “Resistance, Acquiescence”; Martiniello, “Social Struggle”; and Overbeek, Kröger and Gerber, An Overview.
20. Sändig and Schramm, “Protest und Widerstand”.
21. Baird, “Resistance and Contingent.”
22. Suárez, “The Human Rights Framework”; and De Schutter, “The Role of Property Rights.”
23. Bircan et al., Violent Conflict and Inequality; and Licklider, “Obstacles to Peace.”
24. Sturgess and Flower, Land and Conflict.
25. Gurr, People versus States.
26. Østby, “Polarization, Horizontal.”
27. Hall et al., Powers of Exclusion.
28. Hennings, “Das Konfliktpotenzial”; see also, other author within this special issue.
29. Hendrix, “Measuring State Capacity”; Rettberg, Leiteritz and Nasi, Different Resources; Cheng and Zaum, “Introduction – Peacebuilding”; and Lujala and Rustad, High-Value Natural Resources.
30. Alonso-Fradejas, “Anything but a Story”; and Siagian et al., The Loss of Reason.
31. While the term ‘resource war’ might imply several other dimensions, it is in the following used in the sense of wars, which are significantly caused, sustained or prolonged through the funding by illegal trade of valuable natural resources (see also Le Billon, “The Geopolitical Economy”).
32. Grajales, “Land Grabbing,” 541; see also, other author in this special issue.
33. Chimni, “Refugees Return.”
34. Lecki, Housing, Land and Property.
35. Sturgess and Flower, Land and Conflict, 10.
36. Gurr, Peoples versus States.
37. Due to the unavailability of comprehensive data thus far, it is beyond the scope of this paper to conclusively test all of the assumptions about the mechanisms at work. This may be an important further step for future research, once the preliminary conceptual framework has been conclusively elaborated.
38. George and Bennett, Case Studies.
39. For details, see for example: Chandler, The Tragedy; and Keller, “UNTAC in Cambodia.”
40. Mullenbach, “Reconstructing Strive-Torn,” 62.
41. Kirsten, “Transitional Justice,” 18; and Small Arms Survey, “Stabilizing Cambodia,” 121.
42. Le Billon, “Getting it Done,” 150.
43. Ross, “Oil, Drugs, and Diamonds”; and Global Witness, Cambodia’s Family Trees, 12.
44. Le Billon, “Getting it Done,” 219.
45. Hill, Hal and Menon, Cambodia’s Rapid Growth, 7.
46. MacInnes, Land is Life; see also Table .
47. Hill, Hal and Menon, Cambodia’s Rapid Growth, 5.
48. MacInnes, Land is Life.
49. Global Witness, Cambodia’s Family Trees; and Small Arms Survey, “Stabilizing Cambodia,” 122.
50. Global Witness, Cambodia’s Family Trees; and Neef and Touch, Land Grabbing, 1–2.
51. Thyl de Lopez, “Natural Resource,” 38.
52. Touch and Neef, Resistance to Land Grabbing, 1.
53. Neef and Touch, Land Grabbing, 2.
54. ADHOC, A Turning Point, 6.
55. Bues, Increasing Pressure, 8–9.
56. ADHOC, A Turning Point; Bues, Increasing Pressure; Dwyer, “The Formalization Fix”; MacInnes, Land is Life; and Touch and Neef, Land Grabbing.
57. Bues, Increasing Pressure, 9.
58. Dwyer, “The Formalization Fix,” 914.
59. Ibid., 924.
60. Forest Trends, Conversion Timber, ii.
61. Ibid., iv.
62. Cismas and Paramita, “Land Acquisitions in Cambodia.”
63. Dwyer, “The Formalization Fix,” 910.
64. Global Witness, Cambodia’s Family Trees; Neef and Touch, Land Grabbing; and Bues, Increasing Pressure.
65. Freedom House, Freedom of Press; and Springer, “Articulated Neoliberalism.”
66. ADHOC, A Turning Point; Baird, “Resistance and Contingent”; Cismas and Paramita, “Land Acquisitions in Cambodia”; MacInnes, Land is Life; and Neef, Touch and Chiengthong, “The Politics and Ethics.”
67. Baird, “Resistance and Contingent”; and Bues, Increasing Pressure, 9.
68. ADHOC, A Turning Point; and Temper et al., “Mapping the Frontiers.”
69. ADHOC, A Turning Point; and Subedi, Report of the Special.
70. ADHOC, A Turning Point, 12–13.
71. MacInnes, Land is Life; Subedi, Report of the Special; Springer, “Articulated Neoliberalism”; and Mgbako et al., Forced Eviction.
72. ADHOC, A Turning Point; and Sophal, Review of Labor.
73. Sophal, Review of Labor, iii.
74. Human Rights Watch, Human Rights Watch Report, 294.
75. Global Witness, Cambodia’s Family Trees.
76. Hensengerth, Social and Political.
77. Global Witness, Cambodia’s Family Trees; and Hensengerth, Social and Political.
78. Subedi, Report of the Special, 6.
79. Accessed January 15, 2017. http://www.inclusivedevelopment.net/campaign/cambodia-sugarcane-land-grabs
80. Accessed January 15, 2017. https://ejatlas.org/conflict/blood-sugar-land-grab-by-phnom-penh-sugar-company-kampong-speu-cambodia
81. Global Witness, Cambodia’s Family Trees.
82. MacInnes, Land is Life, 10.
83. Global Witness, Cambodia’s Family Trees, 10; and EJOLT: https://ejatlas.org/conflict/pheapimex-fuchan-conflict-cambodia.
84. Global Witness, Cambodia’s Family Trees, 77.
85. MacInnes, Land is Life, 10; and Titthara, “Memories of a Land.”