Kontrola teritoria jako faktor pro efektivní realizaci politického cíle islamistického násilného nestátního aktéra.

• Název práce v češtině: Kontrola teritoria jako faktor pro efektivní realizaci politického cíle islamistického násilného nestátního aktéra.
• Název v anglickém jazyce: Control of territory as a factor for the effective implementation of a political objective of an Islamist violent non-state actor
• Klíčová slova: Násilný nestátní aktér; teritorium; vládnutí; efektivita; případová studie.
• Klíčová slova anglicky: Violent Non-State Actor; territory; governance; effectiveness; case study.
• Akademický rok vypsání: 2013/2014
• Typ práce: rigorózní práce
• Jazyk práce: čeština
• Ústav: Katedra mezinárodních vztahů (23-KMV)
• Vedoucí / školitel: prof. PhDr. RNDr. Nikola Hynek, Ph.D., M.A.
• Řešitel: skrytý - zadáno a potvrzeno stud. odd.
• Datum přihlášení: 11.10.2018
• Datum zadání: 11.10.2018
• Datum potvrzení stud. oddělením: 11.10.2018
• Datum a čas obhajoby: 04.10.2018 00:00
• Datum odevzdání elektronické podoby: 04.10.2018
• Datum proběhlé obhajoby: 04.10.2018
• Oponenti: prof. Mgr. Oldřich Bureš, Ph.D., M.A.

Seznam odborné literatury

ANCEL, Jacques. Géographie des frontières. Paris: Gallimard, 1938.

ANCEL, Jacques. Géopolitique. Paris: Delagrave, 1936.

AYUBI, Nazih N.. Over-stating the Arab State: Politics and Society in the Middle East. London, New York: I. B. Tauris, 2006.

BARAK, Oren – COHEN, Chanan. The “Modern Sherwood Forest”: Theoretical and Practical Challenges. In: Miodownik, Dan – Barak, Oren (eds.). Nonstate Actors in Intrastate Conflicts. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2014.

BARNETT, Michael N. – FINNEMORE, Martha. The Politics, Power, and Pathologies of International Organizations. International Organization, Vol. 53, No. 4, 1999.

BEACH, Derek – PEDERSEN, Rasmus B.. Process-Tracing Methods: Foundations and Guidelines. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 2013.

BENNETT, Andrew. Case Study Methods: Design, Use, and Comparative Advantages. In: Sprinz, Detlef – Wolinsky, Yael. Cases, Numbers, Models: International Relations Research Methods. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 2004.

BENNETT, Andrew. Causal mechanisms and typological theories in the study of civil conflict. In: Checkel, Jeffrey T. (ed.). Transnational Dynamics of Civil War. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2013.

BENNET, Andrew – CHECKEL, Jeffrey T.. Process Tracing: From Philosophical Roots to Best Practices. In: Bennet, Andrew – Checkel, Jeffrey T. (eds.). Process Tracing: From Metaphor to Analytic Tool. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2015.

BHASKAR, Roy. A realist theory of science. London, New York: Routledge, 2008.

BHASKAR, Roy. The Possibility of Naturalism. A Philosophical Critique of the Contemporary Human Sciences. London, New York: Routledge, 1998.

BIDDLE, Stephen D.. Defense at Low Force Levels: The Effect of Force to Space Ratios on Conventional Combat Dynamics. Alexandria : Institute for Defense Analyses, 1991.

BLATTER, Joachim – HAVERLAND, Markus. Designing Case Studie: Explanatory Approaches in Small-N Research. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, 2012.

BROOKER, Paul. Modern Stateless Warfare. Basingstoke, New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2010.

BROWN, M. Anne (et al.). Challenging Statebuilding as Peacebuilding - Working with Hybrid Political Orders to Build Peace. In: Richmond, Oliver P.. Peacebuilding: Critical Developments and Approaches. Basingstoke, New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2010.

BUREŠ, Oldřich – NEDVĚDICKÁ, Vendula. Soukromé vojenské společnosti. Staronoví aktéři mezinárodní bezpečnosti. Plzeň: Aleš Čenek, 2011.

BYMAN, Daniel L. – POLLACK, Kenneth M.. Let Us Now Praise Great Men: Bringing the Statesman Back In. International Security, Vol. 25, No. 4, 2001.

CALL, Charles T.. Beyond the failed state: Toward conceptual alternatives. European Journal of International Relations, Vol. 17, No. 303, 2011.

CALLE, Luis de la – SANCHEZ-CUENCA, Ignacio. Rebels without a Territory: An Analysis of Nonterritorial Conflicts in the World, 1970–1997. Journal of Conict Resolution, Vol. 56, No. 4, 2012.

CALLE, Luis de la – SANCHEZ-CUENCA, Ignacio. How Armed Groups Fight: Territorial Control and Violent Tactics. Studies in Conflict & Terrorism, Vol. 38, No. 1, 2015.

CAMERON, Kim. Critical questions in assessing organizational effectiveness. Organizational Dynamics, Vol. 9, No. 2, 1980.

CARTER, David B.. Territoriality, Non-State Actors, and Military Strategy. Paper presented at Terrorism and Policy: Fourth Conference. Dallas: The University of Texas, 2014.

CASTILLO, Jasen J.. Endurance and War. The National Sources of Military Cohesion. Stanford: Stanford University Press, 2014.

CLUNAN, Anne L. – TRINKUNAS, Harold A.. Alternative Governance and Security. In: Clunan, Anne L. – Trinkunas, Harold A. (eds.). Ungoverned Spaces: Alternatives to State Authority in an Era of Softened Sovereignty. Stanford: Stanford University Press, 2010a.

CLUNAN, Anne L. – TRINKUNAS, Harold A.. Conceptualizing Ungoverned Spaces: Territorial Statehood, Contested Authority, and Softened Sovereignty. In: Clunan, Anne L. – Trinkunas, Harold A. (eds.). Ungoverned Spaces: Alternatives to State Authority in an Era of Softened Sovereignty. Stanford: Stanford University Press, 2010b.

COHEN, Saul B.. Geography and Politics in a World Divided. New York: Random House, 1963.

COLLIER, David. Understanding Process Tracing. Political Science and Politics, Vol. 44, No. 4, 2011.

COLLIER, David – BRADY, Henry E. – SEAWRIGHT, Jason. Causal Inference: Old Dilemmas, New Tools. In: BRADY, Henry E. – COLLIER, David (eds.). Rethinking Social Inquiry: Diverse Tools, Shared Standards. Lanham, Plymouth: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, 2010.

COOLEY, Alexander – SPRUYT, Hendrik. Contracting states: Sovereign Transfers in International Relations. Princeton, Woodstock: Princeton University Press, 2009.

CRESWELL, John W.. Research Design: Qualitative, Quantitative, and Mixed Method Approaches. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications, 2013.

DALACOURA, Katerina. Islamist Movements as Non-state Actors and their Relevance to International Relations. In: Josselin, Daphné – William, Wallace. Non-State Actors in World Politics. New York: Palgrave, 2001.

DRUETZ, Thomas. La contractualisation de compagnies militaires privées dans la guerre. Québec: Institut quebecois des Hautes études internationales Université Laval Québec, 2009.

ETZIONI, Amitai. Modern Organizations. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall, 1964.

FINNEMORE, Martha. Norms, Culture, and World Politics: Insights from Sociology's Institutionalism. International Organization, Vol. 50, No. 2, 1996.

FJELDE, Hanne – NILSSON, Desirée. Rebels against Rebels: Explaining Violence between Rebel Groups. Journal of Conflict Resolution, Vol. 56, No. 4, 2012.

FURLONG, Paul – MARSH, David. A Skin Not a Sweater: Ontology and Epistemology in Political Science. In: Marsh, David – Stoker Gerry (eds.). Theory and Methods in Political Science. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, 2010.

GEORGE, Alexander L. – BENNETT, Andrew. Case studies and theory development in the social sciences. Cambridge, London: MIT Press, 2005.

GERRING, John. Case Study Research: Principles and Practices. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2007.

GERRING, John. Social Science Methodology: A Criterial Framework. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2001.

GILPIN, Robert – GILPIN, Jean M.. Global Political Economy: Understanding the International Economic Order. Princeton, Woodstock: Princeton University Press, 2001.

GLAZZARD, Andrew – JESPERSON, Sasha – WINTERBOTHAM, Emily. Conflict and Countering Violent Extremism: Literature Review. RUSI, London, 2016.

GOLDSTEIN, Judith – KEOHANE, Robert O.. Ideas and Foreign Policy: An Analytical Framework. In: Goldstein, Judith – Keohane, Robert O.. Ideas and Foreign Policy: Beliefs, Institutions, and Political Change. Ithaca, London: Cornell University Press,1993.

GOODMAN, Ryan – JINKS, Derek. How to Influence States: Socialization and International Human Rights Law. Duke Law Journal, Vol. 54, No. 3, 2004.

GOTTMANN, Jean. La politique des États et leur géographie. Paris: Éditions du CTHS, 2007.

GRAHAM, Kennedy. Regionalisation and responses to armed conflict, with special focus on conflict prevention and peacekeeping. In: Cooper, Andrew F. – Hughes, Christopher W. – De Lombaerde, Philippe (eds.). Regionalisation and Global Governance: The taming of globalisation?. London, New York: Routledge, 2008.

GRIFFITHS, Martin – O’CALLAGHAN, Terry. International Relations: The Key Concepts. New York: Routledge, 2002.

GUZZINI, Stefano. The Ambivalent ‘Diffusion of Power’ in Global Governance. In: Guzzini, Stefan – Neumann, Iver B. The Diffusion of Power in Global Governance: International Political Economy Meets Foucault. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, 2012.

HALLIDAY, Fred. The Middle East in International Relations: Power, Politics and Ideology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2005.

HANNAN, Michael. T. – FREEMAN, John H.. Obstacles to the Comparative Study of Organizational Effectiveness. In: Goodman, Paul S. – Pennings, Johannes M. (eds.). New Perspectives on Organizational Effectiveness. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1977.

HALL, Rodney B. – BIERSTEKER, Thomas J.. The emergence of private authority in the international system. In: Hall, Rodney B. – Biersteker, Thomas J. (eds.). The Emergence of Private Authority in Global Governance. Cambridge, New York: Cambridge University Press, 2002.

HAUSHOFER, Karl (et al.). Bausteine zur Geopolitik. Berlin: Kurt Vowinckel, 1928.

HELM, Carsten – SPRINZ, Detlef. Measuring the Effectiveness of International Environmental Regimes. Journal of Conflict Resolution, Vol. 44, No. 5, 2000.

HENSEL, Paul R.. Territory: Geography, Contentious Issues, and World Politics. In: Vasquez, John A.. What Do We Know about War? Lanham, Plymouth: Rowman & Littlefield, 2012.

HÉRITIER, Adrienne. Causal explanation. In: Porta, Donatella della – Keating, Michael (eds.). Approaches and Methodologies in the Social Sciences: A Pluralist Perspective. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2008.

HUBAC, Olivier (ed.). Mercenaires et polices privées. La privatisation de la violence armée. Paris: Universalis, 2005.

CHAUPRADE, Aymeric – THUAL, François. Dictionnaire de géopolitique: états, concepts, auteurs. Paris: Ellipses, 1998.

CHECKEL, Jeffrey T.. It's the Process Stupid! Process Tracing in the Study of European and International Politics. Arena Working Paper Series, No. 26, 2005.

CHECKEL, Jeffrey T.. Transnational Dynamics of Civil War. In: Checkel, Jeffrey T. (ed.). Transnational Dynamics of Civil War. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2013.

CHECKEL, Jeffrey T.. Why Comply? Social Learning and European Identity Change. International Organization, Vol. 55, No. 3, 2001.

JACKSON, Patrick T.. The Conduct of Inquiry in International Relations: Philosophy of science and its implications for the study of world politics. London, New York: Routledge, 2011.

JACKSON, Robert H.. Negative Sovereignty in Sub-Saharan Africa. Review of International Studies, Vol. 12, No. 4, 1986.

JACKSON, Robert H.. Juridical Statehood in Sub-Saharan Africa. Journal of International Affairs, Vol. 46, No. 1, 1992.

JACKSON, Robert H. – ROSBERG, Carl G..Why Africa's Weak States Persist: The Empirical and the Juridical in Statehood. World Politics, Vol. 35, No. 1, 1982.

JERVIS, Robert. System Effects: Complexity in Political and Social Life. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1997.

KALDOR, Mary. In defence of new wars. Stability: International Journal of Security and Development. Vol. 2, No. 1, 2013.

KALYVAS, Stathis N.. The Logic of Violence in Civil War. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2006.

KÄRRHOLM, Mattias. Retailising Space: Architecture, Retail and the Territorialisation of Public Space. Farnham: Ashgate, 2012.

KAUFMAN, Alexander. Welfare in the Kantian State. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1999.

KECK, Margaret E – SIKKINK, Kathryn. Activists Beyond Borders: Advocacy Networks in International Politics. Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1998, s. 3.

KHONG, Yuen Foong. Analogies at War: Korea, Munich, Dien Bien Phu, and the Vietnam Decisions of 1965. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1992.

KILCULLEN, David. Counterinsurgency. Oxford, New York: Oxford University Press, 2010.

KIRAS, James D.. Terrorism and Irregular Warfare. In: Baylis, John (et al.). Strategy in the Contemporary World: An Introduction to Strategic Studies. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2013.

KJELLÉN, Rudolf. Staten som Lifsform. Leipzig: Gebers, 1916.

KOBER, Avi. Can the IDF Afford a Small Army. BESA Center Perspectives, paper No. 209, 2013.

KOFMAN, Daniel. The Normative Limits to the Dispersal of Territorial Sovereignty. The Monist, Vol. 90, No. 1, 2007.

KOŘAN, Michal. Člověk, poznání a mezinárodní politika. Praha: ÚMV, 2008.

KRASNER, Stephen D.. Sovereignty: Organized Hypocrisy. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1999.

KRASNER, Stephen D. (ed.). Problematic Sovereignty: Contested Rules and Political Possibilities. New York: Columbia University Press, 2001.

KROPÁČEK, Luboš. Islámský fundamentalismus. Praha: Vyšehrad, 1996.

KUPERMAN, Alan J.. Mass Atrocity Response Operations: Doctrine in Search of Strategy. Genocide Studies and Prevention: An International Journal, Vol. 6, No. 1, 2011.

KURKI, Milja. Causation in International Relations: Reclaiming Causal Analysis. Cambridge, New York: Cambridge University Press, 2008.

LEGRO, Jeffrey W.. Cooperation under Fire: Anglo-German Restraint during World War II. Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 2013.

LEVY, Jack S.. Case Studies. Types, Designs, and Logics of Inference. Conflict Management and Peace Science, Vol. 25, No. 1, 2008.

LUDVÍK, Zdeněk. Geopolitika. Vznik, etapy, tradice. Historický exkurz. Bachelor thesis. Praha: MUP, 2011.

LUDVÍK, Zdeněk. Případ Severního Mali (Azawadu) 2012–13: Stát a jeho vytěsnění alternativní autoritou. Obrana a strategie, Vol. 14, No. 2, 2014.

LUDVÍK, Zdeněk. Teritoriálně ukotvený islamistický nestátní aktér využívající násilí a otázka regulace systémové anarchie. Vojenské rozhledy, Vol. 24, No. 3, 2015.

LYALL, Jason. Process Tracing, Causal Inference, and Civil War. In: Bennet, Andrew – Checkel, Jeffrey T. (eds.). Process Tracing: From Metaphor to Analytic Tool. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2015.

LYNN, John A.. Patterns of Insurgency and Counterinsurgency. Military Review, Vol. 85, No. 4, 2005.

MACKINDER, Halford J.. A Study in the Politics or Reconstruction. London: Constable and company, 1919.

MACKINDER, Halford J.. The Geographical Pivot or History. Geographical Journal, Vol. 170, No. 4, 1904.

MACKINDER, Halford J.. The Round World and the Winning or the Peace, Foreign Affairs, Vol. 21, No. 4, 1943.

MAHAN, Alfred T.. The Influence of Sea Power upon History, 1660–1783. New York: Little, Brown, 1890.

MAHONEY, James. Nominal, Ordinal, and Narrative Appraisal in Macrocausal Analysis. American Journal of Sociology, Vol. 104, No. 4, 1999.

MAHONEY, James. Strategies of Causal Inference in Small-N Analysis. Sociological Methods Research, Vol. 28, No. 4, 2000.

MAHONEY, James. After KKV: The New Methodology of Qualitative Research. World Politics, Vol. 62, No. 1, 2010.

MAHONEY, James – GOERTZ, Gary. A Tale of Two Cultures: Contrasting Quantitative and Qualitative Research. Political Analysis, Vol. 14, No. 3, 2006.

MAMPILLY, Zachariah. Rebel Rulers: Insurgent Governance and Civilian Life during War. Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 2011.

MANDEL, Robert. Global Security Upheaval: Armed Nonstate Groups Usurping State Stability Functions. Stanford: Stanford University Press, 2013.

MANN, Michael. The Autonomous Power of the State: Its Origins, Mechanisms and Results. In: Brenner, Neil, (ed.). State/Space: A Reader. Malden: Blackwell, 2003.

MARCH, James G. – OLSEN, Johan P.. The Institutional Dynamics of International Political Orders. International Organization, Vol. 52, No. 4, 1998.

MAYER, Ann E.. The Reformulation of Islamic Thought on Gender Rights and Roles. In: Shahram, Akbarzadeh – MacQueen, Benjamin (eds.). Islam and Human Rights in Practice: Perspectives Across the Ummah. Abingdon, New York: Routledge, 2008.

MAZRUI, Ali A.. The Bondage of Boundaries. Boundary and Securiry Bulletin, Vol. 2, No. NC, 1994.

MIODOWNIK, Dan (et al.). Introduction. In: Miodownik, Dan – Barak, Oren (eds.). Nonstate Actors in Intrastate Conflicts. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2014.

MEYER, John W. (et al.). World Society and the Nation-State. American Journal of Sociology, Vol. 103, No. 1, 1997.

MORAVSCIK, Andrew. The Origins of Human Rights Regimes: Democratic Delegation in Postwar Europe. International Organization, Vol. 54, No. 2, 2000.

MULAJ, Klejda. Introduction: Violent Non-State Actors: Exploring their State Relations, Legitimation, and Operationality. In: Mulaj, Klejda (ed.). Violent non-state actors in world politics. London: Hurst, 2010.

MUMFORD, Andrew. Proxy Warfare. Cambridge, Malden: Polity Press, 2013.

OKUMU, Wafula – IKELEGBE, Augustine. Confronting the threats of armed non-state groups to human security and the state in Africa. In: Okumu, Wafula – Ikelegbe, Augustine. Militias, Rebels and Islamist Militants: Human Insecurity and State Crises in Africa. Pretoria: Institute for Security Studies, 2010.

ORGANSKI, A.F.K. – KUGLER, Jacek. The War Ledger. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1981.

OWEN, Roger. State, Power and Politics in the Making of the Modern Middle East. London, New York: Routledge, 2006.

PIAZZA, James A.. Is Islamist Terrorism More Dangerous?: An Empirical Study of Group Ideology, Organization, and Goal Structure. Terrorism and Political Violence, Vol. 21, No. 1, 2009.

PORTA, Donatella della. Comparative Analysis: Case-Oriented Versus Variable-Oriented Research. In: Porta, Donatella della – Keating, Michael (eds.). Approaches and Methodologies in the Social Sciences: A Pluralist Perspective. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2008.

PRZEWORSKI, Adam – TEUNE, Henry. The Logic of Comparative Social Inquiry. Malabar: Robert E. Krieger Publishing Company, 1982.

RABASA, Angel – PETERS, John E.. Understanding Lack of Governance. In: Rabasa, Angel (et al..). Ungoverned Territories. Understanding and Reducing Terrorism Risks. Santa Monica: Rand Corporation, 2007.

RAPOPORT, David C.. The Fourth Wave: September 11 in the History of Terrorism. Current History, Vol. 100, No. 650, 2001.

RATZEL, Friedrich. Politische Geographie. München: H.C. Beck, 1897.

RESCHER, Nicholas. Welfare: The Social Issues in Philosophical Perspective. Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press, 1972.

RISSE, Thomas (ed.). Governance Without a State: Policies and Politics in Areas of Limited Statehood. New York: Columbia University Press, 2011.

ROHLFING, Ingo. Case Studies and Causal Inference: An Integrative Framework. Basingstoke, New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2012.

ROTBERG, Robert I.. Failed States, Collapsed States, Weak States: Causes and Indicators. In: Rotberg, Robert I. (ed.). State Failure and State Weakness in a Time of Terror. Washington: Brookings Institution Press, 2003.

ROTBERG, Robert I.. Nation-State Failure: A Recurring Phenomenon. The Air University [online]: http://www.au.af.mil/au/awc/awcgate/cia/nic2020/panel2_nov6.pdf, undated.

ROTBERG, Robert I. (ed.). When States Fail. Causes and Consequences. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2004.

RUGGIE, John Gerard. Territoriality and Beyond: Problematizing Modernity in International Relations. International Organization, Vol. 47, No. 1., 1993.

SALEHYAN, Idean. Rebels without Borders: Transnational Insurgencies in World Politics. Ithaca, London: Cornell University Press, 2009.

SAYER, Andrew. Method in Social Science: A realist approach. London, New York: Routledge, 2010.

SAYER, Andrew. Realism and Social Science. London, Thousand Oaks, New Delhi: Sage Publications, 2000.

SCHMITT, Carl. The Concept of the Political. Chicago, London: The University of Chicago Press, 2007.

SCHNECKENER, Ulrich. Fragile Statehood, Armed Non-State Actors and Security Governance. In: Bryden, Alan – Caparini, Marina (eds.). Private Actors and Security Governance. Geneva: Geneva Centre for the Democratic Control of Armed Forces, 2006.

SCHNEIDER, Carsten Q. – WAGEMANN, Claudius. Set-Theoretic Methods for the Social Sciences: A Guide to Qualitative Comparative Analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2012.

SOUKUPOVÁ, Jana. Užitek spotřebitele a odvození poptávky. In: Macáková, Libuše (et al.). Mikroekonomie. Praha: Melandrium, 2007.

SPRINZ, Detlef. Quantitative Analysis of International Environmental Policy. In: Sprinz, Detlef –Wolinsky, Yael. Cases, Numbers, Models: International Relations Research Methods. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 2004.

SPRUYT, Hendrik. The Sovereign State and Its Competitors: An Analysis of Systems Change. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1996.

SPYKMAN, Nicholas J.. The Geography of the Peace. Brace, New York: Harcourt, 1944.

STANILAND, Paul. States, Insurgents, and Wartime Political Orders. Perspectives on Politics, Vol. 10, No. 2, 2012.

STRANGE, Susan. The Retreat of the State: the Diffusion of Power in the World Economy. Cambridge, New York: Cambridge University Press, 1998.

SYLVAN, David – GLASSNER, Barry. A Rationalist Methodology for the Social Sciences. Oxford: Basil Blackwell Publisher, 1985.

TALIAFERRO, Jeffrey W.. Balancing Risks: Great Power Intervention in the Periphery. Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 2004.

TALIAFERRO, Jeffrey W.. State Building for Future Wars: Neoclassical Realism and the Resource-Extractive State. Security Studies, Vol. 15, No. 3, 2006.

TANNENWALD, Nina. Ideas and Explanation: Advancing the Theoretical Agenda. Journal of Cold War Studies, Vol. 7, No. 2, 2005.

THIES, Cameron G.. National Design and State Building in Sub-Saharan Africa. World Politics, Vol. 61, No. 4, 2009.

THOMAS, Troy S. – KISER; Stephen D. – CASEBEER, William D.. Warlords Rising: Confronting Violent Non-State Actors. New York: Lexington Books, 2005.

THOMSON, Janice E.. Mercenaries, Pirates, and Sovereigns: State Building and Extraterritorial Violence in Early Modern Europe. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1994.

TIBI, Bassam. The Simultaneity of the Unsimultaneous: Old Tribes and Imposed Nation-States in the Modern Middle East. In: Khoury, Philip S. – Kostiner, Joseph (eds.). Tribes and State Formation in the Middle East. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1990.

TILLY, Charles. Coercion, Capital, and European States, AD 990-1990. Cambridge, Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1990.

TULLOCH, John – BLOOD, Richard W.: Icons of War and Terror: Media Images in an Age of International Risk. London, New York: Routledge, 2012.

TWOMEY, Christopher P.. The Military Lens: Doctrinal Difference and Deterrence Failure in Sino-American Relations. Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 2010.

VAN EVERA, Stephen. Guide to Methods for Students of Political Science. Ithaca, London: Cornell University Press, 1997.

VENNESSON, Pascal. Case Studies and Process Tracing: Theories and Practices. In: Porta, Donatella della – Keating, Michael (eds.). Approaches and Methodologies in the Social Sciences: A Pluralist Perspective. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2008.

VENNESSON, Pascal. Europe’s Grand Strategy: The Search for a Postmodern Realism. In: Casarini, Nicola – Musu, Costanza. European Foreign Policy in an Evolving International System. The Road Towards Convergence. Basingstoke, New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2007.

VIDAL, Paul de la Blache. Etats et nations de l´Europe autour de la France. Paris: Delagrave, 1889.

VIDAL, Paul de la Blache. Tableau de la géographie de la France. Paris: La table ronde, 1994.

VOLNER, Štefan. Geopolitika pre 21. storočie? Stret morskej a pozemnej sily jako varovanie pre 21. storočie. Hlohovec: Efekt Copy, 2004.

WEINSTEIN, Jeremy. Inside Rebellion: The Politics of Insurgent Violence. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2007.

WENDT, Alexander. Social Theory of International Politics. Cambridge, New York: Cambridge University Press, 1999.

WENDT, Alexander. The Agent-Structure Problem in International Relations Theory. International Organization, Vol. 41, No. 3, 1987.

WIGHT, Colin. Agents, Structures and International Relations: Politics as Ontology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2006.

WILLIAMS, Paul D.. War and Conflict in Africa. Cambridge, Malden: Polity Press, 2011.

WILLIAMS, Phil. Violent Non-state Actors and National and International Security. Zürich: Eidgenössische Technische Hochschule, 2008.

WILLIAMS, Phil. Here Be Dragons: Dangerous Spaces and International Security. In: Clunan, Anne L. – Trinkunas, Harold A. (eds.). Ungoverned Spaces: Alternatives to State Authority in an Era of Softened Sovereignty. Stanford: Stanford University Press, 2010.

WOOD, Elisabeth J.. Transnational Dynamics of Civil War: Where Do We Go from Here? In: Checkel, Jeffrey T. (ed.). Transnational Dynamics of Civil War. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2013.

YOUNG, Oran R.. Inferences and Indices: Evaluating the Effectiveness of International Environmental Regimes. Global Environmental Politics, Vol. 1, No. 1, 2001.

ŽENKA, Jan – KOFROŇ, Jan. Metodologie výzkumu v sociální geografii – případové studie. Ostrava: Ostravská univerzita, 2012.

Předběžná náplň práce

Tato disertační práce má za úkol precizovat teoretický koncept v podobě testovatelné hypotézy o vztahu mezi politickou kontrolou teritoria násilným nestátním aktérem (Violent Non-State Actor, dále VNSA) a efektivitou realizace jeho politického cíle (politik). Jelikož v literatuře neexistuje žádná explicitní teorie či teoretizace, která by variující míru efektivity reflektovala s ohledem na variující stupeň teritoriální penetrace, a neexistují ani žádné explicitní parametrické ukazatele a hodnoty, které mohou být nutné pro efektivní dosažení politického cíle ve vazbě na teritorium, bude smyslem výzkumu nalézt odpověď na otázku, zda, jak a nakolik souvisí intenzita fyzické penetrace teritoria s mírou schopnosti snáze a efektivněji dosahovat cílů, za jejichž účelem se VNSA etabloval a o něž usiluje. Rámcové stanovení prahových hodnot penetrace může současně také poskytnout dílčí poznatky pro praktické politiky a přístupy k teritoriálně působícím VNSA ze strany států (protipovstaleckých aktérů).
Ačkoliv ve výzkumu není explicitně využívána žádná z rodiny teorií mezinárodních vztahů, přesto je užitý teoretický rámec inspirován východisky, která mají blízko a) k přístupům politické geografie a k vývodům o relevanci teritoria postulovaným autory zabývajícími se problematikou řešení teritoriálních sporů a b) ke státocentrickému pojetí neoklasického realismu. V této perspektivě jsou výnosy z držby teritoria nezbytnou podmínkou pro vytvoření silného sociálního a politického postavení aktéra, bez něhož není možný úspěšný výkon preferovaných politik v rámci mezinárodních vztahů.
Je-li tedy teritorium důležité pro státy, může být stejně tak důležité pro VNSA, kteří ho penetrují a kontrolují. Jestliže totiž někteří VNSA vykazují obdobné charakteristiky jako státy, když na vymezeném území disponují monopolem na výkon násilí a dokážou prostřednictvím soustavy institucí poskytovat/organizovat vějíř veřejných statků/služeb (tj. vládnout – garantují bezpečnost, blahobyt a reprezentaci), představují funkčně srovnatelnou entitu prakticky vystupující a jednající jako státy. V takovém případě je možno k takovým VNSA přistupovat jako ke geopolitickým formacím v protostátním stadiu existence.
Hypotéza na základě teoretického východiska výzkumu proto operuje s tvrzením, že i v případě VNSA existuje skrze schopnost vládnout zprostředkovaný (nelineární) příčinný vztah mezi efektivitou realizace cílů a teritoriální penetrací: čím intenzivnější teritoriální přítomnost VNSA (vstupní fenomén), tím vyšší pravděpodobnost výnosů z vládnutí VNSA v tomto teritoriu (zprostředkující fenomény suverenity, státnosti, mobilizace a extrakce a sociální epistemologie), a tudíž i vyšší předpoklad dosáhnout vyšší efektivity realizace cílů VNSA (výstupní fenomén).
Ve výzkumu jsou představeny čtyři případové studie a jejich prostřednictvím čtyři VNSA, kteří penetrovali/penetrují teritorium na úkor státního aktéra (z mezinárodně-právního hlediska na úkor legitimního držitele moci) a usilují v tomto teritoriu o ustavení vlastních norem a pravidel a o vykonávání praktik spojených s nějakou formou vládnutí. Jedná se o tyto VNSA: al-Káidu v islámském Maghrebu, Hizballáh, Daeš a aš-Šabáb. Každý z těchto VNSA splňuje kritéria dvou modelů, které byly pro jejich výběr použity: a) všichni čtyři vyhovují požadavkům modelu Moderního sherwoodského lesa (dopouštějí se přeshraničního násilí, operují v oblastech bez přítomnosti moci státu a jednají v souladu s proklamacemi radikální ideologie) a b) každý z nich splňuje parametry právě jednoho modelu využívání teritoria – taktického nebo operačního či strategického.
Zvolená metodologie představuje multivariantní přístup k analýze případových studií. Výzkumné metody a jejich posloupnost rezonují se současným a výzkumnou praxí ve Spojených státech amerických ověřeným způsobem vedení výzkumu problematiky konfliktu v mezinárodních vztazích, který vychází z vědecko-realistické metateorie a je veden z pozice kvalitativně-vysvětlující epistemologie. Po stanovení kritérií jednotlivých fenoménů výzkum metodologicky postupuje tak, že nejprve v kroku jedna, kongruenci, jsou vzájemně vztaženy hodnoty kritérií fenoménů predikovaných hypotézou s hodnotami detekovanými empiricky a sleduje se, u kterých kritérií hodnoty kovariují. Ve druhém kroku, rozboru procesu, je v každém ze čtyř případů definován kauzální mechanismus, který ukazuje, proč v některých případech a u některých fenoménů existuje kongruence s predikcí hypotézy a u jiných případů a jiných fenoménů nikoliv. A v závěrečném třetím kroku, mezipřípadovém srovnáním Millovou metodou tzv. sdružených změn, je potvrzen/vyvrácen kauzální vztah mezi fenomény inferovaný v předchozích krocích. Data pro účely výzkumu pocházejí jak z primárních dokumentů a sekundární literatury, tak z komunikace a konverzace s odborníky, kteří se profesionálně věnují daným VNSA a lokalitám jejich působení, opakovaně v nich pobývají a jsou schopni své znalosti a poznatky zprostředkovat.

Předběžná náplň práce v anglickém jazyce

This thesis wants to make clear the theoretical concept in the form of a testable hypothesis on the relationship between the political control of the territory by a Violent Non-State Actor (VNSA) and the effectiveness of realization of its political objective (policies). Since in the literature there is no explicit theory or theorization that would reflect the varying degree of effectiveness with regard to the varying degree of territorial penetration, and there are no explicit parametric indicators and values that may be necessary for effective achievement of the political objective in relation to the territory, the purpose of the research will be to answer the question whether, how and to what extent the intensity of the physical penetration of the territory is related to the ability to more easily and efficiently achieve the goals for which the VNSA has been established and has strived. A general definition of threshold values of the penetration can also provide partial piece of knowledge for practical policies and approaches to territorial VNSA on the part of states (counterinsurgency actors).
Although there is no explicit use of any of the theories of international relations in the research, the used theoretical framework is inspired by a) approaches to political geography and outlines of territorial relevance postulated by authors dealing with the settlement of territorial disputes, and b) to the state-centric concept of neoclassical realism. In this perspective land-holding profits are an essential prerequisite for creating a strong social and political position for an actor without which no successful execution of preferred policies can be pursued within the purview of international relations.
So, if territory is important for states, it can be just as important for VNSAs who penetrate and control it. If some VNSAs have similar characteristics to states when they have a monopoly on violence in a defined territory and are able to provide/organize public goods/services fan (i.e. to govern – they guarantee security, welfare and representation) through a system of institutions, they represent a functionally comparable entity practically behaving and acting as states. In such a case, such VNSAs can be approached as geopolitical formations in the protostate stage of existence.
The hypothesis, based on the starting point of the research, therefore operates with the assertion that even in the case of VNSAs exists, through the ability to govern, a mediated (nonlinear) causal relationship between the effectiveness of realization of objectives and territorial penetration: the more intense the territorial presence of VNSAs (the input phenomenon), the higher the probability of profits from the VNSAs governance in this territory (mediating phenomena of sovereignty, statehood, mobilization and extraction, and social epistemology), and hence the higher assumption for achieving higher effectiveness of realization of VNSAs goals (output phenomenon).
The four case studies are presented in the research and through them the four VNSAs who (have) penetrated the territory at the expense of a state actor (from the international legal point of view to the detriment of the legitimate power holder) and strive in this territory to establish their own norms and rules and to execute practices associated with some form of government. These VNSAs are concerned: Al-Qaeda in Islamic Maghreb, Hezbollah, Daesh, and Al-Shabaab. Each of these VNSAs fulfills the criteria of the two models that have been used for their selection: a) all four meet the criteria of the modern Sherwood Forest Model (commit cross-border violence, operate in areas without state power, and act in accordance with radical ideology proclamations), and b) each of them fulfills the parameters of just one of the land use model – tactical or operational or strategic.
The chosen methodology represents a multivariate approach to case study analysis. The research methods and their succession resonate with the contemporary and by research practice in the United States of America proven way of conducting conflict research in the international relations discipline, which is based on the scientific realism metatheory and is guided by a position of qualitative-explaining epistemology. After determining the criteria of the individual phenomena, the research proceeds methodologically as follows: In step one, intra-case congruence, the values of phenomena predicted by the hypothesis are related to empirically detected values and it is observed in which criteria their values covariate. In the second step, process-tracing, a causal mechanism is defined in each of the four cases, which shows why in some cases and in some phenomena there is congruence with the hypothesis prediction, and not in other cases and other phenomena. And in the final third step, cross-case comparison by Mill’s method of concomitant variation, a causal relationship between the phenomena, inferred in the previous steps, is confirmed/refuted. The research data comes from both primary and secondary literature, as well as from communication and conversation with experts who professionally pursue VNSAs under research and their locations, repeatedly stay there and are able to communicate their knowledge and findings.