3
combine it with the Minorities at Risk (MAR) model of ethnic conflict, which includes
discrimination as one of the factors that determine the emergence of the protest and rebellion by
ethnic groups. We add a step to the MAR model that ties it to internationalization of ethnic conflict
– i.e., third-party state intervention. In the MAR-based literature, the road to rebellion starts with
discrimination against ethnic groups, which eventually leads to grievances and mobilization. MAR
literature tends to use the term ‘discrimination’ widely, while Posen (1993), Saideman (1998),
Lake and Rothchild (1998) prefer to focus on the term like ‘fear’ as the factors that mobilize the
minorities. . Despite the difference in the terminology they both underline insecurity stemming
from discrimination by the host state.
For this study, the MAR (Gurr 2002) and Violent, Intrastate Nationalist Conflicts (VINC)
Third Party Interventions data sets (Ayres and Saideman 2000) are used for the time interval
between 1990 and 1996.
The 2002 version of MAR includes political and economic
discrimination against 285 politically active groups throughout the world for the time interval from
1980 to 2000 and religious discrimination against the same number of minorities from 1990 to
2000.
2
The transnational support variable is not available in the most recent release of MAR (Gurr
2002), so the VINC third-party intervention data set is combined with MAR to achieve the same
purpose (Ayres and Saideman 2000).
This paper proceeds in four additional parts. The first is a theoretically oriented discussion
of security dilemma, discrimination, internationalization and third-party intervention. The second
part is the research design, which includes hypotheses and measurement of variables. The data
2
Some studies already focus on the relationship between third-party intervention and
discrimination, but generally for periods of about five years. Fox (2001), for example, spans the
transition out of the Cold War from 1990 to 1995.
Convention