Synopsis
The Problem

COUNSTER introduces a novel triadic framework to investigate government strategies for combatting radicalization, insurgency, and terrorism by focusing on the role non-state armed actors’ (NSAAs) constituents play in conflict processes.

While the existing literature extensively addresses the military aspects of conflict, how governments strategically engage with NSAAs’ constituents to sever the ties between the two — a strategy this project terms counstering — has been widely neglected despite its prevalence. COUNSTER addresses this gap by arguing that we should turn our focus toward modeling the causes and outcomes of counstering efforts, given that military power is neither the only, nor the most effective, tool in governments’ arsenal.

“The ultimate victory will depend on the hearts and minds of the people who actually live out there.” — Lyndon B. Johnson, 1965

For the third time, in 2024, the Turkish government declared its intention to re-initiate a peace process covering the rights and status of Kurdish citizens, in response to a conflict that has raged for over forty years and claimed more than 40,000 lives. Third time is the charm, some say. But as scholars, it is our burden to understand what would make it a charm — and why the previous two attempts failed.

Türkiye’s four-decade conflict with the PKK, Iraq’s post-invasion counterinsurgency, and dozens of other cases show that military measures alone rarely resolve root causes — they often generate new grievances instead. COUNSTER therefore asks: why, how, and under what circumstances do governments fight non-state armed actors (NSAAs) by targeting the constituents those actors claim to represent — and why do some of these counstering strategies succeed while others fail?

A Novel Triadic Framework
Beyond the Government–Insurgent Dyad

The first generation of conflict studies (counterterrorism) overemphasised dyadic government–NSAA relations. The second generation (counterinsurgency) brought citizens into the picture, but focused on military-centric, offensive strategies that are repeatedly shown to be counterproductive. COUNSTER proposes a third approach: putting the constituency — the audience whose support both governments and NSAAs compete for — at the centre of the analysis.

The COUNSTER triadic framework A triangle linking three actors. Governments and non-state armed actors are locked in armed conflict. Non-state armed actors draw funding, recruits and legitimacy from their constituency. The third edge — governments acting directly on that constituency — is what COUNSTER calls counstering. armed conflict funding · recruits · legitimacy COUNSTERING Government Non-State Armed Actors Constit- uency Conflict is not a two-player game.

Governments

Choosing between counterterrorism, counterinsurgency, and constituency-centred strategies — attractive or repressive — to end armed challenges.

Non-State Armed Actors

Insurgent and terrorist organisations whose survival depends on funding, recruits, and legitimacy provided by their support base.

Constituencies

The communities NSAAs claim to represent — the pivotal audience for whose allegiance both sides compete.

Research Objectives
Three Objectives
01

Predictors of Counstering

Which constituencies and NSAAs are targeted with attractive versus repressive tactics, and how do institutional constraints, conflict duration, and threat perception shape governments’ choices? Tested through large-N comparative analysis.

02

Outcomes of Counstering

At the macro level, which features of counstering — institutionalisation, duration, schedule, whether attractive and repressive measures are combined — make strategies more or less effective at shaping conflict outcomes?

03

Efficiency of Counstering

At the micro level, how do NSAAs’ constituents actually perceive and react to government strategies — and does that reaction differ from what governments intended? Tested via conjoint experiments across four countries.

Research Design
How the Project Is Organised

Three work packages run in parallel across the five-year grant, each feeding a different objective and cross-validating the others.

WP
1

The GovConReD Dataset

The first open-access, comprehensive and dynamic dataset on Government–Constituency Relations. Combining manual coding of 9,000+ events with machine learning and computational social science tools, GovConReD covers attractive and repressive counstering measures from 1980 to 2030 across 120 countries, 130+ constituencies, and around 350 non-state armed actors.

Years 1–3 · Objectives 1 & 2 · Team: PI, PostDoc 1, PhD 1, PhD 2

WP
2

Fieldwork, Focus Groups & Conjoint Experiments

Qualitative fieldwork — elite interviews and focus groups — in Türkiye, Colombia, India, and the Philippines, followed by two rounds of online conjoint experiments testing how constituents perceive and react to attractive and repressive government strategies.

Years 1.5–5 · Objective 3 · Team: PI, PostDoc 2, PhD 4

WP
3

Expert Opinion Surveys

A methodological innovation: a pool of conflict scholars selected for their field experience and local knowledge in the four case contexts provides expert assessments that triangulate the macro- and micro-level findings, overcoming media bias and data limitations in conflict zones.

Years 2–4.5 · Methodological robustness for WP 1 and WP 2 · Team: PI, PostDoc 1, PhD 3

Work package timeline: WP1 examines counstering measures in years 1 to 3 feeding objectives 1 and 2; WP2 examines constituents' reactions from year 1.5 to 5 feeding objective 3; WP3 provides methodological robustness in years 2 to 4.5.
The project’s work packages, key intermediate goals (KIGs), and objectives across the five-year grant. Source: COUNSTER research proposal, Part B2.
Open Data

GovConReD — Government–Constituency Relations Dataset

Upon release, GovConReD will be freely available to scholars and practitioners, enabling comparative, empirical research on strategies against radicalisation, insurgency, and terrorism.

More on the Data page
50YEARS COVERED
120COUNTRIES
350ARMED GROUPS
9,000+EVENTS CODED
Case Studies
Four Conflict Contexts

These countries host 21 conflicts that have claimed more than 200,000 lives — 10% of all conflict-related casualties worldwide.

Middle East / EuropeTürkiye
Latin AmericaColombia
South AsiaIndia
South-East AsiaPhilippines
Contributions & Impact
What COUNSTER Delivers
01

A Theoretical Breakthrough

Transforms the study of conflict from a dyadic to a triadic framework (Government–NSAA–Constituency), challenging the “one-fits-all” approach and relaxing the unitary-audience assumption.

02

Observed & Perceived Effectiveness

Combines large-N observational data at the macro level with focus groups and conjoint experiments in four countries to examine how constituencies actually react to counstering strategies.

03

Policy Relevance

Helps NGOs, international organisations, and governments design measures against radicalisation, insurgency, and terrorism — contributing to the goals of the EU Strategic Compass for Security and Defence 2030.

04

Methodological Innovation

Triangulates macro-level observational and micro-level experimental data with expert opinion surveys, addressing data limitations and biases common in conflict-zone research.