English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Why do some authoritarian states adopt shoot-to-kill policies at their borders, while others do not when they are equally interested in reinforcing their borders? This study makes a novel contribution to the literature of state-sanctioned border violence by laying out a causal linkage between the extent of domestic repression and the authoritarian states’ willingness to implement shoot-to-kill policies at their borders. Drawing upon a constructivist framework, we argue that in states where violence is routinely applied in addressing domestic political conflicts, this violent norm has implications for authoritarian states’ and their border practices. We find a positive relationship between violent repression and shoot-to-kill policies, and do so by analysing 58 authoritarian states’ border-reinforcement strategies between 1990 and 2017.

Borders and guns: does violent repression impact border violence?