Doctoral thesis sheds new light on restraint in war

Why do some armed groups use landmines extensively while others avoid them altogether? In his doctoral thesis, Henrique Garbino examines why armed actors choose to limit the use of violence.

Henrique Gerbino’s research shows that restraint in war is more complex than simply using less violence.

“Even very violent actors often limit violence in specific ways. They may avoid certain weapons, target some actors rather than others, or take precautions to reduce unwanted harm”, says Henrique Garbino.

The thesis explores how and why armed groups use, avoid, or restrict the use of anti-personnel landmines. Drawing on case studies from the Philippines and Colombia, Garbino finds that restraint cannot be explained by a single factor. Instead, it is shaped by a combination of factors, such as civilian support, community organisation, legitimacy concerns, organisational identity, tactical considerations, and practical constraints.

Restraint and violence can coexist

One of the key findings is that restraint and violence are not opposites. In Colombia, for example, guerrilla groups used more landmines in areas where they had stronger civilian support. At the same time, strong community organisation influenced how the mines were used, leading armed groups to place them farther away from civilians and civilian infrastructure.

“Restraint does not necessarily mean less violence. Sometimes it simply shapes how violence is exercised”, says Henrique Garbino.

The research also shows that restraint can become embedded within organisations over time. What begins as a strategic decision, a legal commitment, or a moral principle may eventually become part of doctrine, training, and everyday routines.

“At a certain point, actors may no longer experience restraint as a choice. It becomes part of how they fight”, he says.

Understanding what motivates armed groups

The findings have practical implications mainly for humanitarian organisations and others working to protect civilians in conflict zones.

According to Garbino, efforts to reduce harm should be adapted to the motivations of different armed actors. While legal and humanitarian arguments may be effective in some cases, other groups may respond more strongly to concerns about legitimacy, local support, operational effectiveness, or risks to their own forces.

“If we want armed actors to exercise restraint, we need to understand what kind of arguments actually matter to them” he says.

The thesis also highlights the importance of local communities. In both the Philippines and Colombia, stronger community engagement was associated with more restrained patterns of landmine use.

“Civilian protection is not only about influencing armed groups from the outside. It is also about supporting the capacity of communities to negotiate, resist, and protect themselves”, he says.