Victims-State Relationship amidst Criminal Wars: Why Victims Adopt Different Strategies to Demand Justice

Responses to victimization in violent conflicts are spearheaded by victims’ families demanding truth and justice. This mobilization usually entails interaction with the state. However, the nature of the interactions with the state can vary sharply, even within the same political context. Strategies followed by victims’ families range from amicable dialogue to aggressive confrontation. Authors in the literature on social movements have generally argued that these differences are explained by different perceptions of the political opportunity structure, access to mobilization resources, framing, and shared identity, or leadership and structures of contentious groups, even within the same social movement. However, most previous scholarly work focuses on strategies followed by groups comparing different settings (i.e., the feminist movement or the anti-climate change movement in various world regions) or after changes in the political opportunity structure (i.e., the LGBTQ+ movement pre- and post-AIDS crisis). We contribute to this literature by examining the dynamics of victims’ relatives’ mobilization strategies amidst violent conflicts. What explains the different strategies followed by victims' families in their search for justice in violent conflicts? Why do some families engage in confrontational strategies towards the state while others adopt more collaborative dialogue? We build on the social movements literature to add a condition particular to protracted violent conflicts, essential to understanding victims’ contentious strategies: time since victimization. We argue that as patterns of civilian victimization extend over time, the demands and needs of victims’ families change as well, the sense of urgency decreases, and they are more likely to engage in dialogue with authorities. On the contrary, victims’ relatives with recent histories of victimization will be more likely to engage in confrontational strategies. We tested our argument in two cities in Mexico afflicted by criminal wars, where we conducted focus groups with groups of families of disappeared persons.