Explaining why restraint of violence becomes a strategy for armed groups has recently attracted the attention of researchers, especially political scientists. The emergent literature generally argues by way of macro-level statistical correlation, in which a single factor, such as the desire of armed groups to adhere to international norms about human rights or the existence of high levels of political education among fighters, is believed to explain the presence of restraint. Missing in this approach are close analyses of actual historical episodes of restraint. We thus lack comprehension of how those with ideas about restraining violence translate their thoughts into actions, especially in contexts such as civil wars. This article addresses this weakness by examining the history of a Balkan community wracked by intercommunal violence during 1941 to explain the puzzling practice of restraint in the midst of waves of retaliatory violence. Rather than identify a single factor, this micro-comparative case study reveals that a cluster of mostly endogenous factors, shaped significantly by ongoing violence, explains the successful practice of restraint. Methodologically, this article stresses the need for researchers of restraint to employ microhistorical and comparative methods. They hold the greatest potential to illuminate what remains insufficiently explained in the extant political science literature: the contingent local processes whereby a desire for restraint or escalation of violence—the existence of which may be conditioned by longer-term historical developments—becomes a reality in certain moments.

中文翻译：

---

杀还是不杀？在巴尔干社区限制暴力的挑战

解释为什么克制暴力成为武装团体的策略最近引起了研究人员，尤其是政治科学家的注意。新兴文献通常通过宏观层面的统计相关性来论证，其中认为一个单一因素，例如武装团体遵守国际人权规范的愿望或战士中存在高水平的政治教育。解释克制的存在。这种方法缺少对实际历史克制事件的仔细分析。因此，我们无法理解那些有抑制暴力想法的人如何将他们的想法转化为行动，尤其是在内战等背景下。本文通过研究 1941 年遭受部族间暴力破坏的巴尔干社区的历史来解决这一弱点，以解释在报复性暴力浪潮中进行克制的令人费解的做法。这个微观比较案例研究并没有确定一个单一的因素，而是揭示了一组主要由持续暴力形成的主要内生因素，解释了克制的成功实践。在方法论上，本文强调克制研究者使用微观历史和比较方法的必要性。它们最有潜力阐明现存政治科学文献中尚未充分解释的内容：