Partial peace rebel groups inside and outside civil war settlements
Previous research proposes that peace is more likely to become durable if all rebel groups are included in the settlement reached. The argument implies that if actors are excluded and continue to pursue the military course, this could have a destabilizing effect on the actors that have signed an agreement. This article argues that all-inclusive peace deals - signed by the government and all rebel groups - are not the panacea for peace that many seem to believe. Given that the parties are strategic actors who are forward-looking when making their decisions, the signatories should anticipate that the excluded parties may continue to fight. Therefore, the risk of violent challenges from outside actors is likely to already be factored into the decision-making calculus when the signatories decide to reach a deal, and so does not affect their commitment to peace. Implications from this theoretical argument are tested using unique data on the conflict behavior of the government and each of the rebel groups in internal armed conflicts during the post-Cold War period. The results are well in line with the theoretical expectations and show that whether an agreement leaves out some actor does not affect whether the signatories stick to peace. The results demonstrate that even when excluded rebel groups engage in conflict, this does not affect the signatories'commitment to peace. Hence, the findings suggest that partial peace is possible.
|Date of creation:||01 Mar 2008|
|Contact details of provider:|| Postal: 1818 H Street, N.W., Washington, DC 20433|
Phone: (202) 477-1234
Web page: http://www.worldbank.org/
More information through EDIRC
Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.:
- Tomz, Michael & Wittenberg, Jason & King, Gary, 2003. "Clarify: Software for Interpreting and Presenting Statistical Results," Journal of Statistical Software, Foundation for Open Access Statistics, vol. 8(i01).
- Matthew Hoddie & Caroline Hartzell, 2003. "Civil War Settlements and the Implementation of Military Power-Sharing Arrangements," Journal of Peace Research, Peace Research Institute Oslo, vol. 40(3), pages 303-320, May.
- Cetinyan, Rupen, 2002. "Ethnic Bargaining in the Shadow of Third-Party Intervention," International Organization, Cambridge University Press, vol. 56(03), pages 645-677, June.
- David B. Hertz, 1972. "Discussion," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 19(4-Part-2), pages 35-36, December.
- Fearon, James D., 1995. "Rationalist explanations for war," International Organization, Cambridge University Press, vol. 49(03), pages 379-414, June.
- Darren Filson & Suzanne Werner, "undated". "A Bargaining Model of War and Peace: Anticipating the Onset, Duration, and Outcome of War," Claremont Colleges Working Papers 2001-02, Claremont Colleges.
- Werner, Suzanne & Yuen, Amy, 2005. "Making and Keeping Peace," International Organization, Cambridge University Press, vol. 59(02), pages 261-292, April.
- Hartzell, Caroline & Hoddie, Matthew & Rothchild, Donald, 2001. "Stabilizing the Peace After Civil War: An Investigation of Some Key Variables," International Organization, Cambridge University Press, vol. 55(01), pages 183-208, December.
- Isak Svensson, 2007. "Bargaining, Bias and Peace Brokers: How Rebels Commit to Peace," Journal of Peace Research, Peace Research Institute Oslo, vol. 44(2), pages 177-194, March.
When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:wbk:wbrwps:4572. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Roula I. Yazigi)
If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.