Research Proposal: Intervention and Post-Conflict Growth - Essay Example

Research Proposal: Intervention and Post-Conflict Growth Inserts His/Her Inserts Inserts s Name 1. Introduction The concept of humanitarian intervention in modern times has taken a vital status along with Security Council authorization and self-defence as a legitimate and legal reason to declare war. The issue declaring war as a form of humanitarian intervention is very controversial, but has been widely accepted. Humanitarian intervention at a glance seem to go against the United Nations Charter however, changes in state practice has legalized it under certain circumstances. The question that arises is on what circumstances humanitarian aid can be termed legal. This paper seeks to find out the impact of humanitarian aid to the countries in which it is imposed. The purpose of the research is to find the economic, political and social changes in countries that have undergone humanitarian intervention. The paper seeks to answer whether humanitarian intervention really helps the receiving country or not. The main hypothesis of this paper is that humanitarian intervention has no significant impact on the post-war growth, both democratic and economic. 2. Literature Review Due to the increase in civil wars over the past 30 years, and due to the expansion of United Nations humanitarian interventions, literature on this subject is quite extensive. This study will look at some of the existing work and utilize the established models. The main themes shared by existing literature include civil wars, decision for military intervention and the success rate of this intervention. 2.1. Civil Wars Small and Singer (1982) were the first to best described civil war where they presented it as an armed conflict involving internal military action with active government participation and where there is an effective resistance from both sides. Fearon and Laitin (2003) however, present the most commonly used definition of civil war where they describe it as a conflict between agents of a state and organized groups not aligned with the state, but intend to take control of the government, use force to impose changes in government policies or take control of a region. Fearon and Laitin (2003) look at the characteristics of states that make the vulnerable to civil wars. They noted that in 1999, one in every six countries was at war, but argue that this was mainly due to an accumulation of conflict since the Second World War. They conclude by pointing out that wars start at a higher rate than they end. Fearon and Laitin (2003) note that the conflicts that follow this trend are mainly guerrilla insurgencies and that the main condition that results in insurgency i.e. State weakness characterized by poverty, instability and a large population, are the main predictors of civil war rather than measures of grievances such as the lack of democratic rights, and economic inequality or other indicators like religious and ethnic diversity. Sambanis (2001) however, argues that ethnic diversity is usually the main starting point of civil wars. He notes that ethnic wars have different causes that those that are not driven by ethnicity. In his paper, he argues that economic indicators are negligent factors in determining civil war, which is opposite to what is held by Fearon and Laitin. By taking the view held by Fearon and Laitin (2003), we see that the institutional scores of governments in question are strongly interconnected to the effectiveness of intervention measures. Since, economic factors are important in determining civil war, it is therefore important to promote economic development after the war. 2.2. Intervention Since the end of the cold war, various nations have been called to step up to intervene militarily to protect persons other than their citizens from humanitarian disasters. Several issues have arisen on the subject of humanitarian aid, the major being what interest do the intervening states or bodies pursue. The Responsibility to Protect (R2P) concept adopted by the United Nations in 2005 has been the main point of debate with one group viewing it as a crucial development, redefining sovereignty as the duty to protect people rather than borders, while another group viewing R2P as imperialism propagated by Western countries disguised to hide its true intentions (Evans & Sahnoun, 2002). International law was put in place to regulate war between states, and each country has well established laws that govern the decision to use force and conduct in war. The UN Charter is the fundamental piece of law that determines the legality of the decision to war by states. The UN Charter presents two main provisions that are vital to modern legal regime on war: First, it outlaws individual countries from declaring on others, and secondly, it gives power to the Security Council to make all decisions pertaining to the collective measures involving military force (Bannon, 2006). Regan (2000) focuses mainly on unilateral intervention and only considers the U.N. intervention briefly. In this book, he argues that multilateral intervention differs from unilateral intervention in that they have less focus on ending violence, but more on reducing the chance of violence recurring after the involved parties reach a settlement. Aydin and Regan (2006) argue that interventions in civil war appear different when one considers mediation and the fact that the effectiveness of intervention always declines over time. They point out the diplomatic interventions are the most effective conflict resolution strategies that have the power to alter the course of civil wars. Doyle and Sambanis (2000), focus on intervention and peacekeeping mission perpetuated by the United Nations. In their paper, Doyle and Sambis (2000) argue that peacekeeping is usually effective in terms of building democracy and ending conflicts. They held that democratic peace building is usually successful in highly developed nations, after non-identity wars, after long non-costly conflicts, and when the UN is involved. Due to the increase in peacekeeping missions in the 1990s and the rise of the responsibility to Protect (R2P), a vigorous debate about humanitarian intervention has been going on in the political science sphere. The main point under argument is whether R2P will develop into a legalized norm. The UN structure limits effective military interventions since it does not support a quick and decisive action. Bannon (2006) also notes that military intervention is constrained by obstructions from institutional structures, challenges from Veto powers, and diplomacy before military intervention is slow plus intervention always has a political cost thus many have reason to avoid it. The intervention imposed on countries not only differs in terms of scope, effectiveness and effectiveness, but also in terms of public opinion and controversy. Some interventions are less controversial, such as that in Iraq, Haiti, and Congo while others are more so, such as that in Libya, Bosnia and Rwanda. Evans and Sahnoun (2002) hold the R2P is usually common in areas that are diverse in terms of ethnicity and religion and is usually put in place when there is a high number of deaths. They argue that in current times, many countries are pushing from “the right to intervene” to “the responsibility to protect”. By doing this, intervention is just not a choice but a must. 3. Theoretical Background Intervention, either military or diplomatic, is not only instituted to ensure ceasefire and reach a peaceful resolution, it is also concerned with establishing a stable government (Sturchler, 2006). As such, it is expected that improved social indicators and better economic outcomes be present in areas that intervention has occurred. In order to prove this, we have to develop a logical theoretical framework in which this will be valid. Intervention, especially UN intervention acts as a guarantor to the parties involved in a conflict ensuring that the terms agreed upon are put in place and that no one back out of the final concession. Without a guarantor, the parties involved will not be willing to disarm due to the fear that the other will not keep their promises (Welsh, 2006). This is usually true as the group that has more power will always try to crush the other group once they are disarmed. This means that the presence of the U.N. or other forces in the post-conflict state ensures that relapse is not likely. In the modern world where natural resources are dwindling and the need for economic expansion is an area of extreme competition, the presence of outside forces has led to many controversies. There is a lot of argument, the countries involved in military intervention stay in the country so as to plunder the natural resources in the area (Hehir, 2010). Considering the fact that in the last two decades, most of the military intervention has taken place in countries that are rich in oil, these arguments hold some merit. In theory, the presence of diplomatic force in the post-conflict setting should mean that peace is legitimate and long-lasting. This can be measured by economic growth since peace brings with it a more confident population eager to reinvest in an economy that is recovering. In order to measure the impact of intervention on economic growth, some control variables and selection factors should be considered. There are a lot of factors that affects the decision to intervene and the post-conflict performance. The control variables are important in controlling the effects of other factors that can affect post-conflict growth. Selection factors on the other hand arise when these conditions that are a hindrance or conducive for growth have an impact on the decision to intervene. In this paper, the main selection factors and control variables are shown below Selection Factors Control Variable Countries with a strong economy Volume of trade with the super powers; GDP per capita Countries within the same geographical region as the interveners Region Resource wars where intervening powers have a vested interest Presence of oil Revolutionary wars that change the political and economic sphere of the country Cannot be quantified 3.1. Hypothesis If intervention acts in the manner in which it is intended, we expect to see several indicators of post-conflict growth. Acting as a cure for social, political and economic ills that precipitated the war, we expect the intervention to yield a certain level of political autonomy and social freedom that will lead to economic growth in the long run. H1: Intervention by powers with a vested interest in the country (political or economic) will result in the lowest increase in post-conflict recovery A country under conflict is usually inadequate to protect its own interests and resources. When the powers that have a vested interest in the country are involved, whether due to resources or leadership, they may manoeuvre the post-conflict situation to benefit themselves. This leaves the country indebted and controlled by these outside forces that have very little concern with the economic growth of the population. H2: Intervention will result in a more positive post-conflict economic growth in case of a negotiated settlement rather than if one party overthrows the other Intervention is usually meant to help the parties involved reach a settlement. If the war is such that one party is crushed, and if the intervention is geared at helping one party over the other, cooperation will be difficult to institute. The victor will generally try to impose their wishes on the other party which will lead to lack of commitment and resentment thus inability to work together. 4. Data and methods This study will analyse time series data of several countries in which civil war has been common for the time period between 1970 and 2010, so as to compare both how the country performed after civil wars depending on whether intervention was carried out or not, and also how this performance compare to those counties in which civil war has never occurred. The study will utilize as many instances of civil war and intervention cases as possible and analysis will be carried out using multivariate regression. Since the dependent variable is a measure of economic growth, it can be used to best analyse the relationship between the chosen samples. 4.1. Data Sources The data will consist of variables that will be collected from existing databases. The first database that will be used will be the UCDP conflict termination database. This database was developed by the Uppsala Conflict Data Program, which is the most common used source of data on armed conflict. The data in this database are arranged by conflict ID year for the period of armed conflict. The second database is the Correlates of War project, interstate wars and Dyadic trade databases. This is also one of the most commonly used databases for armed conflicts. It is organized by war numbers and coded by state location. The final database that will be utilized will be the Penn Tables. This provides economic data for 180 countries and is largely based on GDP data and organized by country year. The data from this database is adjusted to base year international prices, and there is a large amount of data connected to the economic status of each country. 4.2. Variables and Coding This study seeks to analyse the impact of intervention on post-conflict development. The dependent variable for this study, therefore will be a measure of growth in terms of GDP per capita in the post-conflict period. The primary variable will evaluate the percentage change in GDP from 2 years before the end of the conflict to 5 years after the conflict. Coding will be done in years and as such the involvement of GDP, one year before the war is important since a big difference in GDP can arise if the war ends in December versus July. The independent variables will be composed of several intervention variables that have an impact on post-conflict growth rates, including whether or not intervention takes place as well as the type of intervention and how the conflict is resolved. 4.3. Analysis Before statistical analysis is carried out, the distribution of the variables will be carried out. The Standard deviation of the GDP for various periods will be evaluated such as the GDP for five years before and after the war. We shall then carry out a robust test of the independent variables over a given time period. This involves looking at change in GDP when there is intervention and where there is none. The analysis of this data will be carried out through multivariate regression. The test of various impacts will be carried out while controlling other factors. Different models will be developed to evaluate the impact of intervention on post-conflict development. The models will consist of least square regression on post-conflict growth periods of three, five and 8 years respectively. 5. Conclusion Humanitarian intervention is a very contentious issue in the world at present times. Many critics of this process hold that these efforts are a means of an industrialized nation to test their military might or develop channels of resource acquirement. It has been noted that intervention usually leaves a country without any noticeable change in terms of growth, both political and economic. This study seeks to analyze the different forms of intervention that have occurred in several countries and note the type of growth that has occurred within a given time period. We then shall discover if intervention is really for the benefit of the local population or for the intervening powers. 6. Reference Aydin, A. & Regan, P. (2006). Diplomacy and Other Forms of Intervention in Civil Wars. The Journal of Conflict Resolution 50(5): 736-756. Bannon, A. (2006). The Responsibility to Protect: The U.N. World Summit and the Question of Unilateralism. The Yale Law Journal, 115(5): 1157-1165. Doyle, M., & Nicholas S. (2000). International Peace building: A Theoretical and Quantitative Analysis. The American Political Science Review 94(4): 779-801. Evans, G., & Sahnoun, M. (2002). The Responsibility to Protect. Foreign Affairs 81(6): 99-110. Fearon, J., & Laitin, D. (2003). Ethnicity, Insurgency, and Civil War. The American Political Science Review 97(1): 75-90. Hehir, A. (2010). Humanitarian Intervention: An Introduction. New Jersey: Pargrave Macmillian Regan, P. (2000). Civil Wars and Foreign Powers: Outside Intervention in Intrastate Conflict. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Sambanis, N (2001). Do Ethnic and Non-Ethnic Civil Wars Have the Same Causes? A Theoretical and Empirical Inquiry. The Journal of Conflict Resolution 45(3): 259-82. Sturchler, N. (2006). The Threat of Force in International Law. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Small, M. & Singer, D. (1982). Resort to Arms: International Civil Wars, 1816-1980. Beverly Hills: Sage Publications Welsh, J. (2006). Humanitarian Intervention and International relations. Oxford: Oxford University Press Read More