Peace and War Issues Critical Analysis - Article Example

Review of 5 Recent Articles “What Fosters Enduring Peace? An Analysis of Factors Influencing Civil War Resolution”The article, “What Fosters Enduring Peace? An Analysis of Factors Influencing Civil War Resolution” is a research paper that explored the main factors that led to the beginning of negotiations and the shortening of conflict in the 82 civil wars that took place between the years 1944 and 1997. This paper focuses on the probability of successful conflict resolution between two warring parties to reach a settlement through negotiations. The paper also analyzes the role of third parties in civil war and how they can help in initiating negotiations and mediating between the two parties. The researcher also sought to find which the nature and types of mediators are more likely to generate a satisfactory outcome in the long run. In this regard, the investigators focus on three stages of negotiation in this civil war namely; negotiation phase, bargaining phase and implementation phase. The investigators based their research on combination of different data sets and information. The researchers used logistic regression analysis as well as graphical exploration to analyze data for the information. The researchers begun by reviewing literature on civil war resolutions before drawing main hypothesis from the existing approaches and theories that are related to intervention, the probability of conducting negotiations and duration of the conflict. The hypotheses in this research paper are that it is difficult for wars to end in negotiated settlement thus many conflicts end in decisive victory. Investigators hold a view that many wars, up to 75 percent have always ended in decisive victory thus violence is not likely to recur because the losing party has been entirely defeated (Mostafa & Al-Hamdi, 2014). However, this mode of conflict resolution often end up in mass killings and genocide thus third parties play an important role in resolution of wars through negotiations. In this study, the researcher explored the effected of preselected explanatory variables on the probability that the warring parties would start negotiations and thus the duration of the war will be shortened. The above theoretical framework and review of literature, the researchers aimed at seeing the effects of different explanatory variables on the likelihood of starting negotiations and reduction in war duration. In this respect, the researchers applied logistic regression to assess the probability that negotiations are conducted. Researchers also applied survival analysis to analyze the effects of the independent variables on the duration of the conflict since the data sets used were censored. The dependent variables are whether in the course of conflict negotiations were set or were absent and the duration of the conflict. The explanatory variables are the number of parties involve in the conflict. The control variables included the extent of domestic fractionalization, population size, relative economic wealth, political freedom and the dummy variables capturing regional affiliation (Mostafa & Al-Hamdi, 2014). These variables were therefore expressed as logistic regression The result of this study shows that, on factors resulting to negotiation, military stalemate is one of them. The researchers found that out of fifteen cases analyzed in their study and stalemate was present, thirteen of them led to negotiations. On the other hand where there was no military stalemate, only 23 cases led to negotiations and in 33 cases, there were no negotiations (Mostafa & Al-Hamdi, 2014). In this respect, the presence of mutual hurting stalemate provided strong incentives to parties to reconsider their cost benefit analysis and expectations thus agree to start negotiations. On the second question on the duration of civil war, survival analysis based on Cox proportional hazards estimation, based on combined data set, shows that only the existences of a mutual hurting stalemate and readiness for negotiations have statistically significant effects on conflict duration. “United Nations Peacekeeping, Democratic Process, and the Durability of Peace after Civil Wars” The article, “United Nations Peacekeeping, Democratic Process, and the Durability of Peace after Civil Wars,” focuses on the role played by peacekeeping in states which experienced wars before. Researchers examined impacts of peacekeeping missions on the democratic progress and the stability of peace in a post-civil war states. Investigators begun by developing a theory and concept and then tested how peacekeeping missions impacts on democracy. In the second part, this study makes suggestions for the alternative process to explain longer lasting in societies affected by conflicts by advancing democracy. The research question in this study is therefore whether the United Nations can succeed in advancing democratic progress after war in those states affected by civil war and whether such democracy result into long lasting peace. Investigators conducted a thorough analysis of literature coupled with presentation of the theoretical framework. These led to the following hypothesis for this study: The H1a states “the presence of a United Nations peacekeeping mission increases the likelihood that democratic process will be established in the post conflict state” (Joshi, 2013). The H1b states “when a United Nations peacekeeping operation is strong, it is more likely that democratic process will be established in a post-conflict state” (Joshi, 2013). H2a: stated as “the establishment of democratic processes ensures that peace will survive in a post–civil war state” and H2b stated as “UN peacekeeping ensures that the peace will survive in a post–civil state” (Joshi, 2013). The above hypothesis was tested through analysis of civil war data (Joshi, 2013). The data set identifies one hundred and twenty five post-civil war cases in seventy one states from the years 1946 and 2005 which had 48 percent of the countries having recurrent wars. The unit of analysis in their experiment is the year after civil war and is included in the data set. Researchers aimed at explaining two interrelated but different outcome variables. One is the beginning of the process of democracy in war affected states after civil war. This makes a turning point in political democracy since it marks the beginning of formation and operationalization of institutions necessary for political power contesting like holding elections (Joshi, 2013). The dependent variable in this study is the failure or persistent of peace after a civil war. Investigators ensured their research is authentic by controlling other means through which civil wars may be terminated such as negotiated settlement of victory by either party. The investigators used survival analysis and panel regression analysis to test the hypothesis concerning democratic progresses which were H1a and H1b. According to the investigator, “the probability of events of civil war occurring in a post conflict environment may be low in the first post-civil war years because former antagonists are still negotiating over the kinds of institutions that would become eminent in the new framework of the nation” (Joshi, 2013). In this regard, the researcher justifies the choice of survival analysis as the best methodological choice to help understanding such events. The results from the H1a and H1b statistical tests found a statistical significant concurrence with the theoretical argument that the process of democracy after civil war is likely to take place if there is existence of a United Nations peacekeeping mission or when such mission’s influence is strong. However, the effects of United Nations’ peacekeeping mission on holding of an election are not significant. The researchers also asserted that the strength of the peacekeeping missions do not affect the likelihood of having elections in states affected by civil war. Researcher also found that for countries with stronger mission, post-conflict elections are likely to occur 98% sooner compared to those without (Joshi, 2013). This study reveals that availability of strong United Nations’ peacekeeping missions is closely related to keeping a long lasting peace after civil war. “Rewarding Bad Behavior: How Governments Respond to Terrorism in Civil War” The article, “Rewarding Bad Behavior: How Governments Respond to Terrorism in Civil War” focused on the study of rebel groups in civil war and why they are most likely to be accorded a chance to take part in mediations. The researcher holds that these groups are likely to be accorded more concessions and granted an opportunity to participate in negotiations when they execute atrocities. The investigators studied civil wars in Africa between the year 1989 and 2010 and found that governments that are embroiled in domestic conflicts are most likely to negotiate with rebel groups especially when the rebel groups engage in more acts of terrorism (Thomas, 2014). The hypothesis inn this study was that “governments embroiled in a domestic conflicts in Africa especially between the years 1989 and 2010 are more likely to participate in negotiations with rebel groups when they engage in more acts of terrorism than when they don’t thus rebels are also likely to gain more concessions from their governments when they execute more terror attacks” (Thomas, 2014). Investigators used panel regression analysis to test the hypothesis concerning democratic progress. The investigators in the study also used concessions as the sole measure by which success of acts of terrorism are evaluated. In this study, the groups are considered successful when they are able to draw a great deal of concessions from their targets and successful when they are not. However, it is important to note that using policy concessions as the sole measure and the direct result of use of terrorism reduces the ability of researchers and other leaders to understand the importance of such attacks since terrorism is often used to advance multiple and achieve multiple strategies and goals. The researcher relied on a concession which is one of that strategy but not the sole strategy of terrorism in this context of civil wars. Results of this analysis show that groups engaging in 15 terror attacks are most likely to participate in mediations compared to groups stronger than their respective governments (Thomas, 2014). They are also more likely to negotiate than groups in even the longest wars in Africa. This analysis also shows that ability to execute greater than 15 attacks are even more likely call for negotiations from the government of the day. The findings of investigators are very important since they initiate debate as to how effective is terrorism. The investigators hold that terrorism can grant tthe warring parties or rebels for this matter a bargaining power which is likely to end up in concessions. However, the investigator notes that in most wars that end up in concessions, the rebels and the governments must first make it to the negotiating table and further. However, many governments are reluctant in involving violent groups committing atrocities in negotiation. These findings explain the long standing wars in many African countries and in some like Rwanda; a massive genocide is committed before negotiations are initiated. “Combining Civil and Interstate Wars” The Paper, “Combining Civil and Interstate Wars” aims at examining whether the division of conflicts into separately analyzed types is always justified. The researcher notes that it is important to combine the analysis of these conflicts. The researchers also hold that when these analyses are conducted separately, researchers are limited in the understanding of violent conflicts. The researcher focused on theories of conflict which are the most common explanation of civil conflicts as well as interstate wars. The investigators drew the first set of civil war correlate from Hegre and Sambani’s comprehensive sensitive analysis. In this regard, the investigators studied dozens of claimed causes of civil war across different data sets with varying estimation methods thus came up with the most likely predictors of the onset of civil war (Cunningham & Lemke, 2013). The researchers then listed the civil war onset variables from their findings as previous war, which is a dummy showing whether the state experienced a different war in either of the previous years. This included; previous interstate conflict, previous intrastate conflict and either type of conflict. The researchers also constructed a state year data set that included the above variables as well as indicators as to whether interstate or civil conflict begun in any given state. The above data sets covered the years 1946 to 2006. In this respect, the preliminary task of the investigators was to find out whether the correlates of one type of conflict onset are also correlates of the other. The findings in this analysis show that “those states with many allies are less likely to experience either interstate or intrastate conflicts” (). The researchers attributed their findings to the fact that the deterrent effects protect the allied states from either type of conflicts. Consequently, the attackers or rebels would also expect the allied state will enjoy support from some of its allies making it less likely that either the attacker of the rebel would win. However, these findings show that states with many rivals are most likely to experience the two types of attacks. It is also likely that states with rivals will experience more interstate conflicts with states encouraged by the rivals or with those rivals (Cunningham & Lemke, 2013). In this respect, these kinds of states will experience more intrastate conflict since their rivals support their rebel groups against them. The researchers in this study have therefore concluded that combined analyses provide potential benefits to the researchers in terms of findings. According to (), through combined analyses of wars, investigators were able to identify empirical realities that are currently hidden by arbitrarily dividing wars” (). They also noted that separate studies of interstate and civil wars are very pervasive thus it is not possible to know what the patterns of the wars are. It is through combined study that researchers are able to answer questions related to whether there are different empirical patterns between interstate and civil wars. The investigators therefore concluded that there is much more to be gained by studying violent conflicts as a similar phenomenon rather than dividing the analysis into allegedly separate types. However, this combination calls for a new research agenda with focus on studying the root cause in order to end civil or interstate conflict within shortest time. “Actor Fragmentation and Civil War Bargaining: How Internal Divisions Generate Civil Conflict” The article, “Actor Fragmentation and Civil War Bargaining: How Internal Divisions Generate Civil Conflict” aims at examining and demonstrating the impacts of non united opposition on their ability to push for government to accept negotiations as a way of resolving conflicts. In order to analyze this point of argument, Cunningham (2013) developed theory and concept approach to understanding how negotiations fail thus civil war break. One of the dominant theoretical approaches advanced by the investigators in this study that helps in the understanding of civil war is bargaining theory. Bargaining theory states that two actors in a stand-off are often trying to reach an amicable solution to a conflict. The two actors in this case are government and opposition. In this case, the amicable solution must be reached through bargaining thus when parties fail to do so, the result is violence. According to Cunningham “bargaining theory is often limited due to the fact that most researchers make assumption members for instances different opposition parties are unitary which usually not the case is” (2013) Investigators in this study focused on the cohesiveness of opposition movements and how civil war varied between pairs of different states. The degree of cohesiveness of different movements was allowed to vary differently. Investigators were therefore able to monitor and examine how the actors, most likely to engage in civil war behave. Research question in this study was that: Does lack of cohesiveness in opposition movements affects their ability to negotiate? Researcher hypothesized; that the ability of opposition movement to negotiate is highly influenced by their own cohesiveness and divisions is likely to result into war with their government (Cunningham, 2013). Cunningham used Logit model to analyze the data collected and Cox regression analysis to compare the significant difference. The results of this study confirmed both hypotheses. From this point of view, investigators concluded that internal fragmentation within opposition parties and movements are key to civil war onset and thus the opposition is likely to participate in civil war against the state. Cunningham concludes by stating that these findings are important in further studies and researchers should focus on deeper understanding of the issues involved. References Cunningham, D. E., & Lemke, D. (2013). Combining Civil and Interstate Wars. International Organization, 67(3), 609-627. doi:10.1017/S0020818313000167 Cunningham, K. G. (2013). Actor Fragmentation and Civil War Bargaining: How Internal Divisions Generate Civil Conflict. American Journal Of Political Science, 57(3), 659-672. doi:10.1111/ajps.12003 Hosli, M. O., & Hoekstra, A. (2013). What Fosters Enduring Peace? An Analysis of Factors Influencing Civil War Resolution. Peace Economics, Peace Science, & Public Policy, 19(2), 123-155. doi:10.1515/peps-2013-0001 Joshi, M. (2013). United Nations Peacekeeping, Democratic Process and the Durability of Peace after Civil Wars. International Studies Perspectives, 14(3), 362-382. doi:10.1111/j.1528-3585.2012.00499.x Thomas, J. (2014). Rewarding Bad Behavior: How Governments Respond to Terrorism in Civil War. American Journal of Political Science. Read More