Search results

Extensive empirical evidence suggests that procedural justice (PJ) and distributive justice (DJ) are key success factors for achieving durable peace negotiations. This paper aims to investigate how complexity affects these factors and the outcomes in negotiations.

The qualitative study is based on an examination of the peace negotiations that led to the 2016 agreement between the Fuerzas Armadas Revolucionarias de Colombia – Ejército del Pueblo and the Colombian Government. Based on document analysis, the authors examined in detail how and where in the process the principles of PJ and DJ were applied. The authors then examined the implementation progress after 2016 and placed the peace process in the overall context of the Colombian conflict.

The authors found that the principles of PJ and DJ were present in both the negotiation process and the agreement. The negotiations were successful and satisfactory solutions could be found for all issues. The complexity of the conflict is reflected in the limited coverage of the peace negotiations. Not all groups, interests and subconflicts could be included in the negotiations. This limits their contribution to a durable peace in Colombia. Conflicts that remain unresolved also have a negative effect on the implementation of the agreement.

For conflict management, this implies that the negotiations should not be viewed as “one-and-done” but rather as a progressive, ongoing process. The agreement is only the nucleus for achieving total peace. It must be actively advanced and defended.

This study offers new qualitative insights into how PJ and DJ function in negotiations. It also establishes a systematic connection between PJ and DJ and complexity, introduces the notion of coverage and, thereby, opens a new perspective on the management of conflict complexity.

This study aims to explore the role of rebel group legitimacy and ideology in durable peace (DP) following peace agreements to end civil wars. It builds on earlier research showing that justice and civil society involvement are critical in achieving DP. This study adds the impacts of rebel group activities and support on DP. Activities include service delivery and mobilization. Support is gauged with outcomes of presidential and parliamentary elections held following peace agreements.

Five data sets were used to measure the key variables: DP, inclusive commissions (IC), legitimacy symmetry (electoral outcomes), service delivery and ideological mobilization. A measure of rebel group integration in the political system was also constructed. Impacts of the integration, legitimacy and ideology variables were assessed with a hierarchical regression model (HRM). This study begins with a base model drawn from earlier research showing the key predictors were procedural justice (PJ) and IC. The authors ask about the extent to which the rebel group variables contribute additional variance to the prediction of DP.

The main contributors to the prediction of DP were PJ, IC and integration in the political system. None of the legitimacy or mobilization variables added significant variance to the prediction. Only one of the mobilization variables, forced recruitment, was significant. The decision to integrate into the political system following the agreement did not mediate the relationship between PJ in the negotiation process and DP. Results of a factor analysis showed that DP, PJ, IC and integration formed a cluster with strong loadings on the first factor.

The negative results for the legitimacy and mobilization variables may not be the last word on rebel group influences. Lack of support for the key hypotheses spurs attempts to discover other sources that contribute to the survival of rebel group actors in the political system and, in turn, to DP.

The issues raised by this study contribute to debates about ways to attain peaceful relations among competing groups following a civil war. It appears that attention to factors inside and around the negotiation process (PJ, ICs and conversion) may be more important than rebel group activities outside of these processes. The results call attention, in particular, to the important role played by political integration. From a policy perspective, it would be useful to develop levers for encouraging rebel groups to emerge as political actors in the post-agreement environment.

Developing measures of the symmetry of rebel group legitimacy and integration in the context of a comparative case study are the primary original contributions of this study. Furthermore, the mode of analysis (HRM) is novel in this literature. This approach builds on and extends the earlier research on factors influencing DP.

This paper aims to study recent approaches to peacemaking, particularly by Turkey and Russia, in a changing world and their implications for UN-led peace processes. The authors analyze the factors that allow parallel processes to UN mediation to emerge and discuss their influence.

The paper presents two in-depth case studies of mediation in Syria and Libya, where the UN, as well as Russia and Turkey, were actively involved in peacemaking.

The authors find that parallel processes to UN mediation emerge if the UN process does not show progress toward a negotiated settlement and other third parties have leverage over the conflict parties. However, whether these parallel processes pose a fundamental challenge to the UN-led process depends on how sustained the third parties’ leverage over the conflict parties is. If it lasts, it puts the UN in a difficult position to either participate in the parallel process and contain it but thereby also legitimizing it, or to abstain from participating but thereby risking to lose control over the mediation process.

Analyzing different approaches to mediation helps to better understand current dynamics of multiparty mediation, including an increased questioning of the effectiveness of UN mediation, and provides insights on how the UN may adapt to keep its relevance in a changing world.

The paper is based on original first-hand data gathered between 2018 and 2022 through more than 50 interviews with UN officials, negotiation team members, political and civil society actors from Syria and Libya, (former) state officials and experts from Russia and Turkey, as well as external observers.

Conflicts between herders and farmers in Nigeria in the last five years have been destructive to the corporate existence of Nigerian society and the Nigerian State, especially in Northcentral, Northwestern and Southern Nigeria. This paper aims to investigate the relationships between state responses and peace-building in rural grazing communities in Nigeria using a National Survey on Peace-building in Nigeria conducted by this team using a cross-sectional survey of 1,711 farmers and herders.

The study adopted the political economy of the herder–farmers conflict in Africa to contextualise the problem. Data generated from the study were analysed using chi-square test and binary logistic regression model.

The results showed that protection of victims of herder–farmers conflict (P = 0.024), blockage of sources of illicit weapons (P = 0.000), arrest of leaders (P = 0.043), provision of shelter (P = 0.030), provision of food (P = 0.037), protection of women from sexual exploitation and abuse (P = 0.019) and use of the media were positively related to peace-building in the rural grazing areas. The study further found that when the Federal Government (ß= 0.452, P = 0.018), State Government (ß= 0.522, P = 0.018), private individuals (ß = 0.855, P = 0.000) and cooperative societies (ß = 0.744, P = 0.021) established ranches, peace was likely to be guaranteed as opposed to where herders (ß= –0.355, P= 0.029) were allowed to establish ranches in the rural grazing communities in Nigeria implying that the Federal and State Government must be cautious in the implementation of the Livestock Transformation Plans not to create an impression that it is designed to favour the herders.

To the best of the authors’ knowledge, this study is original and the paper has not been submitted to any journal.

What kinds of support do interstate rivals provide to domestic actors in ongoing civil wars? And how do domestic actors utilize the support they receive? This chapter answers these questions by comparing Iranian and Saudi military and non-military (mediation, foreign aid and religious soft-power promotion) support to the Houthis and to the Government of Yemen (GoY) during the Saada wars (2004–2010) and the internationalized civil war (2015–2018). It also focuses on the processes through which the GoY and the Houthis have utilized this support for their own strategic purposes. This chapter applies a structured, focused comparison methodology and relies on data from a review of both primary and secondary sources complemented by 14 interviews. This chapter finds that there were less external interventions in the conflict in Saada than in the internationalized civil war. During the latter, a broader set of intervention strategies enabled further instrumentalization by domestic actors, which in turn contributed to the protracted nature of the conflict. This chapter contributes to the literature on interstate rivalry and third-party intervention. The framework of analysis is applicable to civil wars that experience intervention by rivals, such as Syria or Libya.

This paper aims to seek to and understand how civil conflict and international claims inform one another. Does the existence of ongoing civil and international conflicts affect how a government addresses an international claim? The paper builds on existing literature that link international and domestic conflict. However, it suggests that the logic behind civil conflicts may be different from that for international ones as states decide how to deal with any one claim.

The paper posits that states faced with domestic conflicts and additional international claims are more likely to seek to resolve an international claim than those without similar conflicts. It develops a series of hypotheses about the likelihood of claim escalation and peaceful settlement attempts and proceed to test them quantitatively using the Issue Correlates of War data combined with the uppsala conflict data program/peace research institute oslo Armed Conflict Data.

On the one hand, the paper finds support for the argument regarding the difficulty states are faced with when seeking to resolve multiple international claims. On the other hand, it finds that the presence of civil conflicts incentivizes states to resolve international claims either by force or peacefully, suggesting internal violence can both lead to diversionary behavior and attempts at conflict resolution.

The findings have important implications for work considering the complexity of domestic and international conflict linkages.

While many studies of claim militarization and peaceful attempts focus on dyadic and international characteristics, this paper creates a more nuanced understanding of the complexities of this foreign policy decision process.

The purpose of this paper is to advance our understanding of international crisis mediation by introducing and examining the nested insider-partial mediator (NIPM) concept, a nuanced perspective on IPM behavior. This study challenges the traditional view of effective mediators as external, unbiased entities by delving into the behavior and contribution of mediators who are deeply embedded in the conflict environment, such as South Korea’s unique position in navigating the US–DPRK crisis in 2017–2018. By analyzing South Korea’s dual role as mediator and negotiator and its employment of both nondirective and directive mediation strategies, the paper demonstrates the potential effectiveness of NIPMs in managing complex biases and contributing to de-escalation in intense crisis scenarios.

This paper uses a focused single-case study approach to analyze South Korea’s role as an NIPM. Using a process-tracing methodology, it examines how contextual factors such as relationships, interests and inherent biases influenced South Korea’s mediation strategies in this complex geopolitical scenario. Empirical evidence was retrieved from public sources, including official statements and press interviews, providing an empirical foundation for understanding NIPM behavior. This approach facilitates a detailed study of South Korea’s unique mediation role within the intricate dynamics of the Korean Peninsula conflict.

The study’s findings illustrate the pivotal role NIPMs can play in complex international conflicts, underlining the significant potential of NIPMs in crisis prevention. The findings highlight South Korea’s adept navigation through intricate geopolitical dynamics, leveraging its unique insider position and established relationships with both the USA and North Korea. This behavior was instrumental in mitigating a potentially explosive situation, steering the crisis toward negotiation and de-escalation. The research underscores the effectiveness of the NIPM framework in understanding the nuanced behavior of mediators who are deeply integrated into multi-level conflicts, influenced by their connections, interests and inherent biases.

This research not only broadens the theoretical framework of insider-partial mediation by introducing the concept of NIPM, but also has practical implications for policymakers and practitioners in leveraging regional mediation strategies for international crisis mitigation. The study underscores the importance of mediators’ deep-rooted connections, biases and vested interests in influencing their mediation tactics, thus offering a comprehensive understanding of the multifaceted nature of international mediation in complex geopolitical conflicts.

This study delves into the transformation of UAE-Israel relations, which transitioned from a long-term rivalry to a formal peace agreement in 2020. It aims to uncover the multifaceted elements that influenced both nations’ pursuit of bilateral negotiations, with a special emphasis on the role of unofficial collaboration.

Employing a case study approach, the research traces the evolution of the UAE-Israel ties, mapping their progression from covert collaborations to public accords. This exploration is set against a backdrop of political, economic, and societal factors that have historically characterized the broader Israel-Arab conflict. Real-world dynamics and theoretical constructs are analyzed in tandem to derive comprehensive insights.

Key drivers for the transformation of UAE-Israel relations included the threat from Iran, internal disturbances, economic stresses, and the strategic advantages of discreet diplomacy. Exogenous catalysts like the Covid-19 pandemic and Israel's annexation plans in 2019-2020 played pivotal roles, capitalizing on pre-existing covert collaborations and shared regional interests. Constructive strategies, notably inducements, effectively reshaped their adversarial relationship. The resultant U.S.-mediated agreement conferred strategic, security, economic, and diplomatic benefits to both parties. Importantly, the potency of conengagement conflict management strategy, especially when bolstered by exogenous factors and growing mutual interest, emerged as a game-changer in terminating longstanding rivalries.

This study offers a unique perspective on Israel-UAE relations, emphasizing the significance of covert engagements, inducements, and the innovative conengagement strategy in conflict resolution. By examining a relationship devoid of direct armed conflict, the research underscores the interplay of economic, political, and societal factors in reshaping rivalries. This case study serves as a testament to the potential for transformative change in enduring disputes when the right conditions and strategies align, supplementing conventional perspectives and offering valuable implications for policy and mediation initiatives in the Middle East.

The purpuse of this study is to answer the following two questions. Do conflict management efforts mitigate the recurrence and severity of civil conflict? If so, how? Do some conflict management strategies fare better than others in these tasks? This study theorizes about the connection between the costliness of a conflict management strategy – with respect to both the disputants and third parties – and civil conflict outcomes. This theory produces two contradictory predictions: that more costly strategies either increase or decrease violence. This study not only adjudicates between these two possibilities but also incorporates the role of timing. The early use of more costly strategies, for example, may encourage disputants to reduce violence in civil conflicts.

To evaluate the predications that the authors derive from their theoretical argument, the authors quantitatively analyze the effect of conflict management strategies’ relative cost on various measures of civil conflict recurrence and severity. The authors first identify the set of international–civil militarized conflicts (I-CMCs) during the period 1946–2010. I-CMCs contain two dimensions – interstate and intrastate – making them the most complex and dangerous form of militarized conflict. To each I-CMC, the authors then link all third-party attempts to manage the I-CMC’s civil conflict dimension. Finally, after developing quantitative indicators, a series of regression equations explore the relationships of primary interest.

Two main findings emerge. First, when third parties use a relatively more costly conflict management strategy to manage a civil conflict (e.g. a peace operation or military intervention, as opposed to mediation), the severity of the conflict increases, while conflict recurrence rates remain unchanged. Second, this study uncovers a trade-off. The early use of a relatively more costly management strategy lowers a civil conflict’s severity in the short-term. It also, however, increases the likelihood – and speed with which – civil conflict recurs. The timing of certain conflict management strategies matters.

Scholars typically isolate conflict management strategies in number (i.e. consider efforts as independent of one another, even those within the same conflict) and kind (i.e. examine mediation but not peace operations). This study, in contrast, includes the following: the full menu of conflict management strategies available to third parties – negotiation, mediation, adjudication/arbitration, peace operations, sanctions and military intervention – over a lengthy time period (1946–2010); theorizes about the relative merits of these strategies; and considers the timing of certain conflict management efforts. In so doing, it highlights a policy trade-off and proposes promising areas for future research.