11-7-13
The specter of Civil Wars has plagued mankind throughout history. Though most of these conflicts have eventually ended, there has been no tried and true negotiation blueprint to the effective ending to a Civil War. By examining Civil Wars fought between 1940 and 1998, Barbara Walter and the team of Carline Hartzell, and Matthew Hoddie attempted to begin to develop such a framework. In so doing, they examined the factors in Modern civil war peace agreements that led to lasting peace.
Walters begins her observations by noting that only about 1/3 of peace agreements attempted lead to lasting peace. (Walter, 2002) She hypothesizes that the reason for this consistent failure is that analysts have been incorrectly focusing on the beginning of the peace process, rather than the implementation and that it is in the implementation that most treaties fail. (Walter 2002) There is an inherent assumption by most interested observers that once a treaty is negotiated, it will be followed. (Walter 2002) The truth is that this is often not the case. (Walter 2002) This observation led Walter to examine elements of the implementation of terms to determine where and why peace treaties fail. (Walter 2002)Walter examines the cases and concludes that implementation is the most difficult aspect of the peace process to navigate and that effort should be made to address implementation more carefully. (Walter 2002)
Hartzill and Hoddie seem to accept this premise and proceed to delve into implementation in more detail. They isolate a number of components necessary for implementation in an attempt to identify the most important. (Hartzill & Hoddie 2003) After their own statistical analysis of the effectiveness (measured in length of peace) of various methods, they came to the conclusion that the single most important factor in lasting peace treaties is power sharing. (Hartzill & Hoddie 2003) The further opine that the more diverse types of power sharing are present in the agreement, the longer the parties will adhere to it. (Hartzill & Hoddie 2003)
The two authors seem to agree that a strong 3rd party enforcement is also instrumental in a lasting peace. (Hartzill & Hoddie 2003) (Walter, 2002) What both authors seem to miss is the importance of certain causes in the peace process. Hartzill and Hoddie mention that ethnic conflicts are 413% less likely to end in a treaty that political-economic conflicts, but do not delve into what can be done to mitigate this condition. (Hartzill & Hoddie 2003)
It seems that endeavoring to come up with a workable peace solution in a civil war would depend greatly on the cause of that war. When the cause is ideological or ethnic as opposed to political or economic, is seems as though the underlying premises must be changed. As both authors limited their studies to conflicts that had negotiated endings, they limited their data by excluding most if not all civil wars based in ethnic cleansing, racial or religious conflicts. (Hartzill & Hoddie 2003) (Walter, 2002) When participants are being ruled by considerations other than economics or politics, the action become more unpredictable, and bringing them to the peace table is correspondingly more difficult.
Work Cited
Hartzell, Caroline and Matthew Hoddie. 2003. "Institutionalizing Peace: Power Sharing and Post-Civil War Conflict Management." American Journal of Political Science 47: 318-332."
Walter, Barbara. 2002. Committing to Peace: The Successful Settlement of Civil Wars. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Part 2
Walter, Barbara. 2002. Committing to Peace: The Successful Settlement of Civil Wars. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
- Only 1/3 of Civil wars between 1942 and 1992 resulted in a fully implemented peace plan (pg.1 paragraph 2)
- In most cases, sides have abandoned negotiations to finish fighting. (Page 1 paragraph 2)
- Only third party intervention gets them back to negotiation (pg. 1 paragraph 2)
- Successful Negotiations (characteristics)
- Must do more than resolve underlying issues that sparked war (page 1 paragraph 3)
- Must design creditable guarantees of the terms (page 1 paragraph 3)
- Must convince combatants to lay down arms and surrender territories, which weakens their position. (pg. 1 Paragraph 3)
- 4 goals of book
- Why are so few wars negotiated successfully and why do they need 3rd parties to help? (pg 1 Paragraph 4)
- Reconceptualize the process into three steps: ( Pg. 2 Paragraph 1)
- participants decide to start negotiations
- compromise on goals and principles
- implement treaty terms
- Demonstrate the omission of a key problem by Scholars on the subject (pg.2 Paragraph 1)
- Ignoring implementation phase
- Longest and hardest to negotiate
- Collect and analyze data To form conclusions
- The problem
- Only 62% of negotiations to end civil wars ended in treaties.
- Only half of those were ever implemented. (pg. 3 Paragraph 1)
- Suggests that the problem lies with implementation
- Argument
- Negotiations do not fail because an agreement cannot be reached
- They fail because there is no method of guaranteeing implementation of the terms (Pg. 3 paragraph 2)
- “Credible commitment theory” (Pg. 4 Paragraph 1)
- 6 additional theories on civil war resolution (pg.5 para. 1)
- 2 camps:
- Focusing on political, economic and military considerations to bring negotiations to the table (pg. 5 para. 4)
- Once a bargain is reached, parties will abide by it (pg 6 paragraph 1)
- Both ignore “credible commitment theory”
- “Ripe for resolution” theories
- Costs of War vs. Settlement (pg 6 para. 4)
- Balance of Power (pg 7 para. 1)
- Domestic Political Constraints (pg 8 para 2)
- Conditions that encourage combatants to strike a bargain (pg 9 para. 2)
- Identity of combatants
- Divisibility of stakes
- Presence of a mutually rusted 3rd party (pg.9 para. 2)
- Missing Piece
- Theories explain what brings combatants to the table and why they agree to treaties
- Do not explain why they so seldom follow the treaties. (pg. 12 para. 3)
- Research Methodology
- Two methods used (pg. 13 Para. 2)
- Quantitative analysis
- Comparative case studies
- Theory and Hypothesis
- Implementation in the hardest challenge in conflict resolution (pg. 18 para. 3)
- Demobilization (pg. 18 Para. 5)
- Surrender of territory (pg. 19 Para. 2)
- Vulnerability effects implementation (pg 19 Para. 5)
- Detailed Implementation plans required (pg. 20 Para. 3)
- Monitoring and verification necessary (Pg 21. Para.2)
- Need third-party Security Guarantees (pg. 23 Para 2)
- Need long-term power sharing pacts (pg. 24 para. 4)
- Measuring variables
- Framework: All civil wars 1940-1992 (pg. 34 para. 3)
- Using Correlates of War data (pg. 35 para 2)
- One-thousand Deaths per year minimum (pg 36 para.1 )
- Dependent Variable: “Peace Process” 4 outcomes:
- No, negotiation (0)
- Active formal negotiation (1)
- Signed bargain (2)
- Successful implementation (3)(pg. 37 para. 1)
- Independent Variables:
- Cost of War in deaths and duration (pg 42 Para. 1)
- Results
- 3rd party guarantee plus power pact= successful implementation (pg.46 para. 4)
- Power pact alone unlikely to produce successful implementation (pg. 46 para 2)
- Stronger 3rd party guarantees no more effective than weak ones (pg 48 para. 1)
- Analysis
a. Results of qualitative and quantitative analysis supported hypothesis (pg. 92 para 1)
1. This paper is about resolving Civil wars in the Modern Era.
2. The method used quantitative and qualitative analysis of every Civil War fought between 1940 to 1992.
3. The framework is only those civil wars with over 1000 death per year.
4. The question is whether implementation of peace treaties is the main factor preventing the negotiating of peace between warring factions in a civil war.
5. The findings were consistent with the hypothesis in that implementation of treaties was the stumbling block in a majority of cases.
6. Interesting information:
a. only conflicts with over 1000 deaths considered
b. causes of the wars did not include “ethnic cleansing”
c. the author relied on others’ work defining civil wars
d. the author’s finding that treaties a relatively easy to negotiate was surprising
7. The argument is that elements such as third-party guarantees help strengthen the implementation phase of treaties between civil war combatants.
8. The opinion that the underlying causes of the conflict are unimportant to resolving it (such as ethnic and racial tensions) is especially problematic in this paper.
Hartzell, Caroline and Matthew Hoddie. 2003. "Institutionalizing Peace: Power Sharing and Post-Civil War Conflict Management." American Journal of Political Science 47: 318-332."
- Outline of problem
- Power sharing as a key element in peace process in civil war
- 8 hypotheses tested
- The more extensive the power-sharing, the longer-lasting the peace. (pg 321 para.6)
- Peace negotiated by people with more experience with the democratic process is longer lasting that that negotiated by those from authoritarian regimes. (pg. 322 para.2)
- The longer the war, the more likely a peace agreement will come (pg 322 para. 3)
- Higher casualties equate to less likelihood of peace. (pg. 322 para 4)
- Settlements that call for 3rd party enforcement are more durable than those that do not. (pg 322 para. 5)
- Post cold-war treaties are more durable than those negotiated during the cold war (pg. 322 para. 6)
- Settlements of conflict that are political or economic based are longer lasting than those that are identity-based. (pg. 323 para. 2)
- Settlements are most prone to fail in months following negotiation, and the more time that has passed, the more likely they are to succeed. (pg. 323 para 4)
- Research Design
- 1945 to 1998 (pg. 323 para. 5)
- 1000 deaths per year
- Central government must be one of the warring parties
- Effective resistance on both sides
- Within a defined political unit
- 103 conflicts in the time frame met the criteria ( pg. 323 para. 6)
- 38 of these conflicts led to negotiated settlements. These are the data set. (pg. 323 para. 7)
- Dependent Variable
- Months of peace following settlement (until Dec. 31, 1999) (pg. 324 para.4)
- Independent variables (pg. 324 para. 6)
- Power sharing (1-4)
- Political, territorial, economic, military
- Power sharing institutions (pg.325)
- Former regime type (pg. 325)
- Conflict issue (pg. 325)
- Conflict intensity (pg. 325)
- Third party enforcer (pg. 325)
- International system structure (pg. 325)
- Results
- 2 factors significantly reduce the risk of returning to war:
- Inclusion of higher numbers of power-sharing provisions
- Presence of a third-party enforcer (pg. 327 para. 6)
- Some variables were not significant statistically. (pg. 330 Para.3)
- Conclusion
- Importance of taking security concerns in the settlements (pg. 330 para. 4)
- Parties should agree to multifaceted power sharing (Pg 330 para 5)
- International community can play key role (pg. 330 para. 6)
- The paper is about the importance of power-sharing in lasting peace efforts among warring civil war factions.
- The method is a quantitative analysis of available data relating to the subject.
- The framework is 38 cases of Civil war between 1945 and 1998 that meet the COW standards.
- Questions are:
The more extensive the power-sharing, the longer-lasting the peace. (pg 321 para.6)\
Peace negotiated by people with more experience with the democratic process is longer lasting that that negotiated by those from authoritarian regimes. (pg. 322 para.2)
The longer the war, the more likely a peace agreement will come (pg 322 para. 3)
Higher casualties equate to less likelihood of peace. (pg. 322 para 4)
Settlements that call for 3rd party enforcement are more durable than those that do not. (pg 322 para. 5)
Post cold-war treaties are more durable than those negotiated during the cold war (pg. 322 para. 6)
Settlements of conflict that are political or economic based are longer lasting than those that are identity-based. (pg. 323 para. 2)
Settlements are most prone to fail in months following negotiation, and the more time that has passed, the more likely they are to succeed. (pg. 323 para 4)
Are these predictions true?
5. The main findings were that 2 factors significantly reduce the risk of returning to war:
- Inclusion of higher numbers of power-sharing provisions
- Presence of a third-party enforcer (pg. 327 para. 6)
6. Interesting findings
A. cold war negotiated peace is less likely to last than post-cold war
B. Racial differences are a major obstacle in negotiations
C. International enforcement is key to long- term success
D. The more power-sharing types, the better the treaty
7. Power sharing is key to last peace in Civil Wars.
8. That international involvement is beneficial to the peace process.
