No abstract

The objective of this essay is to address the following two puzzles. First, what best accounts for the transition from war to peace in different regions at different times? Second, what is the best explanation for variations in the level of regional peace that exists in different regions in a particular time period? Consider the differences that exist today in the Middle Eastern, South American, and Western European regions. A theoretical framework is proposed that is intended to integrate the regional and international perspectives on regional peace. It establishes linkages between different mechanisms that can lead to regional peace and the emergence of different levels of peace as well as presents three potential theoretical pathways to peace. An argument is made that the underlying cause of regional war propensity is the extent of the state‐to‐nation imbalance in a region. Accordingly, different peacemaking strategies produce different levels of peace based on their treatment of the state‐to‐nation problem. A distinction is made between the effects of different approaches to peacemaking and the conditions for their success. In effect, peacemaking strategies bring about the transition from war to peace only if certain conditions exist in the region. The advantages and disadvantages of the three mechanisms are illustrated through three case studies, each exemplifying a specific strategy and level of peace that have resulted from the presence of certain conditions in the region: the Middle East (a transition to cold peace in the 1990s), South America (the evolution of normal peace across the twentieth century), and Western Europe (the emergence of warm peace since the 1950s).

This article examines the global sources of regional transitions from war to peace in two types of region: unstable (war-prone) and stable (not war-prone). I argue that the sources of regional hot wars are regional and domestic rather than global. Similarly, the possibility of reaching a high-level `warm peace' (i.e. conflict resolution) depends on regional and domestic forces. Accordingly, there is only limited influence of competing great powers on stable regions which are not war-prone. Yet, global factors can make a difference with regard to unstable war-prone regions depending on the type of great-power engagement. The great powers can bring about a lower level of `cold peace' through conflict reduction if the great-power intervention in war-prone regions is hegemonic or cooperative. If, however, the type of great-power regional engagement is competitive, then the great powers play a permissive or even aggravating role with respect to the local violence in such regions. At the same time, great-power competition can bring about regional-war termination, which, in the absence of effective conflict resolution or peacemaking, leads to a regional cold war. Great-power hegemony or concert can also increase the likelihood of a transition to warm peace in stable regions, especially if they are populated by young democracies. The article applies the thesis to regional-war termination by the superpowers in the Middle East during the Cold War era. I also discuss the effects of US hegemony on the emergence of cold peace in the Middle East. The pacifying effects of great-power concert and hegemony were also shown in another war-prone region - the Balkans during the 19th and 20th centuries. Finally, both the contribution of international factors to regional peace, and the limitations of this contribution, can be seen in the post-World War II transition of Western Europe to warm peace.

No abstract

The objective of this study is to examine the utility of three major mechanisms for regional conflict resolution. Two of the mechanisms are regional: enhancing regional legitimacy and liberalization. The third strategy is international: a concert of great powers or a stabilizing hegemon. The three strategies are deduced from the international-regional debate on the sources of regional war and peace, and also from the regional debate on democratization versus strengthening the state as the preferred strategy for generating regional peace and security. I will propose a solution to these debates by differentiating among three levels of regional peace, and relating each of the three strategies to a specific level of peace that it is expected to bring about. The pacifying value, as well as the disadvantages of the three mechanisms for regional peace, will be investigated by comparative illustrations from three regions: the Middle East, South America and Western Europe. The proposed theoretical framework will integrate the regional and international perspectives on regional peace by establishing causal linkages between different mechanisms for regional peace and the emergence of different levels of peace. I will argue that the international strategy can bring about only a relatively low level of peace (cold peace). However, cold peace can be conducive to the growing effectiveness of the regional strategies, starting from the regional legitimacy/state strength strategy resulting in normal peace. Normal peace, in turn, is conducive to liberalization and, as a result, to the emergence of the highest degree of peace-warm peace. The framework will provide an analytical tool for evaluating the current and future (short-term and long-term) progress in the Middle East peace process in comparison with past peace processes in South America and Western Europe.