This article analyzes the success factors for external engagement aimed at fostering peace in conflict-affected states. It focuses on a set of three factors that have been under-researched so far: the strategic prioritization between stability and democracy, the degree of coordination, and the mode of interaction. We compare international engagement in six countries—Burundi, Kenya, Kyrgyzstan, Nepal, Senegal, and Timor-Leste. These countries all struggled with violent conflict and experienced a democratic transition in the period 2000–2014. We use an innovative approach to assess the impact of external engagement by analyzing twenty critical junctures in the domestic political processes of these countries mainly linked to elections, constitution-writing processes, and peace agreements, as well as disarmament, demobilization, and reintegration. Based on over 300 interviews, we find that prioritizing stability over democratization is problematic, good international coordination has positive effects, and preferring cooperative forms of interaction over coercion is mostly but not always useful. In discussing these general features of international support, this article contributes to the broader discussion of factors that explain the impact external actors can have on transformative political processes after conflict.

Die deutsche Nationalbibliothek verzeichnet diese Publikation in der Deutschen Nationalbibliografie; detaillierte bibliografische Daten sind im Internet über http://dnb.d-nb.de abrufbar.

This article shows that the international community can have a decisive impact on peace and democracy in a country, based on a paired comparison of Kenya and Kyrgyzstan. Both countries have experienced similar political trajectories, amongst them a struggle to consolidate peace and democracy after outbreaks of major interethnic violence, but show varying degrees of international influence on these processes. Analyzing several critical junctures in the two countries’ peace and democratization process through over 80 interviews reveals that although crucial international impact is rare, it is possible if donors jointly pursue a political agenda that connects to a home-grown process.

This article provides new evidence on how the international community can effectively foster peace after civil war. It expands the current literature's narrow focus on either peacekeeping or aggregated aid flows, adopting a comprehensive, yet disaggregated, view on international peacebuilding efforts. We distinguish five areas of peacebuilding support (peacekeeping, nonmilitary security support, support for politics and governance, for socioeconomic development, and for societal conflict transformation) and analyze which types or combinations are particularly effective and in which context. Applying configurational analysis (qualitative comparative analysis) to all thirty-six post-civil war peace episodes between 1990 and 2014, we find that (1) peacekeeping is only one important component of effective post-conflict support, (2) the largest share of peaceful cases can be explained by support for politics and governance, (3) only combined international efforts across all types of support can address difficult contexts, and (4) countries neglected by the international community are highly prone to experiencing conflict recurrence. Three case studies shed light on underlying causal mechanisms.

How does armed conflict affect the social fabric of societies? This question is central if we want to understand better why some countries experience repeated cycles of violence. In recent years, considerable scientific work has been put into studying the social legacies of armed conflict. This article brings these academic studies together in a novel way, taking a holistic perspective and analyzing each of the three constituent elements of social cohesion—trust, cooperation, and identity—in detail and along both a vertical (state–society relations) and a horizontal (interpersonal and intergroup relations) dimension. Bringing together insights from fifty empirical studies, I call into question the initial optimism expressed by some scholars that conflict increases social cohesion. Only political participation seems to often be positively affected by experiencing conflict. In contrast, social and political trust as well as identification and cooperation across groups declines. However, research in several of these sub-elements of social cohesion is still nascent so that the strengths and shortcomings of the different studies are discussed and future avenues for research are identified.