Since the end of the Cold War, when the number of peacekeeping and peacebuilding interventions considerably increased, the debate about their ethics raised as an important aspect regarding both its ends and its means. Literature was roughly divided between those who advocated for an approach centred on global actors, liberal peace, and cosmopolitanism and those who stood for the role of local actors and indigenous solutions for the problems in question. In this regard, the relationship that the International Community usually held with warring parties in civil conflict came to the fore. This essay looks forward to providing insights about the role that warlords can play in facilitating and hindering internationally-led peace process. Using Burundi and Somalia as case-studies, it is argued that warlords can only commit to liberal and cosmopolitan ethics after the state institutions have been built and solidified. Key words: Civil War. Intervention. State-building. Post-conflict reconstruction.Much have been said about the ethics of intervention, mainly of armed intervention, in intrastate conflicts around the world. Specially after the end of the Cold War, when such type of warfare became much more recurrent, the International Community (mainly through the United Nations) intervened several times in domestic conflicts in order to cease the violence and to assist the war-torn states' reconstruction.Since then, the debate was mostly limited and restrained to the question of whether thirdparty armed intervention was a good approach in pursuing such goal. On one hand, the moral necessity of intervening and protecting "populations from genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing and crimes against humanity", which came to be famous under the label Responsibility to Protect. On the other hand, a "do no harm" approach which advocates that third-party international armed intervention cannot cause more damages to a state under intervention, which became known as Responsibility while Protecting. Many authors and policymakers engaged in such debate (Evans, 2008;McDougall, 2014).However, similarly important and sensitive questions apparently remained largely unaddressed and, consequently, unanswered and are related mainly to the actors which will engage in both peace-making and state-building processes. This is a critical issue provided that the responsibility of reconstructing state institutions and their future maintenance will lie on domestic actors, no matter how profound an intervention can be http://dx