Explaining Third‐Party Intervention in Ethnic Conflict: Theory and Evidence

Abstract

Abstract. One of the most challenging developments for students of international relations is the resurgence of ethnic strife, including secessionism and irredentism. Basic questions are only beginning to be addressed in the post‐Cold War era. Why are some states more likely than others to intervene in ethnic conflicts? How can international norms about third‐party intervention in ethnic conflicts be evaded or ignored by some states but respected by others? Why are some states inclined to use force rather than mediation to resolve ethnic strife? In short, what accounts for the emergence of adventurous and belligerent foreign policies with respect to internal ethnic conflicts? These questions are of increasing importance to students of international politics, yet the dynamics and internationalisation of ethnic conflict are far from fully understood. This study focuses on the dynamics of third‐party intervention in ethnic strife and implications for peaceful resolution. The first section presents a model that identifies the general conditions under which ethnic strife is most likely to lead to intervention by third‐party states. The second uses four cases to illustrate, within the context of the model, different processes with respect to internationalisation of ethnic conflict. The third and final stage identifies implications for policy and theory, along with directions for future research.

Victims or Aggressors? Ethno-Political Rebellion and Use of Force in Militarized Interstate Disputes

“…Third‐party intervention is generally explained in terms of either instrumental (Heraclides, 1990, 1991; Suhrke and Noble, 1977) or affective motivations (Saideman, 2001; Van Evera, 1997), or some combination of the two (Cooper and Berdal, 1993; Carment and James, 2000). It is important to note here that understanding the specific motivation behind any given intervention is not especially important for the purposes of this study given that both instrumental and affective motivations may result in interventions that ultimately lead to interstate conflict.…”

“…Under such scenarios aggressive outside states try to exploit another's internal turmoil by launching military interventions against the weakened target to advance their own interests (Brown, 1996). Opportunistic interventions can be triggered by a host of instrumental motivations, such as the pursuit of strategic interests (Ayres and Saideman, 2000a; Khosla, 1999), the desire to satisfy long‐standing territorial ambitions (Carment and James, 1995, 2000), or to achieve short‐term military advantage (Heraclides, 1991).…”

“…Links between domestic ethnic conflict and interstate conflict have been suggested by empirical studies of the externalization of domestic conflict (Gelpi, 1997), third‐party intervention in nationalist and ethnic conflict (Ayres and Saideman, 2000a; Carment and James, 1995, 2000; Khosla, 1999), studies of international influences on irredentism (Saideman and Ayres, 2000), secessionism (Saideman, 1997, 1998), and separatism (Ayres and Saideman, 2000b). Similar contributions have been made by theoretical discussions of the international relations of ethnic conflict (Brown, 1993, 1996; Carment and James, 1997a; Heraclides, 1991; Lake and Rothchild, 1998; Suhrke and Noble, 1977; Van Evera, 1997), and by collections of case studies (Brown, 1996; Brown et al, 1997).…”

State Failure and the Clash of Civilisations: An Examination of the Magnitude and Extent of Domestic Civilisational Conflict from 1950 to 1996

“…Perhaps due to this as well as the increase in global communications, the more intense media coverage of such conflicts, and international economic interdependence, more international attention has been given to these conflicts. Second, and perhaps more importantly, the end of the Cold War has also changed the international power structure in a way that allows for international intervention in such conflicts to occur more often, and humanitarian intervention has become more accepted in the international community (Cooper and Berdal 1993;Carment and James 2000;Carment and Rowlands 1998). Third, severe state failures such as those in Congo-Kinshasa, the former Yugoslavia, Rwanda, and Burundi have often crossed borders to destabilise entire regions.…”

Der Kosovo-Krieg und die Rolle der Vereinigten Staaten

“…Außerdem enthält der Aufsatz auch Material fir eine neue analytische Annähe-rung an Nationalismus und ethnische Konflikte, aber auch für die Erklärung der Internationalisierung eines internen Konfliktes aufgrund der Intervention Dritter (bzw. deren Ausbleiben)(Carment/James 2000).Ichdiskutiere zuerst einige allgemeine Charakteristika dieses Krieges sowie sein Verhältnis zu Moderne und Modernisierung, beschränke mich aber auf knappe Informationen zum Hintergrund des Krieges selbst, da ich davon ausgehe, dass die Leser dank der Medien über einen hinreichenden Kenntnisstand verfügen. Im Anschluss daran werde ich versuchen, einen erweiterten Analyserahmen für den Krieg zu entwickeln, innerhalb dessen die bereits erwähnten unklaren und mehrdeutigen Zusammenhänge der Vorgän-ge erkennbar werden.…”