Hurdles to peace: a level-of-analysis approach to resolving Sudan’s civil wars

International Studies Quarterly

Tamm

2021

Self Cite

Global datasets on interstate armed conflict suggest that African states clash with each other rarely and only for short periods. This research note shows that existing datasets paint a misleading picture. In fact, African states fight each other more often and for longer than is commonly thought, but they do so by mutually intervening in each other's intrastate conflicts. Instead of relying solely on their own armed forces, they support their rival's armed opposition groups. Such mutual interventions—most prevalent in Africa but also evident in other regions—thus span the boundaries of interstate and intrastate conflict. As a result, they have been largely overlooked by conflict scholars. Our note conceptualizes mutual intervention as a distinct form of interstate conflict, comparing and contrasting it with concepts like proxy war, competitive intervention, and international rivalry. The note then presents the first systematic survey of mutual interventions across the African continent. We identify twenty-three cases between 1960 and 2010 and demonstrate that they typically ended independently of their associated intrastate conflicts. We conclude with a research agenda that involves studying the onset, duration, termination, and consequences of mutual interventions, including collecting data on mutual interventions outside Africa to explore cross-regional differences.

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Mutual Interventions in Africa

International Studies Quarterly

Tamm

2021

Self Cite

“…First, previous research has found that the conflict in Darfur is difficult to resolve because many different stakeholders operate at different levels, including local, national, regional and international levels. The many interlinkages between these different levels add to the intractable nature of the Darfur conflict (Brosché & Duursma, 2017). One fruitful avenue for future research would be to examine how the connections of local conflict parties influence their propensity to make peace or not (Duursma, 2019).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Making disorder more manageable: The short-term effectiveness of local mediation in Darfur

Journal of Peace Research

2020

Self Cite

Much of the quantitative conflict resolution literature focuses on mediation between states or on efforts to end a civil war through a comprehensive peace agreement that brings peace to the entire country. This article instead analyses the effectiveness of mediation between a wide range of armed actors on a subnational level. Utilizing unique data on Darfur covering the January 2008–August 2009 period, this article finds that mediation efforts following armed clashes in a given area significantly prolong local lulls in fighting in this area. This finding remains robust when controlling for the presence of a peacekeeping base, battle-deaths and the type of armed actors engaged in armed clashes. In addition, the finding remains robust when accounting for the non-random assignment of mediation efforts through matching similar observations in the dataset. Finally, anecdotal evidence from sites of armed conflict beyond Darfur suggest that the findings from this study might also hold in other armed conflicts.

“…Non-state conflicts are often tied to individuals in the capital or other major urban centers with interests in these conflicts. These actors from urban centers often instrumentalize non-state conflicts in the periphery to further their own interests (Brosché and Duursma 2018; Duursma 2021b; De Waal 2015; Stearns et al 2017). One central challenge to resolving non-state conflicts is therefore ensuring that these external actors do not undermine the peace process.…”

Section: The Argumentmentioning

confidence: 99%

Peacekeeping, Mediation, and the Conclusion of Local Ceasefires in Non-State Conflicts

Journal of Conflict Resolution

2022

Self Cite

This article theorizes on how military and civilian components of peacekeeping operations contribute to the conclusion of local ceasefires in non-state conflicts involving armed opposition groups or communal groups. A mediation-based logic suggests that civilian peacekeeping staff can provide technical support aimed at resolving the conflict issues and engage with state officials to promote peace. A capabilities-based logic suggest that military peacekeepers can provide security during the negotiations, arrange logistics, and put military pressure on the conflict parties, which all should make the conclusion of a ceasefire more likely. The analysis supports both the capabilities-based and the mediation-based logic. An instrumental variable estimation helps to account for endogeneity. This article contributes to the literature on peacekeeping, mediation, and ceasefires through shifting the focus to non-state conflicts.