Sustaining the Peace: Determinants of Civil War Recurrence

Peace building after Civil War: A Critical Survey of the Literature and Avenues for Future Research

“…Licklider (1995) finds that government victories are more likely to be followed by genocide, while Toft (2010) finds that military victories by rebel groups produce more durable peace than a government victory. With the rebel victory, the military organisation of the incumbent regime crumbles, and the elites of the incumbent government either go into exile or are captured and killed (Quinn et al, 2007). Rebel victory usually leads to a new beginning in the political landscape of the country and a complete overhaul of the state's institutions and the redistribution of the state's resources to civilian supporters.…”

“…That is, societies that have experienced one civil war are more likely to experience a second or third war than are societies with no prior history of war Walter, 2004;Quinn, Mason and Gurses, 2007;Call, 2008;Collier, Hoeffler and Soderbom, 2008;Hegre et al, 2011). Yet, despite the 'virus' of post-conflict relapse, a systematic analysis of the literature and empirical evidence show that there is a remarkable variation in the fates of states following civil war.…”

Building the Rule of War: Postconflict Institutions and the Micro-Dynamics of Conflict in Eastern DR Congo

“…Building a robust rule of law in the aftermath of conflict has been linked to the reduced 14 Benson and Kugler 1998;Quinn, Mason, and Gurses 2007. 15 Hoddie and Hartzell 2003;Hoddie and Hartzell 2010;Stedman 2002;Walter 1999.…”

Struggling for Stability: International Support for Peace and Democracy in Post-Civil War Nepal

“…Charles Call's 11 The literature on peace processes, on the one hand, finds that the peace process tends to be more stable if one party secures a clear victory. Conversely, a military stalemate resulting in a negotiated settlement might lead to renewed conflict as it raises the conflicting parties' uncertainties and lowers their willingness to commit themselves to peace (Toft 2009;Quinn / Mason / Gurses 2007). On the other hand, a negotiated settlement would appear to be conducive to democratisation, as it facilitates the selection of democracy as an institutional response to civil war.…”

“…According to theory, successful power-sharing agreements between conflict parties contribute to stability by creating credible, stable and mutually beneficial structures. Consequently, power-sharing agreements raise the cost of going back to war, because the actors have an interest in supporting the established system rather than destabilising it by returning to war (Quinn / Mason / Gurses 2007;Hartzell / Hoddie 2003a;Hartzell / Hoddie 2003b;Hartzell / Hoddie / Rothchild 2001). These power-sharing agreements can have adverse effects on the consolidation of democracy, however.…”