Where, when, and how does the UN work to prevent civil war in self-determination disputes?

Abstract

The UN has placed rhetorical emphasis on the prevention of armed conflict before it starts and has taken selective action toward that end. What determines where the UN gets involved? We examine UN preventive actions by focusing on UN Security Council (UNSC) resolutions in self-determination (SD) disputes. We argue that UN decisionmakers consider at least three factors when deciding where to target preventive action: the dispute’s conflict history, the potential for regional contagion, and the characteristics of the dispute. We further argue that the political dynamics of UNSC decisionmaking constrain the UN’s ability to pay attention to the third factor (the characteristics of the dispute). We test this argument using data on all UNSC resolutions comprising the authorization of diplomatic engagement, condemnation, the authorization of sanctions, and the deployment of force targeted toward SD disputes from 1960 to 2005. We find that the UN is much more likely to act in nonviolent disputes that have a history of violence and in disputes with a potential for regional contagion. The analysis shows that, while political barriers likely restrict the ability for the UNSC to act when dispute-level characteristics suggest armed conflict is more likely, the UN does act proactively to prevent violence, rather than just reactively responding to existing violence.

United Nations peace initiatives 1946-2015: introducing a new dataset

“…The UNPI data capture preventative political initiatives that intersect with mediation, but also provide information on standing bodies that facilitate dialogue outside periods of official negotiation (e.g., the UN Office in Burundi, Panel of Experts on Yemen, Security Council Committee concerning Cyprus). The UNPI thus facilitates research that speaks to debates regarding the capacity of the UN to undertake effective conflict prevention (Beardsley, Cunningham, and White 2017;White, Cunningham, and Beardsley 2018).…”

“…However, these studies still disregard the broader range of other UN actions as well as the timing of initiatives. Using Security Council resolutions, Beardsley & Schmidt (2012) (see also, White, Cunningham, and Beardsley 2018) examine the specific timing of UN interventions. UNPI also relies on Security Council resolutions as the source for part of its data, but the unit of analysis of the UNPI data set is a mission or committee rather than specific mandates.…”

Female rebels and United Nations peacekeeping deployments

“…The first group of studies argues that an armed conflict is more likely to receive attention in the Security Council and a UN mission if it was active for a long time, saw extreme violence, or resulted in substantial loss of life among combatants and civilians (Beardsley and Schmidt, 2012; Benson and Gizelis, 2020; Binder and Golub, 2020; Braithwaite and Ruiz, 2018; Frederking and Patane, 2017; Gilligan and Stedman, 2003; Hultman, 2013; Hultman and Johansson, 2017; Melander, 2009). At the same time, a UN intervention is found to be more likely in cases which did not end in a clear victory (Fortna, 2004), involve many different factions (Beardsley and Schmidt, 2012), or have a history of previous violent conflict (White et al, 2018). In summary, these studies argue that UN missions get deployed to conflicts that are violent, enduring, and hard to solve; that is, the “difficult cases.”…”

Everyday peace capture: Nationalism and the dynamics of peace after violent conflict

“…Ethnic conflicts and secessionist disputes are the most violent forms of conflict because they mobilise identity‐based cleavages, which tend to be much stronger than other types of internal conflicts (Fearon & Laitin, ; Kaufman, ; Wimmer, ). For this reason, ethnic conflicts are also the main type of conflict which attracts international intervention (see White, Cunningham, & Beardsley, ). Violent ethnic conflicts are both a product of mobilisation of ethno‐nationalist sediments but also a generator of new modes of nationalism and ethnic polarisation, which tend to play a negative role in the transition for war to peace and democracy.…”