dynamics of post conflict peace u s theoretic m a … · 2015-11-10 · camps, thereby bridging...

Julia Leib

D Y N A M I C S O F P O S T -C O N F L I C T P E A C E : USING SET-THEORETIC METHODS TO ANALYZE THE

MECHANISMS UNDERLYING PEACEBUILDING AFTER CIVIL WAR

Paper prepared for the 56th Annual Convention of the International Studies Association, February 18th – 21st, New Orleans, Louisiana

Junior Scholar Symposium Group 'Stability And Peace In Post-Conflict Environments'

(First draft – thank you for not quoting without my permission)

ABSTRACT What shapes peace and how can peace be successfully built in those countries affected by civil war? To answer the question, this paper focuses on a theoretical and conceptual investigation of the relevant factors for successful post-civil war peacebuilding. The field of civil war research is characterized by case studies, comparative analyses and quantitative research projects, which relate relatively little to each other. Furthermore, the complex dynamics of peacebuilding have hardly been investigated so far. Thus, the question remains of how best to enhance the prospects of a stable peace in post-conflict societies. Therefore, it is necessary to capture the dynamics of post-conflict peace. This paper aims at helping to narrow these research gaps by 1) outlining remote conflict environment factors that have an indirect effect on the durability of peace; 2) identifying proximate peacebuilding factors that directly influence the peace process and 3) proposing a set-theoretic research approach in order to identify the causal structures and mechanisms underlying the complex realm of peacebuilding. By implementing this transparent and systematic comparative approach, it will be possible to capture the dynamics of post-conflict peace. Keywords: civil war, peace, peacebuilding, set-theoretic methods

Goethe University Frankfurt Department of Political Science Theodor-W.-Adorno-Platz 6 60629 Frankfurt/Main Phone: +49 (0)69-798-36699 Germany e-mail: [email protected]

ISA Annual Convention 2015 | Julia Leib: Dynamics of Post-Conflict Peace

1

INTRODUCTION: NEW PATHS FOR PEACE RESEARCH

What shapes peace and how can peace be successfully built in those countries affected by internal

war or conflict? For a long time international peace and conflict research focused mainly on

interstate wars, but since the mid-nineties there has been a massive increase of publications on the

causes and consequences of intrastate or rather civil wars. This development was preceded by a

change in international warfare (Chojnacki 2006): Since 1945, more than two-thirds of all wars are

fought internally (Sarkees and Wayman 2010; Themnér and Wallensteen 2014), whereas the number

of civil wars has particularly risen after the end of the Cold War (Fearon and Laitin 2003).

The peace following the settlement of a civil war or conflict is in most cases extremely fragile.

In about half of all post-conflict states, the violence breaks out again after only a brief period of

peace and the states are hit by the frequently described conflict trap (Collier et al. 2003: 83). The

fundament for successful peacebuilding after civil wars and thus the way out of the conflict trap has

to be established in the de-escalation phase after civil wars – but it is precisely at this point, that the

efforts of state and civil society actors often fail. Successful peacebuilding after civil wars and the

therewith-associated way out of the conflict trap are thus central themes of peace and conflict

research (Bigombe et al. 2000: 346).

The knowledge of the conditions for successful peacebuilding is limited, which is especially

surprising in light of the enormous political importance of this issue. So far, there have been

qualitative case studies, which deal with individual factors that favor the resurgence of already ended

internal conflicts or make it less likely – but, however, without providing a complete description of

the phenomenon. In contrast, quantitative studies can indeed provide a more comprehensive

overview of the impact various factors can have on a number of observable cases, but they also

mostly only relate to individual factors such as those leading to the outbreak of civil wars.

Unfortunately, those two methodological camps of civil war research relate relatively little to each

other. Due to their innate understanding of causality, set-theoretic methods like Qualitative

Comparative Analysis (QCA) seem to be a suitable approach for combining the strengths of both

camps, thereby bridging this methodological gap. To close this theoretical and empirical research

gap, this paper therefore addresses the research question of which remote and proximate conditions

are necessary and sufficient for successful post-conflict peacebuilding.

The complex interaction of individual factors during the peacebuilding process calls for a

transparent, systematic comparative and set-theoretic research approach, which, until today, has not

been taken into account by peace and conflict research. This paper thus aims to enter uncharted

scientific territory, since, for the first time, the interaction of individual factors will be investigated in


2

the complex field of peacebuilding. Thereby it will become possible to create a comprehensive

picture of the underlying causal mechanisms of this phenomenon.

This paper is divided into three main parts: After looking at current theoretical and

methodological debates within civil war research, I will present QCA as a promising alternative

methodological approach for peace and conflict research in general. The possibilities for

implementing a QCA-based research design within the field of civil war research are illustrated in the

main chapter of this paper by means of a research design aiming to analyse the remote and

proximate conditions of successful post-conflict peacebuilding. The paper concludes with a final

summary of the discussion.

THEORETICAL AND METHODOLOGICAL DEBATES IN CIVIL WAR RESEARCH

The field of civil war research has evolved significantly in recent decades in terms of theoretical

approaches, methodological techniques, and empirical research (Newman and DeRouen 2014).

Unfortunately, this diversity is characterized by case studies, comparative analyses and quantitative

research projects, which relate relatively little to each other (Schlichte 2002: 130). In addition, ‘the

findings of these approaches often contradict each other, or are contradicted by subsequent research’

(Newman and DeRouen 2014: 4). The following short discussion can therefore only trace some

strands of research, introducing those studies most dominant within scientific discourse. Detailed

literature reviews on the causes of civil war are, amongst others, provided by Dixon (2009),

Hasenclever (2002) and Schlichte (2002). For an overview of the literature on war termination see

Stedman (2002), Hartzell et al. (2001) or Gromes (2012).

Most of these studies deal with the outbreak of civil wars (Collier and Hoeffler 2004; Fearon

and Laitin 2003), the duration of civil wars (Buhaug et al. 2009), or their termination (Probst 2011).

The post-conflict phase after civil wars and the therewith-associated influence of certain factors on

the peacebuilding process has only come to the centre of attention in recent years.1 By now, as a

result, an abundance of different theoretical approaches exists with regard to civil wars. Those

approaches mostly consider the influence of a particular factor on the onset or the duration of civil

war or the following peacebuilding process.2 In order to point out some problems that current

methods are facing when dealing with civil wars and peacebuilding, the research approaches will be

classified by means of the applied methods (quantitative or qualitative) and three chronological stages

of civil war or conflict (onset, termination, peacebuilding), resulting in the following six field matrix.

1 This area of research includes, amongst others, the studies of Fortna (2004), Hampson (1996), Rustad/Binningsbø (2012) and Walter (2002). 2 The current state of civil war research is summarized by Blattmann/Miguel 2010 and Collier/Hoeffler 2007.


3

Figure 1: Overview of different research approaches in civil war studies with examples

Studies on civil war onset Studies on civil war

termination Studies on peacebuilding

quantitative approaches

(1) Examples:

Collier and Hoeffler 2004; Dixon 2009; Fearon and Laitin 2003; Henderson 2000; Themnér and Wallensteen 2014

(2) Examples:

Fearon 2004; Podszun 2011; Probst 2011; Toft 2010; Wallensteen 2012

(3) Examples:

Doyle and Sambanis 2006; Fortna 2008; Hartzell et al. 2001; Walter 2002; Rustad and Binningsbø 2012

qualitative approaches

(4) Examples:

Anderson 1999; Daase 1999; Kaufmann 1996; Ross 2004; Schlichte 1996

(5) Examples:

Probst 2011; Podszun 2011; Ross 2004

(6) Examples:

Doyle 1986; Hampson 1996; Paris 2004; Stedman 1997; Zartman 1985

studies analyzing mainly conflict environment factors

studies analyzing mainly peacebuilding factors

Source: Author

(1) The research on civil war onset is dominated by the two major quantitative projects – the

Correlates of War (COW) and the UCDP/PRIO Armed Conflict Dataset (Sarkees and Wayman

2010; Themnér and Wallensteen 2014), which are used as a reference point for many studies. The

early 2000s were characterized by a shift towards large econometric studies, which dealt mainly with

the outbreak of intrastate wars and conflicts. The most significant examples include the studies by

Paul Collier and Anke Hoeffler (2001; 2004), which initiated the greed and grievance debate, as well

as the research of James D. Fearon and David D. Laitin (2003), analyzing the connection of

ethnicity, insurgency and civil wars. The strength of statistical analyses lies within the reproduction of

comprehensive trends and the verification of the scope of assumptions on general relationships

(Schlichte 2002: 130). Comparably, however, those studies have provided few robust results.3

(2), (5) Some studies on the termination of civil wars apply a multi-method design by

combining statistical analyses with case studies (Podszun 2011; Probst 2001). Monica Toft (2010)

provides a reassessment of the complete spectrum of civil war terminations and demonstrates that

thorough security-sector reforms play a crucial role for the establishment of peace. James D. Fearon

(2004) identifies five classes of civil wars that end either quicker or more slowly than most others.

(3) The debate on peacekeeping and peacebuilding is also very connected to civil wars

studies. 4 Barbara F. Walter (2002) and Virginia Page Fortna (2008) use quantitative methods in order

to analyze the influence of different factors during peacebuilding and arrive at the conclusion that

both the involvements of third neutral parties as well as the deployment of peacekeeping missions do

3 The problems of econometric studies are well-known: their main results are extremely sensitive to coding and measurement techniques; they entail a considerable distance between theoretic constructs and their indicators as well as several empirically equivalent paths; they suffer from endogeneity; they either lack clear micro-foundations or they are deficient; and finally, they are subject to tight and theoretically non-consolidated frameworks (Kalyvas 2008: 397). 4 For the current state of research on peacekeeping see Fortna and Howard (2008).


4

play a crucial role. Michael Doyle and Nicholas Sambanis (2000, 2006) delivered ‘the most serious

quantitative study of international peacebuilding to date’ (Call and Cousens 2008: 5). They use a data

set consisting of civil wars between 1945 and 1999 in order to identify the critical determinants of

peacebuilding success. 5 Making War and Building Peace even caused a general debate on the

effectiveness of peacebuilding interventions after civil wars. The criticism of the study got to such

lengths that it resulted in general scepticism on whether quantitative methods can at all be used

reasonably in this field of research (King and Zeng 2007).

(4) At the beginning of the 1990s, international peace and conflict research was characterized

by the increase of qualitative research on the causes of war, including the studies of Anderson (1999),

Barnett (2002), and Hampson (1996). Klaus Schlichte (1996) developed an explanatory framework

for the onset of war in postcolonial Africa on the basis of comparative case studies. In his work on

‘small wars’, Christopher Daase (1999) points out that today international politics are not altered by

major wars between individual states, but by small wars between states and non-state actors.

(6) The first studies focusing on peacebuilding processes and dealing with the

implementation of peace agreements (Angola, El Salvador, Rwanda) were published in the 1990s, but

tended towards an undifferentiated view of civil wars (Stedman 2002: 3). Fen Osler Hampson’s

(1996) book Nurturing Peace was the first comprehensive study dealing with the question of why some

peace agreements fail while others succeed in the termination of intrastate wars. Subsequent studies

dealt with the influence of individual factors on civil war and conflict: ethnicity (Kaufmann 1996),

natural resources (Ross 2004), development aid (Collier et al. 2003), regime type (Doyle 1986),

regional factors (Henderson 2000), ripeness (Zartman 1985), spoiler (Stedman 1997), peacekeeping

missions (Doyle and Sambanis 2006), transitional justice (Buckley-Zistel 2011), security guarantees

(Walter 1997).

Methodologically, most of the empirical studies on the nature of intrastate armed conflict and

civil war are based upon national units of analysis or cross-national comparison and apply aggregated

concepts such as national GDP, commodity exports or fractionalization indices. This approach

seems convenient, since the units of analysis are quite manageable and one can draw upon a highly

developed range of datasets. ‘However, a focus on aggregated national data and other aggregated

factors can often obscure critically important local patterns and dynamics’ (Newman and DeRouen

2014: 5). As a response, this dominance of aggregated concepts caused a significant increase in

qualitative-oriented studies, which are characterized by a focus on sub-national and local dynamics in

order to generate more detailed knowledge (Simons and Zanker 2012: 6).6 This ‘micro-level’ events

5 They identify three parameters that contribute to peacebuilding success: local capacity, international capacity, and the level of hostility. Those parameters can be depicted as the three dimensions of a triangle, ‘whose area is the “political space” – or effective capacity – for building peace’ (Doyle and Sambanis 2006: 64). 6 Kalyvas (2008: 399) has referred to this new focus on the micro-level of analysis as ‘micro-theoretic turn’.


5

data offers researchers the ability to empirically assess a range of features below the state level

(Clayton 2014: 34). Rather new developments are disaggregated geo-referenced events-level data,

which allow for the analysis of theoretical arguments about dynamics at the local level.7 Focusing on

subnational levels of analysis has several advantages, which will be discussed below.

This short literature review already demonstrates that a comprehensive and qualitative

oriented analysis of the interaction of individual factors with respect to successful peacebuilding after

civil wars is, however, still missing. Based on the presumed complex interaction of individual factors

within the peacebuilding process, it can be assumed that the analysis of successful peacebuilding is

based on equifinal, combined and asymmetric causal relations, thereby indicating the application of a

set-theoretic method like QCA (Schneider and Wagemann 2012: 5-6). Despite some promising

applications in the area of peace and conflict studies (e.g. Bretthauer 2014; Mello 2014; Pinfari 2011),

QCA has not yet become a common method. Therefore, the following chapter presents QCA as an

alternative approach for peace and conflict studies and illustrates the benefits of this comparative

approach.

QCA AS AN ALTERNATIVE APPROACH FOR CIVIL WAR RESEARCH

Like in other areas of the social sciences, a kind of methodological competition between the two

camps of qualitative and quantitative research has also taken roots within peace and conflict research.

According to James Mahoney and Gary Goertz (2006: 227) these two research traditions can even be

understood as different cultures – characterized by different values, beliefs and norms.8 After several

years of debates about the best methodological approach for the social sciences, it is time for an

intensive dialogue across the different ‘cultures’ (Sprinz and Wolinsky-Nahmias 2004: 2).9

Over the last 20 years, the entire field of qualitative methods has consistently experienced a

remarkable degree of development (through the emergence of new methods, such as process tracing,

network analysis, QCA, and multi-method research). In comparison, peace and conflict research has

still some catching up to do, especially since the scope of possible applications and research areas of

the ‘new’ methods has not been determined yet. Despites attempts by various authors to overcome

the already described gap between the two major methodological ‘cultures’ in the social sciences, it

still persists (George and Bennett 2005: 3; Goertz and Mahoney 2012; King et al. 1994: 3-7). These

methodological disputes suggest the demand for functional alternatives that are able to do justice to

7 The developments and advantages of disaggregated geo-referenced data are discussed in Buhaug 2010, Cederman and Gleditsch 2009 and Raleigh and Hegre 2009. 8 For an overview of the debate see Goertz and Mahoney (2012). 9 In this regard, the increasing publications of articles, that are based on multi-method designs and combine the advantages of different methods, represent a first positive signal.


6

both traditions in social sciences (Mochtak 2013: 74). Such an alternative is offered by transparent,

systematic and comparative set-theoretic research approaches that have, until now, been practically

non-existent in peace and conflict studies.10 All set-theoretic methods share at least three common

features:11

Set-theoretic methods are approaches to analysing social reality in which (a) the data consists of set-membership scores; (b) relations between social phenomena are modelled in terms of set-relations; and (c) the results point to sufficient and necessary conditions and emphasise causal complexity in terms of INUS12 and SUIN13 causes (Schneider and Wagemann 2012: 6).

The core ideas of the approach are closely related to the mathematical fields of propositional logic

and Boolean algebra, in which subsets and supersets represent an integral part of calculations

(Mochtak 2013: 74). Even though set-theoretic methods come under different labels, ‘they all

understand the world in terms of configurations of conditions’ (Schneider and Wagemann 2012: 7).14

In addition, set-theoretic reasoning is nothing new for social sciences and many, although partly

implicit, applications can be accounted for. According to James Mahoney (2010: 135), a set-theoretic

reasoning is applied in many comparative case studies in an informal and intuitive manner. Some

authors even go as far as to equate qualitative research with set theory (Goertz and Mahoney 2012).

In general set theory can be used for concept formation (Goertz 2006), for the creation of typologies

(George and Bennett 2005), and for causal analysis (Mahoney 2010).

QCA IN A NUTSHELL

Qualitative Comparative Analysis, or QCA, is perhaps the most formalized set-theoretic method and

distinguishes itself from the other approaches by the combined presence of three features: first,

QCA aims at causal interpretation; second, it uses so-called truth tables, which enable the researcher

to visualize and analyze central features of causal complexity; third, QCA approaches apply the

principle of logical minimization (Schneider and Wagemann 2012: 8-9).15 QCA provides a new way

of data interpretation and data analysis for the social sciences and was explicitly developed by Charles

C. Ragin (1987, 2000, 2008) as a middle way between the two camps of case-oriented (or ‘qualitative’)

and variable-oriented (or ‘quantitative’) social research. Ragin’s ambition is to provide a ‘real 10 The first applications within the broader field of international relations include the work of Chan 2003, Mello 2014, Metelits 2009, Thiem 2011, and van der Maat 2011. 11 For a comprehensive discussion on the characteristics of set-theoretic methods, see Schneider and Wagemann 2012: 3-8. 12 Insufficient, but necessary part of an unnecessary but sufficient condition. 13 Sufficient, but unnecessary part of an insufficient but necessary condition. 14 Set-theoretic methods are sometimes called ‘Boolean methods’ (Caramani 2009), ‘logical methods’ (Mill 1843), or ‘Configurational Comparative Methods’ (Rihoux and Ragin 2009). 15 Logical minimisation refers to a process, ‘by which the empirical information is expressed in a more parsimonious yet logically equivalent manner by looking for commonalities and differences among cases that share the same outcome’ (Schneider and Wagemann 2012: 9).


7

alternative to conventional practices [that] is not a compromise between qualitative and quantitative

[but rather] transcends many of their respective limitations’ (Ragin 2008: 6).

QCA is based on set-theoretic relations and focuses on explicit connections between causal

conditions (Emmenegger 2011: 344). The method is thus applicable to middle-range theories and

statements and it examines the combinations and interactions of various, not necessarily competing,

explanatory factors. However, QCA is not only a technique for data analysis, but also a research

approach (Berg-Schlosser et al. 2009, Rihoux and Ragin 2009, Wagemann and Schneider 2010). As a

research approach, QCA refers to the processes before and after the data analysis – or the back-and-

forth between ideas and evidence (Ragin 1987). QCA as a method – sometimes called the ‘analytic

moment’ (Ragin 2000) – ‘consists of finding (combinations of) conditions that are subsets or

supersets of the outcome and thus to arrive at sufficient and necessary (or INUS or SUIN)

conditions’ (Schneider and Wagemann 2012: 11). In this regard, QCA is also assigned to the case

study methodology of American imprint (Blatter and Haverland 2012; Schneider and Wagemann

2012) and thus increasingly perceived as a qualitative, case-oriented method. It allows for the

systematic comparison of cases by using formal tools and applying a specific conception of cases

(Berg-Schlosser et al. 2009: 6).

QCA combines the key strengths of both qualitative and quantitative approaches and thus

strives to meet two obvious contradicting goals: ‘not only gathering in-depth insight in the different

cases and capturing the complexity of the cases (gaining “intimacy” with the cases) but also

producing some level of parsimony across cases, thereby allowing forms of “modest generalization”’

(Rihoux and Marx 2013: 168). The analytic procedure is similar for all QCA variants16, but contains

some specificities and enrichments for fsQCA and mvQCA.17 In general, the analysis of data in QCA

proceeds in three explicit steps:

One must first produce a data table, in which each case displays a specific combination of conditions (expressed in terms of set membership for all the conditions) and an outcome (also expressed in set membership). The software then produces a truth table that displays the data as a list of configurations. A configuration is a given combination of some conditions and an outcome. A specific configuration may correspond to several observed cases, thereby producing a first step of syntheses of the data. The key following step of the analysis is Boolean minimization – that is, reducing the long Boolean expression, which consists in the long description of the truth table, to the shortest possible expression (the minimal formula, which is the list of the prime implicants) that unveils the regularities in the data. It is then up to the researcher to interpret this minimal formula, possibly in terms of causality (Rihoux and Marx 2013: 169).

As a technique, QCA may be used in at least five different ways (Berg-Schlosser et al. 2009: 15-16).

The most straightforward use is simply to summarize data by producing a truth table. QCA can also be 16 QCA variants include the original and dichotomous crisp-set QCA (csQCA), fuzzy-set QCA (fsQCA), multi-value QCA (mvQCA) and temporal-QCA (tQCA). 17 For a detailed presentation of QCA see textbooks by Rihoux and Ragin (2009), Schneider and Wagemann (2012) and Thiem and Dusa (2012).


8

used to check the coherence within the data in order to find contradictions. Third, it may be used to test

hypotheses or existing theories in order to corroborate or falsify these hypotheses or theories. The fourth

use is the quick test of any conjecture formulated by the researcher without testing a complete theory or

model. Finally, QCA can be used in a more grounded manner for the development of new theoretical

arguments in the form of hypotheses. Compared to other methods, QCA is also especially transparent,

as it demands from the researcher to make choices on his or her own and to justify these choices.

THE VALUE OF QCA FOR PEACE AND CONFLICT RESEARCH

Due to its innate understanding of causality, which is based on equifinality, conjunctural causation

and asymmetric causal relations, QCA provides an appropriate method for peace and conflict

research.18 Based on their underlying complex structures, the central phenomena peace, war and

conflict seem to downright insist on a set-theoretic research design. First of all, it can be assumed

that there are different, mutually non-exclusive explanations and causal paths contributing to the

phenomena (equifinality). Secondly, in complex fields, such as war and peace, individual conditions

can only unfold their effects in combination with others (conjunctural causality). Finally, due to

asymmetric causal relations, the explanation of one phenomenon is based on other causal

mechanisms than the non-explanation. Due to this underlying comprehension of causality, a set-

theoretic research approach appears to be very promising both for testing existing assumptions as

well as enhancing existing theories in the field of peace and conflict research. By means of applying

QCA, complex causal structures, which are characteristic for peace and conflict processes, can be

identified and systematized, which, in turn, contributes to a more realistic and object-corresponding

classification of the conditions of the respective social phenomenon.

The application of QCA thus represents an enrichment for peace and conflict research for

many reasons, since the approach is, in principle, able to combine the best of qualitative and

quantitative research traditions (Berg-Schlosser et al. 2009: 13). 19 By allowing a systematic

comparison between cases, QCA complements the results of case studies. In addition, QCA research

focuses mostly on questions that differ from those that can be answered by statistical research

projects or qualitative case studies. In comparison to other disciplines, most of today’s QCA 18 ‘The assumption of equifinality allows for different, mutually non-exclusive explanations of the same phenomenon. The assumption of conjunctural causality foresees the effect of a single condition unfolding only in combination with other, precisely specified conditions. The assumption of causal asymmetry has several components. It implies that (a) a causal role attributed to a condition always refers to only one of the two qualitative states – presence or absence – in which this condition can potentially be found and (b) any solution term always refers to only one of the two qualitative states – presence or absence – in which an outcome can be found’ (Schneider and Wagemann 2012: 78). 19 In contrast to statistics and traditional case studies, QCA shows some advantages: While statistics can include interaction effects, the number of those that can be considered is very limited. In addition, asymmetric causal relations cannot be accounted for with using quantitative analyses and case studies focus mostly only on the explanation of the outcome instead of also considering the non-outcome (Bretthauer 2014: 9).


9

applications (51%) belong to the field of political science. However, there are so far only a few

publications dealing with questions of peace and conflict, but they leave guess to the great potential

of this approach. The topics covered include, for example, resource scarcity (Bretthauer 2014), war

termination (Chan 2003), the relationships of rebellion and war (Kiser et al. 1993), third party

interventions following the violation of territorial integrity (van der Maat 2011), the participation of

democracies in armed conflicts (Mello 2014), insurgent violence (Metelits 2009), time pressure in

peace negotiations (Pinfari 2011), as well as intergovernmental armaments cooperation in Western

Europe (Thiem 2011).

Already this brief summary suggests the number of possible topics in which QCA may be

applied within peace and conflict research. In order to combine this abstract methodological

argumentation with an illustrative example, the following chapter provides a QCA-based research

design on the dynamics of post-conflict peace.

DYNAMICS OF POST-CONFLICT PEACE: A SET-THEORETIC RESEARCH DESIGN

In order to illustrate how a corresponding set-theoretic research design can look like, this chapter

presents a research project analyzing the conditions of successful peacebuilding after civil wars and

armed conflicts.20 Based on the above mentioned theoretical and methodological deficit within civil

war research, the following research question is formulated: Which remote and proximate conditions are

necessary and sufficient for successful post-conflict peacebuilding? Therefore, successful peacebuilding following

intrastate wars and armed conflicts constitutes the central object of investigation. The considered

timeframe of this study will range from 1990 to 2010 and include all incidents of civil war and armed

conflicts worldwide. Setting the starting point for case selection in 1990 is due to the change in

international warfare after the end of the Cold War (Chojnacki 2006). Closing the case selection in

2010 is necessary in order to allow for a subsequent consideration of the peacebuilding period

spanning five years. Many studies utilize this five-year timeframe as it represents the most critical

stage for successful peacebuilding (Collier et al. 2003).21

In this project, the UCDP/PRIO Armed Conflict Dataset (Themnér and Wallensteen 2014)

serves as the starting point for the compilation of relevant cases.22 In accordance with UCDP coding

logic, the case selection will distinguish between armed conflicts and civil wars. This distinction

20 This partially presented research design is part of the PhD project of the author, which carries the working title ‘Making Peace Last: A Systematic Comparative Case Analysis of Successful Post-Conflict Peacebuilding’. 21 ‘Part of the logic here is that two years seems a too short period to declare success, and ten or more years seems too long to be sure than any new war actually reflects factors associated with a prior peacebuilding effort’ (Call 2008: 177). 22 This dataset is preferable to others, because it is formed on a broader definition of conflict, includes both civil wars and armed conflicts, provides annual revisions and updates, differentiates between incompatibilities concerning government or territory, and includes a growing collection of further data focusing on the correlates of armed conflict.


10

makes it possible to perform different analyses on successful peacebuilding after civil wars and

armed conflicts. By subsequently comparing the results, the differences in the underlying causal

mechanism of these two social phenomena can be displayed. This leads to a better understanding of

the effects of different levels of hostilities and makes it easier to adapt future peacebuilding initiatives

to the respective conflict environment. A case consists of a particular armed conflict between a

government and at least one rebel group, therewith shifting the level of analysis to the subnational

level. This shift seems sensible, since civil wars rarely encompass entire states, and local processes

can have a great impact on conflict and peacebuilding dynamics (Cederman and Gleditsch 2009). In

order to investigate the conflict below the national level, this research project will use disaggregated

data on civil wars whenever possible. The analysis is supposed to include both successful instances of

peacebuilding as well as unsuccessful ones. The objective of this project is to determine the

conditions under which peacebuilding can be successful. The question of which conditions are

responsible for the relapse into civil war goes beyond the research interest and is the objective of

other studies.

HOW TO CONCEPTUALIZE PEACEBUILDING AND ITS SUCCESS?

Prior to theorizing peace and ways of its calibration as the outcome of analysis, we have to define our

notion of the underlying peacebuilding concept. The term peacebuilding first emerged through the

work of Johan Galtung (1975) who promoted systems being able to create sustainable peace and

afterwards came to broader public attention in 1992 with UN Secretary-General Boutros-Ghali’s

Agenda for Peace.23 Over the 1990s, peacebuilding became a familiar concept and was broadly used

almost to the point of incoherence (Call and Cousens 2008: 3). Since then, it has been expanded to

include many different dimensions, making it thereby overlapping with alternative terms used by

international organizations and academic analysis.24

Especially the concept of liberal peacebuilding, most prominently pursued by the UN, has

been a subject of intense debate within the field of International Relations as well as peace and

conflict studies (Paris 2010; Richmond 2006; Richmond and Mac Ginty 2014; Selby 2013). The

critics, such as Oliver Richmond, argue that liberal peacebuilding ‘applies a standardized liberal social

model that is insensitive to local contexts, disempowers local communities and in practice has

23 Drawing on Galtung’s work, Boutros-Ghali initially defined peacebuilding in matters of a conflict continuum ranging from preventive diplomacy to peacemaking and peacekeeping. Within this concept, peacebuilding was associated with the post-conflict phase and defined as ‘action to identify and support structures which will tend to strengthen and solidify peace in order to avoid a relapse into conflict’ (Boutros-Ghali 1992: para. 21). 24 Those overlapping terms and concepts include ‘postconflict recovery’ (UNDP), ‘postconflict reconstruction’ (Worldbank), ‘postconflict recovery’ (IMF), ‘conflict prevention and crisis management’ (European Commission), ‘postconflict recovery and transition assistance’ (USAID), and ‘civilian crisis prevention’ used by the German Federal Foreign Office (see Barnett et al. 2007: 38-41).


11

delivered poor-quality outcomes characterized by superficial democratization, entrenched corruption

and worsening socio-economic inequalities’ (Selby 2013: 58).25 In contrast proponents like Roland

Paris hold that liberal peacebuilding, despite its limitations, still has a moderate success rate in ending

violence and that democratic forms of governance are still best suited to manage violent conflicts.

Furthermore, ‘there seems to be no viable alternative to some version of liberal peacebuilding’ (Paris

2010: 357).26 Due to these debates and the fuzzy boundaries of the concept, no general definition of

peacebuilding is available yet. Since the concept of liberal peace formed the basis of most

peacebuilding initiatives between 1990 and 2010, and due to missing applicable alternatives, this

paper applies a liberal perspective. Hence, this paper adopts a preliminary definition by Charles Call

and Elizabeth Cousens that reflects the current debate. Peacebuilding will be defined as ‘actions

undertaken by international or national actors to institutionalize peace, understood as the absence of

armed conflict (“negative peace”) and a modicum of participatory politics (a component of “positive

peace”) that can be sustained in the absence of an international peace operation (Call and Cousens

2008: 4). Post-conflict peacebuilding represents the subset of such actions undertaken after the

termination of armed violence.

After having defined peacebuilding, the question remains of what accounts for a successful

peacebuilding outcome? Divergent concepts of peacebuilding have led to divergent criteria for its

success. Considering the complete scope of possible measures for defining peacebuilding success,

and following the liberal chain of thought, one can distinguish different standards. One of the most

cited schema for evaluating peacebuilding efforts is the three-fold set of standards proposed by Call

and Cousens (2008: 6; see also Hartzell 2014: 381-382 ).

Figure 2: Spectrum of measures for peacebuilding success

Source: Call and Cousens 2008, compiled by the author

According to this spectrum, Roland Paris (2004) adopts a maximalist standard using the most

ambitious measures when he expects peacebuilding to overcome so-called root causes of conflict. In

contrast, the other end of the scope represents a minimalist and negative standard, which

understands success as the absence of renewed warfare (Collier and Hoeffler 2004). Michael W.

Doyle and Nicholas Sambanis (2006) use a moderate standard in which peacebuilding is assessed by

25 For a critique of liberal peace and peacebuiling see Newman et al. 2009, Pugh at el. 2008, Richmond 2006, 2010. 26 See also Doyle and Sambanis 2000, 2006, Fortna 2008, Paris 2004.

Minimalist standard --------------------------- no renewed warfare

Moderate Standard -----------------------------------

no renewed warfare plus decent governance

Maximalist Standard --------------------------

redressing 'root causes'


12

including both the recurrence of hostilities and the quality of post-war governance. This paper

adopts a moderate standard for the measurement of peacebuilding success, since ‘root causes’ of

conflicts might be difficult to identify and respective measures difficult to construct (Hartzell 2014:

381). Furthermore, for post-conflicts states it is already challenging to achieve some moderate form

of peace.

In order to analyze peacebuilding success, it is absolutely essential to converse the concept

into a set.27 Since, in the social sciences, concepts are often vague and do not allow for clear

boundaries, which would be needed for the special case of the dichotomous crisp set variant

(csQCA), this paper will adopt the fuzzy set variant of QCA (fsQCA). Fuzzy sets are able to allow

for different membership degrees of cases in sets.28 The assignment of fuzzy-set values (calibration)

to the cases included in the analysis as well as to the conditions designates the crucial first step at the

beginning of the fsQCA. For this purpose, a precise definition of the outcome is essential. It is

required to define when a case or condition can be assigned the perfect membership (fuzzy-set value

1), or rather the complete non-membership (fuzzy-set value 0). Furthermore, the fuzzy-set value 0.5

plays an important role, as it marks the threshold between membership and non-membership (Ragin

2000: 157). Between these qualitative anchor points, further degrees of membership can be

distinguished. There are different options for the assignment of fuzzy-set values: it can be based on

theoretical and case knowledge of the researcher or by using other statistical methods (direct or

indirect method of calibration).29

The analysis of successful peacebuilding will be based on civil wars and armed conflicts. The

selected cases are evaluated with regard to the characteristics of their post-conflict peacebuilding

processes. In order to determine the characteristics and different criteria for peacebuilding success, a

pragmatic standard following Call (2008) as well as Call and Cousens (2008) is applied. This standard

is based on the liberal peace argument discussed above. Since most peacebuilding initiatives between

1990 and 2010 were established and undertaken with this concept in mind, the underlying criteria

should also be used to measure the corresponding success or non-success.30 Based on this standard,

the following six value fuzzy-set can be calibrated for the outcome.

27 During the so-called calibration (Ragin 2008: 71), assignment rules for sets are formulated, making it possible to define cases as set elements when certain properties are given. 28 In fsQCA, different levels of membership are distinguished and the fuzzy boundaries are recorded numerically (Ragin 2000: 154; 2008). Thus, both qualitative, theoretically derived differences between individual and quantitative variations of qualitative similar cases can be distinguished. 29 However, for all options it is important that the researcher always sets the qualitative anchor points. An automatic translation of quantitative data into fuzzy-sets is not recommended (see Schneider and Wagemann 2012; Rihoux and Ragin 2009). 30 It is furthermore not advisable to apply a critical perspective for the measurement of peacebuilding success, if the previous approach was not based on a critical peacebuilding concept itself. Additionally, the critique of the liberal peace still lacks a realistic alternative peacebuilding concept.


13

Figure 3: Calibration of fuzzy values for the outcome "successful peacebuilding"

Fuzzy-set value

Description of calibration

1 Peacebuilding is fully successful: stable peace, sustainable state institutions and a modicum of participatory politics

0.8 Peacebuilding is mostly successful: the post-conflict state is capable of carrying out its minimal functions

0.6 Peacebuilding is reasonably successful: legitimate and sovereign post-conflict government, minimal participatory governance (elections)

0.4 Peacebuilding is somewhat successful: absence of low-level violence and some degree of political openness

0.2 Peacebuilding is marginally successful: no recurrence of large-scale violence (negative peace)

0 Peacebuilding is non-successful: signed ceasefire or peace accord, but reversion to armed conflict within five years

Source: Author

CALIBRATING REMOTE AND PROXIMATE PEACEBUILDING CONDITIONS

Within the field of peace and conflict studies, there is yet no answer to the whys and wherefores of

war. Furthermore disputed are the conditions of war termination, the causes of peace, or factors of

successful peacebuilding after violent conflicts (Müller 2003; Matthies 1997; Zielinski 1995).31 As has

already been highlighted above, there exists a multitude of different theoretical approaches, most of

them analyzing the influence of a particular factor on the outbreak or duration of civil wars or rather

the following peacebuilding process.32 Several factors appear to be correlated with peacebuilding,

failed peace processes and/or war recurrence (Call and Cousens 2008: 5). This paper draws on those

approaches, which can exert a positive or negative influence in post-conflict situations and can be

divided into two categories: remote factors of the conflict environment and proximate peacebuilding

factors.33 It thus combines the methodological reasoning of a two-step QCA approach with the

hypotheses formulated by peacebuilding research. It goes without saying that the literature on civil

wars and peacebuilding has identified much more possible factors than can be dealt with in this

project. Therefore, only those factors are considered for analysis, which have been shown to have a

strong influence on the peacebuilding process. The following figure illustrates the selection of the

more remote conflict environment factors and the proximate peacebuilding factors.

31 For an elaboration on the different types and functions of the causes of peace see Müller 2003: 224-226. 32 Those studies that analyse the relationship between different factors and the beginning, duration or termination of civil wars include, amongst others, Bercovitch and Rubin 1992, Collier and Hoeffler 2004, Doyle and Sambanis 2000; 2006, Fearon and Laitin 2003, Kaufmann 1996, Podszun 2011 and Ross 2004. 33 Remoteness and proximity can be defined along various possible dimensions, e.g. in terms of space and time (Schneider and Wagemann 2012: 253).


14

Source: Author

Conflict environment factors

The remote factors of the conflict environment remain relatively stable over time and can also be

described as structural or context factors of the respective conflict (figure 4). In this paper, remote

factors are defined along a temporal dimension and hence have their origin in the pre-peacebuilding

phase. Therefore, they are almost entirely beyond the range of influence of the peacebuilding actors.

Resorting to figure 1 (p. 3), the remote conflict environment factors are derived from the studies on

civil war onset and civil war termination.

Costs of War

According to the rational choice approach, the decision to fight in a war or to negotiate depends on

the relative costs and benefits of a unilateral victory or a negotiated settlement (Wittman 1979;

Mesquita and Lalman 1992; Mason and Fett 1996; Mason et al. 1999). The advocates of this theory

Figure 4: Selection of factors for successful peacebuilding

Successful Peace-‐building

Disarmament, Demobilization, Reintegration

Reconciliation

Capacity of the state

International commitment

Repatriation of refugees

Conflict environment

Natural resources

Costs of war

Ethnicity Type of war end

Peacebuilding process


15

argue that combatants assess their chances of victory in a civil war carefully, plus the time it will take

to achieve this victory, how high the costs will be as well as the relative gains of a victory compared

to an agreement (Walter 2002: 8). There are several reasons why it can be assumed that the costs of

war (number of deaths, duration of the war) have a significant effect on the peacebuilding process.

First, both the respective government and the rebels have a finite amount of resources at their

disposal and are therefore forced to look for alternative solutions to violence, when the war chests

are running short or the available pool of recruits becomes smaller (Mason et al. 2011). Secondly, a

unilateral military victory becomes less attractive the more the costs of war increase (Hartzell et al.

2001; Walter 1997). Thirdly, it is likely that the leaders come under increased domestic pressure to

end the violence, if the suffering of the civilian population increases and the war fatigue sets in.

Therefore, the costs of continuing the war should be directly related to the willingness of combatants

to enter into negotiations. Most studies find a significant relation between a long war duration and

successful post-conflict peacebuilding (Chapman and Roeder 2007; Fortna 2008; Hartzell et al. 2001;

Mason et al. 2011; Walter 2004). This generates the first hypothesis:

Hypothesis 1: If the costs of a previous intrastate war or armed conflict are high, then post-conflict peacebuilding will

be more successful.

Figure 5: Overview of different research approaches on conflict environment factors with examples

Remote conflict environment factors

Costs of war (Doyle and Sambanis 2006; Hartzell et al. 2001; Mason and Fett 1996; Walter 1997; Wittman 1979)

Ethnicity (Collier et al. 2003; Fearon and Laitin 2003; Gurr 1990; Horowitz 1985; Kaufmann 1996; Lake and Rothchild 1996; Rothchild 1997)

Natural resources (Collier and Hoeffler 2004; Fearon 2005; Ross 2004; Rustad and Binningsbø 2012)

Type of civil war end (Fortna 2003, 2004, 2008; Kreutz 2010; Licklider 1995; Toft 2010; Mason et al. 2011)

Source: Author

Natural resources

With the end of the Cold War, extensive programs of military assistance came to an end, which until

then had been an essential resource in the intrastate wars of the ‘Third World’ (Jean and Rufin 1999).

Therefore, the warring parties had to find other ways to finance their armed struggle. This change

also contributed to the development of self-reinforcing war economies, in which, the existing natural

resources of a country play a significant role.34 In recent years, many empirical studies have dealt with

34 In some cases, this development can even be described as a ‚depolitization’ of the war: economic resources are not primarily acquired in order to win the war, instead the war is being waged to enrich oneself or – at least that is true for individual fighters – to secure a livelihood (Rittberger et al. 2010: 385).


16

the influence of primary commodities in intrastate conflicts and have come to the conclusion that the

dependence on primary commodities constitutes a factor for the outbreak of civil wars, extends the

duration of ongoing civil wars and impedes the peacebuilding process (Collier and Hoeffler 2004,

Fearon 2005, Ross 2004).35 Other studies could, for example, prove that oil and diamonds increase a

countries risk for civil wars and extend ongoing wars (Fearon and Laitin 2003; Ross 2004).36

Comparatively few studies focus on the influence of natural resources on peacebuilding.37 Rustad and

Binningsbø (2012: 531) examine exactly this relationship and come to the conclusion that peace

depends on the extent to which the natural resources of a country represent a motive or opportunity

for an armed conflict. Accordingly, peacebuilding is more likely to fail after conflicts linked to natural

resources, since it might be more profitable for the combatants to continue the conflict than to loose

their access to the resources during peace time.

However, most of these studies lump together different primary commodities and do not

consider, that ‘natural resources may have different effects on the risk of conflict onset, its duration

and severity, and the success of peacebuilding efforts after the conflict, and [that] these effects may

differ across the different resource types’ (Lujala 2014: 126). Especially oil and secondary diamonds

seem to be related to higher conflict risks (Fearon 2005; Humphreys 2005; Le Billon 2008, 2012;

Lujala 2010; Lujala et al. 2005; Ross 2006), whereas the results regarding timber (Le Billon 2012;

Rustad et al. 2008) and the cultivation of narcotics (Lujala 2010) are inconclusive. Furthermore,

much of the literature adopts a state-centric focus by studying the relationship of resources and

conflict on the country level (Koubi et al. 2014: 238). But since natural resources are not distributed

homogenously across a nation’s territory, there have been efforts to collect location-specific data on

oil, gas, gemstones, and drug cultivation (Flöter et al. 2007; Gilmore et al. 2005; Lujala 2003). This

development will enable more research on natural resources and conflict at a disaggregated and sub-

national level.

Hypothesis 2: If the conflict region does not produce natural resources like oil, secondary diamonds, timber or

narcotics, then post-conflict peacebuilding will be more successful.

Ethnicity

Many intrastate wars and conflicts have an ethnic or religious component (Collier et al. 2003: 57).

Civil wars in which various ethnic groups are involved, are often depicted as being particularly

intense, since they are fought over emotionally charged goods (Elbadawi and Sambanis 2000; 35 Collier and Hoffler (2001) were among the first authors to observe a significant positive correlation between the dependence on natural resources and the risk for the outbreak of a civil war. 36 This increased risk for civil war is ascribed to the fact that the resource sector is relatively easy to control by military means (Hasenclever 2002: 348). 37 Only a few studies dealing with the failure of peacebuilding include the dependence on primary commodities as a control variable in their analysis (Doyle and Sambanis 2000; 2006, Fortna 2004).


17

Horowitz 1985; Kaufmann 1996). Such conflicts are considered less susceptible to rational

calculations of costs and benefits compared to conflicts between combatants of similar identity

groups. Conflicts between different ethnic groups strengthen the separation of society and the hatred

and make a sustainable peace less likely (Kaufmann 1996). Walter (2002: 12) finds that combatants

fighting for goods closely linked to their identity have greater difficulties with finding a compromise

solution than combatants fighting for political or economic goals that are easier to negotiate. It is

assumed that the hurdles in identity conflicts are higher and the contested goods are less easily

divided than in socio-economic or ideological conflicts (Kaufmann 1996; Gurr 1990). Other studies

conclude that (1) ethnic diversity leads only indirectly to a higher risk for the outbreak of a civil war

or in combination with other factors, or (2) that the polarization of two approximately equal groups

or the regional concentration of ethnic groups can cause problems (Bates 2008; Collier and Hoeffler

2004; Fearon and Laitin 2003). Thus – in civil wars – the identity of combatants plays an important

role in terms of their willingness to compromise. As Denny and Walter (2014: 199) conclude, “ethnic

groups, on average, are likely to have more grievances against the state, are likely to have an easier

time organizing support and mobilizing a movement, and are more likely to face difficult-to-resolve

bargaining problems”.

Hypothesis 3: If different ethnic groups are not polarized and distributed relatively equal within the conflict region,

then post-conflict peacebuilding will be more successful.

Type of civil war end

The manner in which a civil war ends has a great influence on the duration of the postwar peace

(Mason et al. 2011). Civil wars can either end through victories, cease-fire agreements, negotiated

settlements, draws or the fighting continues on a very low intensity.

In the first phase of civil war, belligerents will be unwilling to compromise and focus all of their resources on trying to achieve a military victory. If they fail to defeat their opponents, they may explore the possibility of getting concessions through talks. If that fails, rebels will continue opposing the government even without the expectation of future victory, in order to protect their political legitimacy within the local community (Kreutz 2014: 356).

Studies have argued that there is a statistically significant higher chance for successful peacebuilding

after decisive victories than after negotiated settlements (Fortna 2003; Kreutz 2010; Licklider 1995;

Toft 2010). This is due to the fact that negotiated settlements preserve the organizational

infrastructure of both the rebels and the government, ‘making it easier for them to resume combat

operations than would be the case had either suffered a decisive defeat at the hands of their rival’

(Mason et al. 2011: 175). Furthermore, negotiated settlements are subject to credible commitment

problems (Walter 2002). Only the study by Doyle and Sambanis (2006) comes to the conclusion that

a relapse into war is less likely after peace agreements than after victories. On average, victories in


18

civil war occur earlier than when conflicts are ended through peace agreements (DeRouen and Sobek

2004; Kreutz 2010, 2014).

Hypothesis 4: If armed conflicts and civil wars end in military victories, then post-conflict peacebuilding will be more

successful.

Peacebuilding factors

In contrast to remote factors, proximate factors vary over time and have their origin in the recent past.

They can be relatively easy modified by peacebuilding actors and often describe human actions itself

(Schneider and Wagemann 2012: 253). Compared to the remote conflict factors, proximate factors

can influence the peacebuilding process in a more direct way. From a temporal view, they come into

being after the termination of the civil war or armed conflict. Accordingly, the proximate factors are

derived from the studies on peacebuilding (figure 1).

Figure 6: Overview of different research approaches on peacebuilding factors with examples

Peacebuilding factors

International commitment (Bercovitch 1996; Doyle and Sambanis 2006; Fortna 2008; Hampson 1996; Walter 1997, 2002)

Reconciliation (Buckley-Zistel 2011; Mani 2005; Teitel 2003)

Disarmament, Demobilization, Reintegration

(DDR) (Batchelor 1996; Berdal 1996; Spear 1996, 2002)

Refugee repatriation (Adelman 2002; Koser 1999; Lischer 2007; UNHCR 1989)


(DeRouen et al. 2010; Hoddie and Hartzell 2003; Quinn et al. 2007)

Source: Author

International commitment

Among the proximate peacebuilding factors, the international commitment has received particular

attention. International actors, such as the UN, NATO, EU or AU can play a crucial role in bringing

civil wars to an end (Bercovitch 1996; Bercovitch and Rubin 1992). Their possible involvement

ranges from mediation to military and economic interventions. As mediators, they can help to solve

difficult negotiation problems and support combatants in achieving an agreement (Bercovitch 1996;

Bercovitch and Rubin 1992; Francis 1998). Peacekeeping forces can resolve the credible

commitment problem by enforcing security guarantees against either side defecting from the peace

agreement (Mason et al. 2011). Considering the involvement of third parties, Hartzell et al. (2001)

arrive at the conclusion that the failure probability of a peace agreement will be reduced by 98


19

percent if the negotiated peace agreement after a civil war includes the intervention of third parties.38

In contrast, Walter (2002) notes that it is not sufficient if third parties are willing to support the

implementation of a peace agreement. It is just as important that the belligerents believe in the

security guarantees issued by the third party (see also Pearson et al. 2006: 115).

Those peace agreements that receive a great deal of support from third parties throughout

the course from the establishment to the consolidation of peace, are more likely to be adhered to and

are thus more successful than those agreements in which that is not the case and where the states are

left to be on their own while trying to keep the peace (Doyle and Sambanis 2000, 2006; Fortna 2004).

Peacekeeping forces can support the peace process by enforcing the terms of a peace agreement and

enabling both sides to disarm without fear of their opponent cheating (Mason et al. 2011: 176). By

providing tools that allow the belligerents to act as equal partners during both the negotiation and

the implementation of the agreement, third parties provide the much-needed political status and the

legitimacy of the belligerents’ interests (Hampson 1996: 222). Thus, it is expected that international

commitment contributes to successful peacebuilding.

Hypothesis 5: If the international commitment in armed conflicts and civil wars is comprehensive, then post-conflict

peacebuilding will be more successful.

As an example for ways of calibrating a peacebuilding condition, the calibration of one

possible proximate condition will be illustrated. Different studies reach the conclusion that successful

peacebuilding after civil wars is more likely, if the international commitment is comprehensive.39

Since the deployment and the mandate of a peace mission constitute a key factor for the

measurement of international capacities, the type of international involvement (peace missions and

sanctions) in the respective conflict is used as an indicator for the condition of comprehensive

international commitment. Therefore, a six-value fuzzy set can be derived.

Figure 7: Calibration of fuzzy values for the condition "comprehensive international commitment"

Fuzzy-set value

Description of calibration

1 Enforcement mission (comprehensive international commitment)

0.8 Multidimensional peacekeeping (strong international commitment)

0.6 Traditional peacekeeping (moderate international commitment)

0.4 Observatory mission (weak international commitment)

0.2 Sanctions or mediation (minimal international commitment)

0 No international commitment Source: Author 38 Thus, it can be assumed that the success of negotiations in civil wars is directly related to the presence of an external mediator. 39 Doyle and Sambanis (2000; 2006), Fortna (2004), Hartzell et al. (2001), Pearson et al. (2006).


20

Reconciliation

At least since the nineties, the term transitional justice – combining reconciliation and the processing

of past injustices after internal conflicts – has become one of the central and highly debated concepts

in the peacebuilding debate (Buckley-Zistel 2011; Mani 2005; Teitel 2003). Transitional justice is

concerned with judicial and non-judicial measures to deal with the past of violent conflicts or a

violent regime, in order to redress the legacies of massive human rights abuses (Buckley-Zistel 2008:

3).40 In intrastate conflicts, almost everyone – whether civilian or combatant – is affected by violence

and traumatic experiences and the post-war societies are often strongly divided. By means of a clear

break with the past, the concept of transitional justice wants to promote the workup and social

reconciliation as well as to ensure the prevention of future outbreaks of violence. In principle, the

approach combines the transition to peace with the pursuit of justice and is thus connected to the

current debate about democratization processes and peacebuilding in post-conflict societies (Teitel

2003: 69). It is expected that reconciliation measures result in a more enduring peace.

Hypothesis 6: If the conflict settlement includes local and/or international reconciliation efforts, then post-conflict

peacebuilding will be more successful.

Disarmament, Demobilization, and Reintegration (DDR)

The effective disarmament and demobilization of warring parties can help to restore security, which

is necessary for the successful implementation of peace agreements after civil wars (Berdal 1996;

Spear 1996, 2002). The disarmament of combatants serves two purposes during peace negotiations:

(1) the elimination of the means by which the civil war was fought and therefore the prevention of a

recurring war; (2) the creation of a stable environment, whereby the confidence building between the

combatants will the strengthened (Spear 2002: 142). The demobilization of former combatants

represents the cornerstone for successful peacebuilding. If carried out successfully, it offers former

combatants an alternative to life with the gun (Stedman 2002: 26). Spear (2002) depicts five main

aspects of DDR activities after civil wars and thus provides a framework that allows for comparative

analysis of different measures.41 Thereby, it is important that the disarmament and demobilization

efforts are adapted to local and national conditions and that aspects such as the traditional role of

firearms or the socio-cultural role of warriors in the respective society are taken into account (Spear

2002: 158-159). Third parties often play an important role in supporting and verifying the

demobilization and are often even accountable for them. In summary, DDR efforts should

contribute to a more stable peace.

40 These measures include criminal prosecution, truth commissions, reparations programs and institutional reforms. 41 Those factors are: the feasibility of the peace agreement and its aims; the implementation environment; the capability and resources of the international implementers; the attitudes of the warring parties; and effective verification (Spear 2002: 142).


21

Hypothesis 7: If the conflict settlement includes disarmament, demobilization, and reintegration efforts, then post-

conflict peacebuilding will be more successful.

Refugee repatriation

Civil wars and armed conflicts often cause people to flee their homes and livelihoods in search of

safety, either within their one country or across national borders (Salehyan 2014). The resulting

displacement crisis not only leads to logistical and humanitarian emergencies, but also threatens

international security (Lischer 2007: 142). However, refugees are not only the victims of violence but

can also pose threats to their home country by mobilizing warriors in the diaspora; they can

destabilize their host country; and they can aggravate tensions between the refugee sending country

and the receiving one (Weiner 1992). Internally displaced persons (IDPs) can furthermore transfer

the conflict from one region of the country to another one. Refugees and IDPs are even used as an

instrument of warfare: ‘Perpetrators of violence understand the effects of forced migration and

displacement, and use refugee flows and “cleansing” as a way to further their political aims’ (Salehyan

2014: 271). Therefore, it is not surprising that many scholars have argued that lasting peace is not

possible without addressing the issue of refugees and displaced persons and to provide for the

successful return of refugees and IDPs (Adelman 2002). Otherwise, refugees might resort to violence

directed at their former enemies or the government. Peace agreements thus have to create a stable

environment for the return of refugees. But reintegrating refugees and IDPs back in their home

country or region poses additional challenges and difficulties for post-conflict states, which need to

be addressed.

Hypothesis 8: If refugees and internally displaced persons are reintegrated back in their home country or

region, then post-conflict peacebuilding will be more successful


The capacity of the state at war’s end will be an important determinant of successful peacebuilding

(DeRouen 2014: 306). The government needs a certain amount of capacity to implement the reforms

agreed to in the conflict settlement or the rebels might renew the fighting. In general, weak states are

more prone to civil war (Fearon and Laitin 2003). In contrast, higher levels of economic

development at war’s end are associated with greater probability of agreement implementation and

reduce the probability of recurrence (Hoddie and Hartzell 2003: 316-318; Quinn et al. 2007).

Furthermore, democratic regimes should be more able to establish peacebuilding institutions and to

enforce the negotiated settlement (Hartzell et al. 2001). Power-sharing agreements and guaranteeing

the warring factions some form of representation or decisionmaking authority can provide a path to

a democratic transition (DeRouen et al 2010). According to Hoddie and Hartzell (2003), they


22

strengthen and prolong peace duration and protect the warring parties from exclusion. Countries

with a high state capacity are thus more likely to implement the provisions of a peace agreement and

to enforce it.

Hypothesis 9: If the state capacity is high, then post-conflict peacebuilding will be more successful BRINGING IT ALL TOGETHER: A ROUNDUP OF THE RESEARCH DESIGN

With a QCA-based research design according to Charles Ragin’s (1987, 2000, 2008) propositions,

different equifinal paths leading to successful post-conflict peacebuilding ought to be identified for

the first time. QCA’s underlying causal model enables the identification of sufficient and necessary

conditions (or their derivatives INUS and SUIN conditions, see Schneider and Wagemann 2012: 79-

80) for successful post-conflict peacebuilding, whereby hitherto existing competing hypotheses and

results of variable-based studies on single linear explanatory factors can be replaced. By means of

QCA, complex causal structures, which are typical for peacebuilding processes, can therefore be

identified and systematized. Hence, the analysis contributes to a more realistic and more appropriate

classification of the conditions for successful peacebuilding.

The design seems to be promising both for testing existing assumptions as well as for

enhancements of established theories on peacebuilding in post-conflict societies. The objective of

this research design is thus twofold. At first it aims to determine the necessary and sufficient

conditions for successful post-conflict peacebuilding on the basis of a set-theoretic research design.

It collects basic data both on intrastate wars and conflicts for the calibration of possible conditions

for successful peacebuilding. Second, the presented project will enhance the methodological range of

peace and conflict research. By applying QCA, the establishment of this method – mainly perceived

as being comparative – can be promoted and future applications will be facilitated.42

The research question regarding successful post-conflict peacebuilding ought to be answered

by taking different theoretical perspectives into account and by applying different methodological

approaches. The research design is thus based on two levels of analysis: (1) a fuzzy-set Qualitative

Comparative Analysis (fsQCA), and (2) structured and focused individual case analyses. Following

Sartoris’ (1970) ‘ladder of abstraction’, the logic behind the levels of analysis rests upon a taxonomy

of descending degrees of abstraction. The higher the level of abstraction, the fewer features are

exhibited by the respective level and may thus be tested: ‘We make a concept more abstract and

more general by lessening its properties or attributes’ (Sartori 1970: 1041). The respective higher level

represents the universe of cases for the subsequent level, thereby systematizing and simplifying the

classification and typology of the cases to investigate. By means of combining theories, data and 42 Thus, the research design is highly innovative, since, for the first time, it implements a set-theoretic research approach within the context of peace and conflict research.


23

methods, different approaches for the study of post-conflict peacebuilding shall be used in order to

improve the validation of the research findings.

As shown above, studies on post-conflict peacebuilding have analyzed a variety of

explanatory factors, and some of them provided rivalling hypotheses.43 Based on the different

approaches introduced above (figures 6-7), possible conditions can be identified and tested for their

operational feasibility. The selection of the conditions is divided into two steps and follows the

methodological reasoning of a two-step QCA approach (figure 8). At first, context conditions will be

identified in order to clarify in which environment peacebuilding can be successful at all. In a second

step, proximate conditions, which may change over time, will be included in the QCA. These factors

can be influenced by various actors and can therefore play an important role for peacebuilding.

Figure 8: Approach for the selection and classification of conditions for the application of a two-step fsQCA

Source: Author

A methodological distinction of the conditions with regard to their causal effects into remote

and proximate conditions appears reasonable and thus suggests the application of a two-step fsQCA

(Schneider and Wagemann 2006: 760). At the same time overly complex results will be avoided, as

some logically possible, not necessarily empirically existing configurations of case characteristics can

be excluded a priori by theoretical reasoning. In a first step, the analysis determines the combinations

of remote conditions in which the outcome is more likely to occur than in other contexts. The

subsequent step then leads to the formulation of causal configurations that result in successful

peacebuilding (Schneider and Wagemann 2006: 761).44

43 With regard to selection and calibration, integrating too many conditions in the QCA is ‘dysfunctional’ and leads to arbitrariness (Schneider and Wagemann 2012: 276). However, it is in principle possible and even desirable to change and adjust the condition selection over the course of the research process. 44 As the two-step analysis has unfortunately not been completed yet, no results can be presented at this point.


24

At the second level of analysis, selected cases ought to be compared. Due to the importance

of intimate case knowledge for a successful QCA, this method should always be combined with

‘(comparative) within-case studies’ (Schneider and Wagemann 2012: 305).45 The application of

structured, focused comparison (George and Bennett 2005) results in a better understanding of the

interaction between the causal mechanisms as well as their impact on the outcome. This second level

allows for an in-depth analysis of single cases, which is the additional value of subsequent qualitative

studies.

This paper proposes the selection of four individual cases for systematic post-QCA case

analyses (e.g. by means of process tracing) – two cases each for both the analysis of peacebuilding

after civil wars and peacebuilding after armed conflicts. As the case selection will be based on the not

yet existing results of the fsQCA, different possible approaches for case selection will be presented.

Up to now, there exist only a few suggestions within research literature regarding the context in

which case analyses can be linked to the results of QCA (Schneider and Rohlfing 2013, Schneider

and Wagemann 2012). There are different possible approaches whose feasibility depends on the

previous fsQCA results. According to the logic of fsQCA, set-theoretic methods impose qualitative

differences between cases and the set relations themselves are asymmetric. Thus, cases can be

selected for meaningful comparison based on the analysis of necessary and sufficient conditions:

‘Depending on which type of case is selected, the aim of the post-QCA within-case analysis is to

corroborate or to update the cross-case model’ (Schneider and Wagemann 2012: 306).

Figure 9: XY plot with two-by-two table and types of cases

Source: Schneider and Wagemann 2012: 308

45 Furthermore, set-theoretic methods and comparative case studies share many properties: ‘they largely agree in their epistemology by focusing on complex patterns of causation at the expense of parsimonious-yet-more-generalizable accounts of social phenomena’ (Schneider and Wagemann 2012: 306).


25

The above figure represents a XY plot identifying the possible types of cases after a fsQCA,

based on their fuzzy-set-membership in both the sufficient term and the outcome (Schneider and

Wagemann 2012: 308). By a within-case comparative analysis of two typical cases (area 1) it is

possible to unravel the causal mechanisms that link the (combination of) conditions to the outcome

(Gerring 2010; Shively 2006). Another possibility of case selection would be to focus on those cases

that deviate from the explanatory paths. Such a deviation may be due to two problems: it is either a

real contradictory case (i.e. according to the QCA results it should exhibit the outcome, but it does

not – area 3), or the case is not explained by the QCA results (i.e. the case should not exhibit the

outcome, but it does – area 6) (Schneider and Wagemann 2012: 309). A last useful possibility for a

post-QCA case selection would be the comparison of a deviant case for the outcome (area 6) with an

individually irrelevant case (area 5) that belongs to the same truth table row but does not exhibit the

outcome. A subsequent analysis or comparison of cases that belong to areas 2 or 4 is not

recommended, as they would not be useful from a methodological perspective. The case studies at

the second level of analysis will allow for a deeper analysis of specific mechanisms within singular

cases thus providing a meaningful supplement to the QCA. Which cases are finally selected for

systematic comparison depends on the respective QCA results.

The result of the two-step QCA will consist of a combination of factors that interact and

operate before or during the peacebuilding process. Consequently, they shall provide a

comprehensive picture of the phenomenon’s underlying causal mechanisms and dynamics. The case

studies will connect the comprehensive findings to a deeper within-case knowledge. Taken as a

whole, the entire results will have far-reaching political relevance since they identify those areas in

which the peacebuilding engagement of the international community has a positive effect and may

increase the chances of lasting peace. The construction of various causal paths allows for a

typological classification, which may lead to a model of successful post-conflict peacebuilding.

CONCLUSION

The following results can be derived from the preceding discussion: (1) in international comparison,

civil war research is characterized by a methodological dualism of the two quantitative and qualitative

research camps; (2) thus, case studies, comparative analyses and quantitative research projects relate,

so far, relatively little to each other; (3) due to their innate understanding of causality, set-theoretic

methods, and especially QCA, represent a promising methodological enhancement for peace and

conflict research; (4) QCA is particularly suited for the analysis of complex dynamics of peace and

conflict processes; (5) by applying a two-step fsQCA approach, it will be possible to analyze the


26

remote and proximate conditions which are necessary and sufficient for successful post-conflict

peaebuilding.

The aim of this paper was to argue for a methodological pluralism and an open discussion on

innovative research approaches in peace and conflict research. In the last 20 years, the field of

qualitative methods has, in particular, developed several new research approaches, such as process

tracing, network analysis, QCA or MMR. Most notably, QCA with its understanding of causality

constitutes a suitable method for civil war research and provides new possibilities for data

interpretation and data analysis. To illustrate the actual applicability of QCA for the analysis of peace

and conflicts, this paper presented a research design investigating the dynamics of post-conflict

peace. In the context of a multi-method research approach, QCA can – in collaboration with other

qualitative and quantitative methods – contribute to a better understanding of the complex

mechanisms underlying the central research objects of peace and conflict research. Nevertheless,

much research still needs to be done in order to understand the dynamics of post-conflict peace and

this research project aims at identifying a small part of that puzzle.


27

REFERENCES

Adelman, Howard 2002: “Refugee Repatriation”, in: Stephen John Stedman, Donald Rothchild and Elizabeth M. Cousens (eds.): Ending Civil Wars. The Implementation of Peace Agreements. London, 273-302.

Anderson, Mary B. 1999: Do no Harm: How Aid Can Support Peace – or War. Boulder, CO. Barnett, Michael 2002: Eyewitness to a Genocide. The United Nations and Rwanda. Ithaca, NY. Barnett, Michael, Kim Hunjoon, Madalene O’Donnell and Laura Sitea 2007: “Peacebuilding: What Is

in a Name?”, Global Governance, 13(1), 35-58. Batchelor, Peter 1996: “Disarmament, Small Arms, and Intra-State Conflict: The Case of Southern

Africa”, in: Christopher Smith, Peter Batchelor and Jakkie Potgieter (eds.): Small Arms Management and Peacekeeping in Southern Africa. UNIDIR Disarmament and Conflict Resolution Project. Geneva, 61-98.

Bates, Robert H. 2008: “State Failure”, Annual Review of Political Science, 11, 1-12. Bercovitch, Jacob 1996: Resolving International Conflicts: The Theory and Practice of Mediation. Boulder: CO. Bercovitch, Jacob and Z. Rubin Jeffrey 1992: Mediation in International Relations: Multiple Approaches to

Conflict Management. Basingstoke. Berdal, Mats R. 1996: Disarmament and Demobilization After Civil Wars. Adelphi Paper no. 303. London. Berg-Schlosser, Dirk, Gisèle Meur, Benoît Rihoux, and Charles C. Ragin 2009: “Qualitative

Comparative Analysis (QCA) as an Approach”, in: Benoît Rihoux and Charles C. Ragin (eds.): Configurational Comparative Methods: Qualitative Comparative Analysis (QCA) and Related Techniques, Thousand Oaks, CA, 1-18.

Bigombe, Betty, Paul Collier and Nicholas Sambanis 2000: “Policies for Building Post Conflict Peace”, Journal of African Economies, 9(3), 323-348.

Blatter, Joachim and Markus Haverland 2012: Designing Case Studies: Explanatory Approaches in Small-N Research, Basingstoke.

Blattman, Christopher and Edward Miguel 2010: “Civil War”, Journal of Economic Literature 48(1), 3-57. Boutros-Ghali, Boutros 1992: An Agenda for Peace: Preventive diplomacy, peacemaking and peace-keeping.

Report of the Secretary-General to the Security Council. UN Doc. A/47/277-S/24111. Bretthauer, Judith M. 2014: “Conditions for Peace and Conflict: Applying a Fuzzy-Set Qualitative

Comparative Analysis to Cases of Resource Scarcity”, Journal of Conflict Resolution, (in press). Buckley-Zistel, Susanne 2008: Transitional Justice als Weg zu Frieden und Sicherheit. Möglichkeiten und

Grenzen. SFB-Governance Working Paper Series, Nr. 15. Berlin. Buckley-Zistel, Susanne (ed.) 2011: Nach Krieg, Gewalt und Repression. Vom schwierigen Umgang mit der

Vergangenheit, Baden-Baden. Buhaug, Halvard (2010): “Dude, Where’s My Conflict? LSG, Relative Strength, and the Location of

Civil War”, Conflict Management and Peace Science, 27(2), 107-128. Buhaug, Halvard, Scott Gates and Päivi Lujala 2009: “Geography, Rebel Capability, and the Duration

of Civil Conflict”, Journal of Conflict Resolution, 53(4), 544-569. Buzan, Barry 1992: “Third World Regional Security in Structural Perspective”, in: Brian L. Job (ed.):

The Insecurity Dilemma. National Security of Third World States. Boulder, CO, 167-189. Call, Charles T. 2008: “Knowing Peace When You See It: Setting Standards for Peacebuilding

Success”, Civil Wars, 10(2), 173-194. Call, Charles T. and Elizabeth M. Cousens 2008: “Ending Wars and Building Peace: International

Responses to War-Torn Societies”, International Studies Perspectives, 9(1), 1-21. Caramani, Daniele 2009: Introduction to the Comparative Method with Boolean Algebra. Thousand Oaks,

CA. Cederman, Lars-Erik and Kristian Skrede Gleditsch (2009): “Introduction to Special Issue on

‘Disaggregating Civil War’”, Journal of Conflict Resolution, 53(4), 487-495. Chan, Steve 2003: “Explaining War Termination: A Boolean Analysis of Causes”, Journal of Peace

Research, 40(1), 49-66. Chapman, Thomas and Philip G. Roeder 2007: “Partition as a Solution to Wars of Nationalism: The

Importance of Institutions”, American Political Science Review, 101(4), 677-691.


28

Chojnacki, Sven 2006: „Krieg im Wandel. Eine typologische und empirische Bestandsaufnahme“, in: Anna Geis (ed.): Den Krieg überdenken. Kriegsbegriffe und Kriegstheorien in der Kontroverse, Baden-Baden, 47-74.

Clayton, Govinda 2014: ”Quantitative and econometric methodologies“, in: Edward Newman and Karl DeRouen (ed.): Routledge Handbook of Civil Wars. New York, NY, 28-40.

Coakley, John 1993: “Introduction. The Territorial Management of Ethnic Conflict”, in: John Coakley (ed.): The Territorial Management of Ethnic Conflict. London, 1-22.

Collier, Paul, V. L. Elliott, Håvard Hegre, Anke Hoeffler, Marty Reynal-Querol and Nicholas Sambanis 2003: Breaking the Conflict Trap: Civil War and Development Policy (A World Bank Policy Research Report). Washington, DC.

Collier, Paul and Anke Hoeffler 2001: Über die Ökonomischen Ursachen von Bürgerkriegen. http://users.ox.ac.uk/~ball0144/buergerkriege.pdf

Collier, Paul and Anke Hoeffler 2004: “Greed and Grievance in Civil War”, Oxford Economic Papers, 56(4), 563-595.

Collier, Paul and Anke Hoeffler 2007: “Civil War”, in: Todd Sandler and Keithe Hartles (eds.): Handbook of Defense Economics, 2. ed. Amsterdam, 711-739.

Daase, Christopher 1999: Kleine Kriege – Große Wirkung. Wie unkonventionelle Kriegführung die internationale Politik verändert. Baden-Baden.

DeRouen, Karl, Mark J. Ferguson, Samuel Norton, Young Hwan Park, Jenna Lea and Ashley Streat-Bartlett 2010: “Civil war peace agreement implementation and state capacity”, Journal of Peace Research, 47(3), 333-346.

DeRouen, Karl and David Sobek 2004: “The Dynamics of Civil War Duration and Outcome”, Journal of Peace Research, 41(3), 303-320.

Dixon, Jeffrey 2009: “What Causes Civil Wars? Integrating Quantitative Research Finding”, International Studies Review, 11(4), 707-735.

Doyle, Michael W. 1986: “Liberalism and World Politics”, The American Political Science Review, 80(4), 1151-1169.

Doyle, Michael W. and Nicholas Sambanis 2000: “International Peacebuilding: A Theoretical and Quantitative Analysis”, The American Political Science Review, 94(4), 779-801.

Doyle, Michael W. and Nicholas Sambanis 2006: Making War and Building Peace: United Nations Peace Operations. Princeton, NJ.

Elbadawi, Ibrahim A. and Nicholas Sambanis (2000): “Why are there so many civil wars in Africa?”, Journal of African Economies, 9(3), 244-269.

Emmenegger, Patrick 2011: “Job Security Regulations in Western Democracies: A Fuzzy Set Analysis”, European Journal of Political Research, 50(3), 336-364.

Fearon, James D. 2004: “Why Do Some Civil Wars Last So Much Longer Than Others?”, Journal of Peace Research, 41(3), 275-301.

Fearon, James D. 2005: “Primary Commodity Exports and Civil War”, Journal of Conflict Resolution, 49(4), 483-507.

Fearon, James D. and David D. Laitin 2003: “Ethnicity, Insurgency, and Civil War”, The American Political Science Review, 97(1), 75-90.

Flöter, Annegret, Päivi Lujala and Jan Ketil Rød 2007: The Gemstone Dataset. Mimeo. Departent of Geography, Norwegian University of Science and Technology.

Fortna, Virginia Page 2003: “Inside and Out: Peacekeeping and the Duration of Peace after Civil and Interstate Wars”, International Studies Review, 5(4), 97-114.

Fortna, Virginia Page 2004: “Interstate Peacekeeping: Causal Mechanisms and Empirical Effects”, World Politics, 56(4), 481-519.

Fortna, Virginia Page 2008: “Does Peacekeeping Keep Peace? International Intervention and the Duration of Peace After Civil War”, International Studies Quarterly, 48(2), 269-292.

Fortna, Virginia Page and Lise Morjé Howard 2008: “Pitfalls and Prospects in the Peacekeeping Literature”, Annual Review of Political Science, 11(1), 283-301.


29

Galtung, Johan 1975: “Three Approaches to Peace: Peacekeeping, Peacemaking and Peacebuilding”, in: id. (ed.): Peace, War and Defense: Essays in Peace Research. Vol. 2. Copenhagen, 282-304.

George, Alexander L. and Andrew Bennett 2005: Case Studies and Theory Development in the Social Sciences. Cambridge, MA.

Gerring, John 2010: “Causal mechanisms: yes, but …”, Comparative Political Studies, 43(11), 1499-526. Gilmore, Elisabeth, Nils Petter Gleditsch, Päivi Lujala and Jan Ketil Rød 2005: “Conflict Diamonds:

A New Dataset”, Conflict Management and Peace Science, 22(3), 257-272. Goertz, Gary 2006: Social Science Concepts: A User’s Guide, Princeton, NJ. Goertz, Gary and James Mahoney, 2012: A Tale of Two Cultures: Qualitative and Quantitative Research in

the Social Sciences. Princeton, NJ. Gromes, Thorsten 2012: „Der Rückfall in den Bürgerkrieg“, Zeitschrift für Friedens- und

Konfliktforschung, 1(2), 275-305. Gurr, Ted Robert 1990: “Ethnic Warfare and the Changing Priorities of Global Security”,

Mediterranean Quarterly, 1(1), 82-98. Haass, Richard N. 1990: Conflicts Unending. The United States and Regional Disputes. New Haven, NJ. Hampson, Fen Osler 1996: Nurturing Peace: Why Peace Settlements Succeed or Fail. Washington, DC. Hannum, Hurst 1996: Autonomy, Sovereignty, and Self-Determination. The Accommodation of Conflicting

Rights. Philadelphia, PA. Hartzell, Caroline 2014: “Peacebuilding after Civil War”, in: Edward Newman and Karl DeRouen

(eds.): Routledge Handbook of Civil Wars. New York, NY, 376-386. Hartzell, Caroline, Matthew Hoddie and Donald Rothchild 2001: “Stabilizing the Peace after Civil

War: An Investigation of Some Key Variables”, International Organization, 55(1), 183-208. Hasenclever, Andreas 2002: “Sie bewegt sich doch. Neue Erkenntnisse und Trends in der

quantitativen Kriegsursachenforschung“, Zeitschrift für Internationale Beziehungen, 9(2), 331-364. Heintze, Hans-Joachim 1997: “Autonomy and Protection of Minorities Under International Law”,

in: Gunther Bachler (ed.): Federalism Against Ethnicity? Institutional, Legal, and Democratic Instruments to Prevent Violent Minority Conflicts. Zurich, 81-92.

Henderson, Errol A. 2000: “When States Implode: The Correlates of Africa’s Civil Wars, 1950-1992”, Studies in Comparative International Development, 35(2), 28-47.

Hoddie, Matthew and Caroline Hartzell 2003: “Civil war settlements and the implementation of military power-sharing agreements”, Journal of Peace Research, 40(3), 303-320.

Holsti, Kalevi J. 1991: Peace and War. Armed Conflicts and International Order, 1648-1989. Cambridge. Horowitz, Donald 1985: Ethnic Groups in Conflict. Berkeley, CA. Humphreys, Macartan 2005: “Natural Resources, Conflict, and Conflict Resolution: Uncovering the

Mechanisms”, Journal of Conflict Resolution, 49(4), 508-537. Jean, François and Jean-Christophe Rufin (eds.) 1999: Ökonomie der Bürgerkriege. Hamburg. Kalyvas, Stathis N. 2008: “Promises and Pitfalls of an Emerging Research Programm: The

Microdynamics of Civil War”, in: Stathis N. Kalyvas, Ian Shapiro and Tarek Masoud (eds.): Order, Conflict, and Violence. Cambridge, 397-421.

Kaufmann, Chaim 1996: “Possible and Impossible Solutions to Ethnic Civil Wars”, International Security, 20(4), 136-175.

Kaufmann, Chaim 1998. “When All Else Fails. Ethnic Population Transfers and Partitions in the Twentieth Century”, International Security, 23(2), 120-158.

King, Gary, Robert Keohane and Sidney Verba 1994: Designing Social Inquiry: Scientific Inference in Qualitative Research. Princeton, NY.

King, Gary and Langche Zeng 2007: “When Can History Be Our Guide? The Pitfalls of Counterfactual Inference”, International Studies Quarterly, 51(1), 183-210.

Kiser, Edgar, Kriss A. Drass and William Brustein 1993: “The Relationship between Revolt and War in Early-Modern Western-Europe”, Journal of Political and Military Sociology, 22(2), 305-324.

Koser, Khalid 1999: “The End of the Refugee Cycle?”, in: Richard Black and Khalid Koser (eds): The End of the Refugee Cycle? Refugee Repatriation and Reconstruction. New York, NY, 2-17.


30

Koubi, Vally, Gabriele Spilker, Tobias Böhmelt and Thomas Bernauer 2014: “Do natural resources matter for interstate and intrastate armed conflict”, Journal of Peace Research, 51(2), 227-244.

Kreutz, Joakim 2010: “How and When Armed Conflicts End: Introducing the UCDP Conflict Termination Dataset”, Journal of Peace Research, 47(2), 243-250.

Kreutz, Joakin 2014: “How civil wars end (and recur)”, in: Edward Newman and Karl DeRouen (eds.): Routledge Handbook of Civil Wars. New York, NY, 349-362.

Le Billon, Philippe 2008: “Diamond Wars? Conflict Diamonds and Geographies of Resources”, Annals of the Association of American Geographers, 98(2), 345-372.

Le Billon, Philippe 2012: Wars of Plunder: Conflicts, Profits and the Politics of Resources. London. Lake, David A. and Donald Rothchild 1996: “Containing Fear. The Origins and Management of

Ethnic Conflict”, International Security, 21(2), 41-75. Lemke, Douglas 2002: Regions of War and Peace. Cambridge. Levine, Alicia 1996: “Political Accommodation and the Prevention of Secessionist Violence”, in:

Michael E. Brown (ed.): The International Dimensions of Internal Conflict. Cambridge, Mass., 311-340.

Licklider, Roy 1995: “The Consequences of Negotiated Settlement in Civil Wars, 1945-1993”, The American Political Science Review, 89(3), 681-690.

Lijphart, Arend 1991: “The Power Sharing Approach”, in: Joseph V. Montville (ed.): Conflict and Peacemaking in Multiethnic Societies. New York, NY, 491-510.

Lischer, Sarah Kenyon 2007: “Causes and Consequences of Conflict-Induced Displacement”, Civil Wars, 9(2), 142-155.

Lujala, Päivi 2003: Coca Bush, Opium Poppy and Cannabis Cultivation. Mimeo. Department of Economics, Norwegian University of Science and Technology.

Lujala, Päivi 2010: “The Spoils of Nature: Armed Civil Conflict and Rebel Access to Natural Resources”, Journal of Peace Research, 47(1), 15-28.

Lujala, Päivi 2014: “Valuable natural resources”, in: Edward Newman and Karl DeRouen (eds.): Routledge Handbook of Civil Wars. New York, NY, 119-130.

Lujala, Päivi, Nils Petter Gleditsch and Elisabeth Gilmore 2005: “A Diamond Curse? Civil War and a Lootable Resource”, Journal of Conflict Resolution, 49(4), 538-562.

Maat, Eelco van der 2011: “Sleeping Hegemons: Third-Party Intervention following Territorial Integrity Transgressions”, Journal of Peace Research, 48(2), 201-215.

Mahoney, James 2010: “After KKV: The New Methodology of Qualitative Research”, World Politics, 62(1), 120-147.

Mahoney, James and Gary Goertz 2006: “A Tale of Two Cultures: Contrasting Quantitative and Qualitative Research”, Political Analysis, 14(3), 227-249.

Mani, Rama 2005: “Balancing Peace with Justice in the Aftermath of Violent Conflict”, Journal of Development, 48(3), 25-34.

Matthies, Volker (ed.) 1997: Der gelungene Frieden. Beispiele und Bedingungen erfolgreicher friedlicher Konfliktbearbeitung. Bonn.

Mason, T. David and Patrick J. Fett 1996: “How Civil Wars End. A Rational Choice Approach”, Journal of Conflict Resolution, 40(4), 546-568.

Mason, T. David, Joseph P. Weingarten and Patrick J. Fett 1999: “Win, Lose, or Draw. Predicting the Outcome of Civil Wars”, Political Research Quarterly, 52(2), 239-268.

Mello, Patrick A. 2014: Democratic Participation in Armed Conflict: Military Involvement in Kosovo, Afghanistan, and Iraq. Basingstoke.

Metelits, Claire M. 2009: “The Consequences of Rivalry: Explaining Insurgent Violence Using Fuzzy Sets”, Political Research Quarterly, 62(4), 673-684.

Mill, John Stuart 1843: A System of Logic: Rationcinative and Inductive. New York, NY. Mochtak, Michal 2013: “Inspiring QCA: An Alternative Approach for Security Studies”, Peace and

Conflict Review, 7(2), 68-84. Müller, Harald 2003: „Begriff, Theorien und Praxis des Friedens“, in: Gunther Hellmann, Klaus

Dieter Wolf and Michael Zürn (eds.): Die neuen internationalen Beziehungen: Forschungsstand und Perspektiven in Deutschland. Baden-Baden, 209-250.


31

Newman, Edward and Karl DeRouen (2014): “Introduction”, in: Edward Newman and Karl DeRouen (eds.): Routledge Handbook of Civil Wars. New York, NY, 1-10.

Newman, Edward, Roland Paris and Oliver Richmond (eds.) 2009: New Perspectives on Liberal Peace-Building. Tokyo.

Paris, Roland 2004: After War’s End. New York, NY. Paris, Roland 2010: “Saving liberal peacebuilding”, Review of International Studies, 36(2), 337-365. Pearson, Frederic S., Marie Olson Lounsberry, Scott Walker and Sonja Mann (2006): “Rethinking

Models of Civil War Settlement”, International Interactions, 32(2), 109-128. Pinfari, Marco 2011: “Time to Agree: Is Time Pressure Good for Peace Negotiations?”, Journal of

Conflict Resolution, 55(5), 683-709. Podszun, Lucie 2011: Does Development Aid Affect Conflict Ripeness? The Theory of Ripeness and Its

Applicability in the Context of Development Aid. Wiesbaden. Probst, Manuel 2011: Kriegsbeendigungen. Eine empirische Analyse der Faktoren und Prozesse bei der

Deeskalation von Kriegen. Frankfurt am Main. Pugh, Michael, Neil Cooper and Mandy Turner (eds.) 2008: Whose Peace? Critical Perspectives on the

Political Economy of Peace-Building. London. Quinn, J. Michael, T. David Mason and Mehmet Gurses 2007: “Sustaining the Peace: Determinants

of Civil War Recurrence”, International Interactions, 33(2), 167-193. Ragin, Charles C. 1987: The Comparative Method: Moving Beyond Qualitative and Quantitative Strategies.

Berkeley, CA. Ragin, Charles C. 2000: Fuzzy-Set Social Sciences. Chicago, IL. Ragin, Charles C. 2008: Redesigning Social Inquiry: Fuzzy Sets and Beyond. Chicago, IL. Raleigh, Clionadh and Havard Hegre (2009): “Population Size, Concentration, and Civil War: A

Geographically Disaggregated Analysis”, Political Geography, 28(4), 224-238. Richmond, Oliver P. 2006: “The problem of peace: understanding the ‘liberal peace’”, Conflict, Security

& Development, 6(3), 291-314. Richmond, Oliver P. (ed.) 2010: Palgrave Advances in Peacebuilding: Critical Developments and Approaches.

London. Richmond, Oliver P. and Roger Mac Ginty 2014: “Where now for the critique of the liberal peace?”,

Cooperation and Conflict (in press). Rihoux, Benoît and Axel Marx 2013: “QCA, 25 Years after ‘The Comparative Method’: Mapping,

Challenges, and Innovations – Mini-Symposium”, Political Research Quarterly, 66(1), 167-235. Rihoux, Benoît and Charles C. Ragin (eds.) 2009: Configurational Comparative Methods: Qualitative

Comparative Analysis (QCA) and Related Techniques. Thousand Oaks, CA. Rittberger, Volker, Andreas Kruck and Anne Romund (2010): Grundzüge der Weltpolitik. Theorie und

Empirie des Weltregierens. Wiesbaden. Ross, Michael L. 2004: “How Do Natural Resources Influence Civil Wars? Evidence From Thirteen

Cases”, International Organization, 58(1), 35-67. Ross, Michael L. 2006: “A Closer Look at Oil, Diamonds, and Civil War”, Annual Review of Political

Science, 9, 265-300. Rothchild, Donald 1997: Managing Ethnic Conflict in Africa. Pressures and Incentives for Cooperation.

Washington, D.C. Rustad, Siri Aas and Helga Malmin Binningsbø 2012: “A Price Worth Fighting for? Natural

Resources and Conflict Recurrence”, Journal of Peace Research, 49(4), 531-546. Rustad, Siri Aas, Jan Ketil Rød, Wench Larsen and Nils Petter Gleditsch 2008: “Foliage and

Fighting: Forest Resources and the Onset, Duration, and Location of Civil War”, Political Geography, 27(7), 761-782.

Salehyan, Idean 2014: “Forced migration as a cause and consequence of civil war”, in: Edward Newman and Karl DeRouen (eds.): Routledge Handbook of Civil Wars. New York, NY, 267-278.

Salehyan, Idean and Kristian Skrede Gleditsch 2006: “Refugee Flows and the Spread of Civil Wars”, International Organization, 60(2), 335-366.


32

Sarkees, Meredith Reid and Frank Whelon Wayman 2010: Resort to War: A Data Guide to Inter-State, Extra-State, Intra-State, and Non-State Wars, 1816-2007. Washington, DC.

Sartori, Giovanni 1970: “Concept misformation in comparative polititics”, American Political Science Review, 64, 1033-1053.

Schlichte, Klaus 1996: Krieg und Vergesellschaftung in Afrika. Münster. Schlichte, Klaus 2002: „Neues über den Krieg? Einige Anmerkungen zum Stand der

Kriegsforschung in den Internationalen Beziehungen“, Zeitschrift für Internationale Beziehungen, 9(1), 113-138.

Schneider, Carsten Q. and Ingo Rohlfing 2013: “Combining QCA and process tracing in set-theoretic multi-method research”, Sociological Methods & Research, 42(4), 559-597.

Schneider, Carsten Q. and Claudius Wagemann 2006: “Reducing Complexity in Qualitative Comparative Analysis (QCA): Remote and Proximate Factors and the Consolidation of Democracy”, European Journal of Political Research, 45(5), 751-786.

Schneider, Carsten Q. and Claudius Wagemann 2010: “Standards of Good Practice in Qualitative Comparative Analysis (QCA) and Fuzzy-Sets”, Comparative Sociology, 9(3), 397-418.

Schneider, Carsten Q. and Claudius Wagemann 2012: Set-Theoretic Methods for the Social Sciences. A Guide to Qualitative Comparative Analysis. Cambridge.

Selby, Jan 2013: “The myth of liberal peace-building”, Conflict, Security & Development, 13(1), 57-86. Shively, Philips W. 2006: “Case selection: insights from Rethinking Social Inquiry”, Political Analysis,

14(3), 344-347. Simons, Claudia and Franzisca Zanker 2012: “Finding the Cases that Fit: Methodological Challenges

in Peace Research”, GIGA Working Papers, Nr. 189. Spear, Joanna 1996: “Arms Limitations, Confidence-Building Measures, and Internal Conflict”, in:

Michael E. Brown (ed.): The International Dimension of Internal Conflict. Cambridge, Mass., 377-410.

Spear, Joanna 2002: “Disarmament and Demobilization”, in: Stephen John Stedman, Donald Rothchild and Elizabeth M. Cousens (eds.): Ending Civil Wars. The Implementation of Peace Agreements. London, 141-182.

Sprinz, Detlef F. and Yeal Wolinsky-Nahmias (eds.) 2004: Models, Numbers, and Cases: Methods for Studying International Relations. Ann Arbor, MI.

Stedman, Stephen John 1997: “Spoiler Problems in Peace Processes”, International Security, 22(2), 5-53.

Stedman, Stephen John 2002: “Introduction”, in: Stephen John Stedman, Donald Rothchild and Elizabeth M. Cousens (eds.): Ending Civil Wars: The Implementation of Peace Agreements. London, 1-40.

Stedman, Stephen John and Donald Rothchild 1996: “Peace Operations: From Short-Term to Long-Term Commitment”, International Peacekeeping, 3(2), 17-35.

Teitel, Ruti G. 2003: “Transitional Justice Genealogy”, Harvard Human Rights Journal, 16, 69-94. Themnér, Lotta and Peter Wallensteen 2014: “Armed Conflicts, 1946-2013”, Journal of Peace Research,

51(4), 541-554. Thiem, Alrik 2011: “Conditions of Intergovernmental Armaments Cooperation in Western Europe,

1996-2006”, European Political Science Review, 3(1), 1-33. Thiem, Alrik and Adrian Duşa (2013): Qualitative Comparative Analysis with R. A User’s Guide. New

York, NY. Toft, Monica Duffy 2010: Securing the Peace: The Durable Settlement of Civil Wars. Princeton, NJ. United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation, UNESCO 2011: Die unbeachtete

Krise: Bewaffneter Konflikt und Bildung. Weltbericht ‚Bildung für alle’ 2011, Kurzfassung. Paris. United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, UNHCR 1989: Repatriation, Reintegration, and

Rehabilitation. Geneva. Wagemann, Claudius and Carsten Q. Schneider 2010: “Qualitative Comparative Analysis (QCA) and

fuzzy-sets: agenda for a research approach and a data analysis technique”, Comparative Sociology, 9(3), 376-396.


33

Wallensteen, Peter 2011: “The Origins of Contemporary Peace Research”, in: Kristine Höglund and Magnus Öberg (eds.): Understanding Peace Research: Methods and Challenges. London, 14-32.

Wallensteen, Peter 2012: Understanding Conflict Resolution: War, Peace and the Global System, 3. ed. Los Angeles, CA.

Walter, Barbara F. 1997: “The Critical Barrier to Civil War Settlement”, International Organization, 51(3), 335-364.

Walter, Barbara F. 2002: Comitting to Peace: The Successful Settlement of Civil Wars. Princeton, NJ. Weiner, Myron 1992: “Security, Stability, and International Migration”, International Security, 17(3), 91-

126. Wittman, Donald 1979: “How a War Ends: A Rational Model Approach”, Journal of Conflict Resolution,

23(4), 743-763. Zartman, I. William 1985: Ripe for Resolution: Conflict and Intervention in Africa. New York, NY. Zielinski, Michael 1995: Friedensursachen. Genese und konstituierende Bedingungen von Friedensgemeinschaften

am Beispiel der Bundesrepublik Deutschland und der Entwicklung ihrer Beziehungen zu den USA, Frankreich und den Niederlanden. Baden-Baden.

dynamics of post conflict peace u s theoretic m a … · 2015-11-10 · camps, thereby bridging...

Documents