Preview

Comparative Politics Russia

Advanced search

Post-Conflict Phase of Armed Intervention

https://doi.org/10.46272/2221-3279-2023-4-14-120-135

Abstract

With the growing number of civil conflicts there is an increase in the practice of armed intervention by third parties, which pursue the goals of protecting and promoting their national interests. The expanding practice of armed intervention and its significance for the contemporary international system has attracted considerable research interest. The emphasis in the empirical literature on interventions is often placed on the causes of armed intervention or its impact on the duration of conflict. This focus on these variables is understandable, as it allows us, on the one hand, to deepen our understanding of the reasons for states' use of force and, on the other hand, provides an opportunity to examine the influence of external factors on conflict dynamics. At the same time, the continued presence of the interventionist forces after the official end of the conflict remains outside the focus of most researchers. Civil conflicts tend to reignite and may carry latent threats even after the official end of the conflict, ending in negotiations or complete victory for one of the parties. Third states intervening are mindful of the potential risks, leading to persistent intervention after the end of the conflict.

About the Authors

E. S. Zinovieva
MGIMO University; HSE University
Russian Federation

Dr. Elena S. Zinovieva — Professor, Department of World Political Processes, School of Governance and Politics, MGIMO University; Professor, Department of International Relations, Faculty of World Economy and World Politics, National Research University Higher School of Economics



D. N. Chernov
HSE University
Russian Federation

Daniil N. Chernov — Postgraduate Student, Department of Social Sciences, National Research University Higher School of Economics



E. S. Komarova
MGIMO University
Russian Federation

Evgenia S. Komarova — Bachelor's Student, Department of International Relations, Intern, Center for Euro-Asian Studies, Institute for International Studies, MGIMO University



S. A. Arov
MGIMO University
Russian Federation

Sviatoslav A. Arov — Master's Student, Department of International Relations, MGIMO University



References

1. Сафранчук И.А.(2022) Вооруженное вмешательство как основной способ применения государствами силы в современных международных отношениях (составление базы данных и качественно-количественный анализ на её основе). Отчет о НИР/НИОКР, МГИМО (у) МИД России, Россия.

2. Balch-Lindsay D., Enterline A.J. (2000) Killing Time: The World Politics of Civil War Duration, 1820-1992. International Studies Quarterly 44(4): 615–642. DOI: 10.1111/0020-8833.00174.

3. Bolt J., van Zanden J.L. (2020) Maddison style estimates of the evolution of the world economy. A new 2020 update. Maddison-Project Working Paper WP-15.

4. Bove V., Gleditsch K.S., Sekeris P.G. (2016) “Oil above Water”: Economic Interdependence and Third-party Intervention. Journal of Conflict Resolution 60(7): 1251–1277. DOI: 10.1177/0022002714567952.

5. Carlsnaes W., Risse T., Simmons B. (2002) Handbook of International Relations. SAGE Publications Ltd. DOI: 10.4135/9781848608290.

6. Cederman L.-E., Wimmer A., Min B. (2010) Why Do Ethnic Groups Rebel? New Data and Analysis. World Politics 62(1): 87–119. DOI: 10.1017/S0043887109990219.

7. Chacha M., Stojek S. (2019) Colonial ties and civil conflict intervention: Clarifying the causal mechanisms. Conflict Management and Peace Science 36(1): 42–62. DOI: 10.1177/0738894216655514.

8. Corbetta R., Melin M.M. (2018) Exploring the Threshold between Conflict Management and Joining in Biased Interventions. Journal of Conflict Resolution 62(10): 2205–2231. DOI: 10.1177/0022002717720754.

9. Cunningham D.E. (2006) Veto Players and Civil War Duration. American Journal of Political Science 50(4): 875–892. DOI:10.1111/j.1540-5907.2006.00221.x.

10. Davies S., Pettersson T., Öberg M. (2023) Organized violence 1989–2022, and the return of conflict between states. Journal of Peace Research 60(4): 691–708. DOI: 10.1177/00223433231185169.

11. Fearon J.D., Laitin D.D. (2003) Ethnicity, Insurgency, and Civil War. American Political Science Review 97(01): 75–90. DOI: 10.1017/S0003055403000534.

12. Findley M.G., Marineau J.F. (2015) Lootable resources and third-party intervention into civil wars. Conflict Management and Peace Science 32(5): 465–486. DOI: 10.1177/0738894214530828.

13. Findley M.G., Teo T.K. (2006) Rethinking Third-Party Interventions into Civil Wars: An Actor-Centric Approach. The Journal of Politics 68(4): 828–837. DOI: 10.1111/j.1468-2508.2006.00473.x.

14. Hensel P. (2016) Colonial Contiguity Data, 1816-2016. Correlates of War Project.

15. Kathman J.D. (2010) Civil War Contagion and Neighboring Interventions: Civil War Contagion. International Studies Quarterly 54(4): 989–1012. DOI: 10.1111/j.1468-2478.2010.00623.x.

16. Kathman J.D. (2011) Civil War Diffusion and Regional Motivations for Intervention. Journal of Conflict Resolution 55(6): 847–876. DOI: 10.1177/0022002711408009.

17. Klosek K.C. (2020) Military Interventions in Civil Wars: Protecting Foreign Direct Investments and the Defence Industry. Civil Wars 22(1): 87–113. DOI: 10.1080/13698249.2020.1724726.

18. Koru S. (2023) Understanding Persistent Interventions in Civil Wars. Conflict Resolution. Midwest Political Science Association Annual Conference.

19. Kreutz J. (2010) How and when armed conflicts end: Introducing the UCDP Conflict Termination dataset. Journal of Peace Research 47(2): 243–250. DOI: 10.1177/0022343309353108.

20. Leeds B., Ritter J., Mitchell S., Long A. (2002) Alliance Treaty Obligations and Provisions, 1815-1944. International Interactions 28(3): 237–260. DOI: 10.1080/03050620213653.

21. Meier V., Karlén N., Pettersson T., Croicu M. (2023) External support in armed conflicts: Introducing the UCDP external support dataset (ESD), 1975–2017. Journal of Peace Research 60(3): 545-554. DOI: 10.1177/00223433221079864.

22. Nygård G., Trappeniers E., Gates S. (2016) Conflict Recurrence. Conflict Trends 2: 1-4.

23. Palik J., Obermeier A.M., Rustad S.A. (2016) Conflict Trends: A Global Overview. PRIO Paper.

24. Pickering J., Kisangani E.F. (2009) The International Military Intervention Dataset: An Updated Resource for Conflict Scholars. Journal of Peace Research 46(4): 589–599. DOI: 10.1177/0022343309334634.

25. Quinn J.M., Mason T.D., Gurses M. (2007) Sustaining the Peace: Determinants of Civil War Recurrence. International Interactions 33(2): 167–193. DOI: 10.1080/03050620701277673.

26. Regan P.M. (1998) Choosing to Intervene: Outside Interventions in Internal Conflicts. The Journal of Politics 60(3): 754–779. DOI: 10.2307/2647647.

27. Salehyan I., Gleditsch K.S., Cunningham D.E. (2011) Explaining External Support for Insurgent Groups. International Organization 65(4): 709–744. DOI: 10.1017/S0020818311000233.

28. Stinnett D.M., Tir J., Diehl P.F., Schafer P., Gochman C. (2002) The Correlates of War (Cow) Project Direct Contiguity Data, Version 3.0. Conflict Management and Peace Science 19(2): 59–67. DOI: 10.1177/073889420201900203.

29. Stojek S.M., Chacha M. (2015) Adding trade to the equation: Multilevel modeling of biased civil war interventions. Journal of Peace Research 52(2): 228–242. DOI: 10.1177/0022343314561406.


Review

For citations:


Zinovieva E.S., Chernov D.N., Komarova E.S., Arov S.A. Post-Conflict Phase of Armed Intervention. Comparative Politics Russia. 2023;14(4):120-135. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.46272/2221-3279-2023-4-14-120-135

Views: 355


Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.


ISSN 2221-3279 (Print)
ISSN 2412-4990 (Online)