Innovations in concepts and measurement for the study of peace and conflict

Fariss, Christopher J.; Lo, James

doi:10.1177/0022343320975200

Cited by 5 publications

(3 citation statements)

References 59 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Beyond academic research, our theoretical framework and empirical evidence could serve as a point of reference to practitioners looking for ways to improve agreement content through mediation. indicators and clear units of analysis while facing complex data structures (Fariss and Lo, 2020).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Furthermore, our theoretical and empirical results contribute to recent work on the improved measurement of theoretical concepts in peace and conflict research (cf. Fariss and Lo, 2020). Specifically, we demonstrate that Differential Item Functioning (DIF) in measurement models is not just a nuisance but may also provide insights into theoretically and substantively relevant phenomena.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 87%

See 1 more Smart Citation

How mediators shape the content of peace agreements: A framework of negotiations over issues

Ruhe,

Dankenbring,

Volg

2024

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Ample evidence suggests that mediators increase the probability of agreements and that mediated agreements are more stable than un-mediated ones. Further research describes how agreements' content is crucial for lasting peace. However, we lack a theory explaining why conflict parties agree on specific content in the first place and how mediators influence agreement content. We propose a framework of negotiation processes and highlight how mediators shape their content. We argue that two factors define negotiation processes: the difficulty of issues on the table and the willingness and ability to compromise among the negotiating parties at the table. Existing scholarship outlines that, e.g., bargaining problems hamper compromise and proposes that mediators may increase actors' overall willingness or ability to make concessions by facilitating information flow and mitigating commitment problems. We suggest mediators have further, more nuanced means to foster meaningful agreements. We deduce three patterns of how mediators promote or deprioritize content and foster agreements on challenging issues. Our theoretical framework translates directly into a statistical model, allowing us to test the predicted patterns using data on peace agreements in intrastate conflicts between 1990 and 2012. As expected, we find that mediators successfully promote compromise on the most difficult content. Moreover, mediators appear to deprioritize less controversial topics. The analysis highlights how mediators may alter and potentially improve agreement content, even when they cannot increase belligerents' overall willingness or ability to compromise. Beyond armed conflict studies, our framework may inform research on third party influence in negotiations over specific content.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 87%

How mediators shape the content of peace agreements: A framework of negotiations over issues

Ruhe,

Dankenbring,

Volg

2024

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…While there is research measuring peace agreement comprehensiveness (Williams et al, 2021), we demonstrate how a conceptual framework for negotiation content can help deduce mechanisms that undermine negotiation success. By doing so, we contribute to the recent efforts to better theorize and empirically investigate latent theoretical concepts in peace and conflict studies (Fariss and Lo, 2020).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Negotiating complex issues with little fervour? Why peace processes in territorial conflicts tend to produce incomplete outcomes

Dankenbring,

Volg,

Ruhe

2024

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

There is widespread consensus in peace research that territorial conflicts are more enduring and difficult to settle than non-territorial conflicts. However, theoretical explanations for this relationship vary. We apply a new conceptual framework to integrate existing explanations into a broader theory. We highlight how earlier work suggests alternative mechanisms: Either actors in territorial intra-state conflicts are less willing to compromise at the negotiation table, or the most relevant negotiation topics on the table in territorial conflicts are particularly difficult. This theoretical argument directly translates into a statistical model, enabling us to measure and compare the latent compromise propensity and the relative difficulty of negotiation topics in territorial versus non-territorial conflicts. In a preregistered analysis, we find that comprehensive peace agreements are less likely in territorial civil wars because topics primarily relevant in territorial conflicts are particularly difficult. Further analyses show that territorial conflicts also have a lower overall compromise propensity than government conflicts, but background conditions account for this association.

show abstract