Peacekeeping as Conflict Containment

Beardsley, Kyle; Gleditsch, Kristian Skrede

doi:10.1111/misr.12205

Cited by 66 publications

(42 citation statements)

References 61 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Moreover, the authorization of sanctions against a state in one context is a credible signal that the UNSC is sufficiently motivated to use this tool to address a security concern in that state, and government and dissident actors in an indirectly related SD dispute are likely to update their expectations to anticipate being the target of additional sanctions if they 35 This argument is in line with expectations of the literature on peacekeeping (e.g., Fortna 2004Fortna , 2008. 36 Related, Beardsley (2011) finds that peacekeeping prevents the spread of conflict across state borders, and Beardsley and Gleditsch (2015) find that conflict zones are less mobile in countries with peacekeeping deployments. 37 Minorities at Risk 2009. escalate their dispute to armed conflict.…”

Section: Direct Vs Indirect Engagementmentioning

confidence: 60%

Resolving Civil Wars before They Start: The UN Security Council and Conflict Prevention in Self-Determination Disputes

Beardsley¹,

Cunningham²,

White³

2015

Brit. J. Polit. Sci.

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A large literature has demonstrated that international action can promote the resolution of civil wars. However, international actors do not wait until violence starts to seek to manage conflicts. This article considers the ways in which the United Nations Security Council (UNSC) reduces the propensity for self-determination movements to escalate to civil war, through actions that directly pertain to the disputing actors or that indirectly shape actor incentives. It examines the relationship between the content of UNSC resolutions in all self-determination disputes from 1960 to 2005 and the onset of armed conflict in the disputes. The study finds that diplomatic actions that directly address disputes reduce the likelihood of armed conflict, and that military force and sanctions have more indirect preventive effects.Over the last several decades, international actorsoften working through international organizations such as the United Nations (UN)have focused increasing attention on managing violent intrastate conflict. This trend accelerated after the end of the Cold War, as efforts at the UN and other international bodies were then not stymied by superpower competition. Former UN Secretary-General Boutros-Ghali's Agenda for Peace (1992) emphasizes four areas of action that the international community could and should undertake to promote peace: preventive diplomacy, peacemaking, peacekeeping and post-conflict peace building. A large body of literature has examined the effect of the latter three types of action, and many of the conclusions reached have been optimistic. Studies have concluded that the UN can be effective at building peace, 1 that peacekeeping works, 2 that mediation can help facilitate settlement 3 and that legal dispute resolution is especially effective. 4 While this literature has advanced academic understanding of the effect of international actions and has had implications for policy makers seeking to resolve violent conflicts, there is still a substantial gap in our understanding of international efforts to prevent violent intrastate conflicts. Virtually all existing work focuses on managing or resolving ongoing violent conflicts.

show abstract

Section: Direct Vs Indirect Engagementmentioning

confidence: 60%

Resolving Civil Wars before They Start: The UN Security Council and Conflict Prevention in Self-Determination Disputes

Beardsley¹,

Cunningham²,

White³

2015

Brit. J. Polit. Sci.

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Kelmendi and Radin (2016) indicate that satisfaction with UN peacekeepers in Kosovo depends on the perception that the UN mission furthers the agenda of one's own ethnic group. Beardsley and Gleditsch (2015) and Reiter (2015) show that peacekeepers' interventions may increase the legitimacy of hostile groups that undermine the peace, and Doyle and Sambanis, 2000;Nilsson and Kovacs (2011);and Hultman, Kathman, and Shannon (2014) (2008) and Costalli (2014) find UN peacekeepers are short-term solutions to conflict, and may not serve to predict or prevent subsequent violence. Mironova and Whitt (2017) express concern about the sustainability of positive peace once peacekeepers depart.…”

Section: Theorymentioning

confidence: 99%

Beyond Keeping the Peace: Can Peacekeepers Reduce Ethnic Divisions After Violence?

Page

Whitt

2018

Polit Behav

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Existing research suggests that international peacekeeping contributes to conflict resolution and helps sustain peace, often in locations with hostile ethnic divisions. However, it is unclear whether the presence of peacekeepers actually reduces underlying ethnocentric views and parochial behaviors that sustain those divisions. We examine the effects of NATO peacekeeper deployments on ethnocentrism in postwar Bosnia. While peacekeepers were not randomly deployed in Bosnia, we find that highly ethnocentric attitudes were common across Bosnia at the onset of peacekeeper deployments, reducing endogeneity concerns. To measure ethnocentrism, we employ a variety of survey instruments as well as a behavioral experiment (the dictator game) with ethnic treatments across time. We find that regions with peacekeepers exhibit lower levels of ethnocentrism in comparison to regions without peacekeepers, and this effect persists even after peacekeepers have departed. The peacekeeping effect is also robust to a sub-sample of ethnic Bosnian Serbs, suggesting that peacekeeper deployments can have positive effects on diminishing ethnocentrism, even when local communities are especially hostile to their presence. Our results speak to the potential long-term role of peacekeepers in reducing tensions among groups in conflict. AbstractExisting research suggests that international peacekeeping contributes to conflict resolution and helps sustain peace, often in locations with hostile ethnic divisions. However, it is unclear whether the presence of peacekeepers actually reduces underlying ethnocentric views and parochial behaviors that sustain those divisions. We examine the effects of NATO peacekeeper deployments on ethnocentrism in postwar Bosnia. While peacekeepers were not randomly deployed in Bosnia, we find that highly ethnocentric attitudes were common across Bosnia at the onset of peacekeeper deployments, reducing endogeneity concerns. To measure ethnocentrism, we employ a variety of survey instruments as well as a behavioral experiment (the dictator game) with ethnic treatments across time. We find that regions with peacekeepers exhibit lower levels of ethnocentrism in comparison to regions without peacekeepers, and this effect persists even after peacekeepers have departed. The peacekeeping effect is also robust to a sub-sample of ethnic Bosnian Serbs, suggesting that peacekeeper deployments can have positive effects on diminishing ethnocentrism, even when local communities are especially hostile to their presence. Our results speak to the potential long-term role of peacekeepers in reducing tensions among groups in conflict. AbstractExisting research suggests that international peacekeeping contributes to conflict resolution and helps sustain peace, often in locations with hostile ethnic divisions. However, it is unclear whether the presence of peacekeepers actually reduces underlying ethnocentric views and parochial behaviors that sustain those divisions. We examine the effects of NATO peacekeeper deployments on ethnocentrism ...

show abstract

“…Existing research agrees that peacekeeping works because it reduces the lethality, duration, and diffusion of civil wars (Beardsley and Gleditsch ; Di Salvatore and Ruggeri ; Fortna ; Gilligan and Sergenti ; Hultman, Kathman, and Shannon , ). This scholarship, however, focuses on violence perpetrated by armed political actors and largely neglects violence perpetrated by nonpolitically motivated actors—above all, criminal actors.…”

mentioning

confidence: 94%

Peacekeepers against Criminal Violence—Unintended Effects of Peacekeeping Operations?

Salvatore

2019

American J Political Sci

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Research shows that peacekeepers reduce conflict intensity; however, effects of deployment on nonpolitical violence are unknown. This article focuses on criminal violence and proposes a twofold mechanism to explain why peacekeeping missions, even when effectively reducing conflict, can inadvertently increase criminal violence. First, less conflict opens up economic opportunities (so-called peacekeeping economies) and provides operational security for organized crime, thus increasing violent competition among criminal groups. Second, demobilized combatants are vulnerable to turn to crime because of limited legal livelihood opportunities and their training in warfare. While UN troops may exacerbate these dynamics, UN police's peculiar role is likely to successfully contain criminal violence. Cross-national and subnational empirical analyses show that large UN military deployments result in higher homicide rates, whereas UN police, overall, moderate this collateral effect.

show abstract

Peacekeeping as Conflict Containment

Cited by 66 publications

References 61 publications

Resolving Civil Wars before They Start: The UN Security Council and Conflict Prevention in Self-Determination Disputes

Resolving Civil Wars before They Start: The UN Security Council and Conflict Prevention in Self-Determination Disputes

Beyond Keeping the Peace: Can Peacekeepers Reduce Ethnic Divisions After Violence?

Peacekeepers against Criminal Violence—Unintended Effects of Peacekeeping Operations?

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About