Institutionalizing Peace: Power Sharing and Post‐Civil War Conflict Management

2003 ◽  
Vol 47 (2) ◽  
pp. 318-332 ◽  
Author(s):  
Caroline Hartzell ◽  
Matthew Hoddie
Keyword(s):  
Civil War ◽  
Conflict Management ◽  
Power Sharing

Power Sharing and Democracy in Post-Civil War States

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Caroline A. Hartzell ◽  
Matthew Hoddie
Keyword(s):  
Civil War ◽  
Power Sharing

Conclusion

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jaroslav Tir ◽  
Johannes Karreth
Keyword(s):  
Civil War ◽  
Conflict Management ◽  
Political Violence ◽  
Economic Incentives ◽  
Economic Benefits ◽  
Lessons Learned ◽  
Intergovernmental Organizations ◽  
State Fragility ◽  
International Environment

After summarizing the theoretical arguments and findings of this book, we discuss key lessons learned from our study. The international environment has a significant influence on civil war development and prevention. Amplifying their conflict-preventing influence on member-states, highly structured intergovernmental organizations (IGOs) often coordinate their activities, especially in the area of political violence and state fragility. We then identify a number of tangible, economic incentives as the main pathways of this influence. Overall, this book suggests that the economic benefits of peace provide a potent temptation—for both governments and rebels—to settle low-level armed conflict before it can escalate to full-scale civil war. With these lessons learned, we also identify suggestions for both the research into and practice of conflict management. The chapter closes by pointing to opportunities for making use of our findings to further capitalize on the role of highly structured IGOs in civil war prevention.

scholarly journals The Prevalence of Power-Sharing: Exploring the Patterns of Post-Election Peace

2009 ◽  
Vol 44 (3) ◽  
pp. 41-62 ◽  
Author(s):  
Anna K. Jarstad
Keyword(s):  
Civil War ◽  
Data Collection ◽  
Armed Conflict ◽  
Political Competition ◽  
Peace Process ◽  
Power Sharing ◽  
Good News ◽  
Electoral Outcomes ◽  
Peace Agreements ◽  
Negative Effect

Why are some elections followed by armed conflict, while others are not? This article begins to explore this question by mapping the prevalence of power-sharing agreements and patterns of post-election peace in states shattered by civil war. While democracy builds on the notion of free political competition and uncertain electoral outcomes, power-sharing reduces the uncertainty by ensuring political power for certain groups. Nevertheless, new data presented in this article – the Post-Accord Elections (PAE) data collection – shows that the issues of peace, power-sharing and democracy have become intertwined as the vast majority of contemporary peace agreements provide for both power-sharing and elections. First, in contrast to previous research which has suggested that power-sharing is a tool for ending violence, this study shows that conflict often continues after an agreement has been signed, even if it includes provisions for power-sharing. Second, this investigation shows no evidence of power-sharing facilitating the holding of elections. On the contrary, it is more common that elections are held following a peace process without power-sharing. Third, a period of power-sharing ahead of the elections does not seem to provide for postelection peace. Rather, such elections are similarly dangerous as post-accord elections held without a period of power-sharing. The good news is that power-sharing does not seem to have a negative effect on post-election peace.

South Sudan peace talks may fail to bridge reality gap

2018 ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Civil War ◽  
Local Level ◽  
South Sudan ◽  
Power Sharing ◽  
Framework Agreement ◽  
Content Type

Significance A ‘framework agreement’ reached between President Salva Kiir and opposition leader Riek Machar in Khartoum on June 27 had been billed as a breakthrough in efforts to end South Sudan’s four-and-a-half-year civil war, but progress since then has been mired by infighting, especially around power-sharing formulas. Impacts Sudan and Uganda’s involvement as ‘guarantors’ could constrain would-be spoilers but will be deeply divisive. The several dozen other armed factions will fight to secure their place at the table. Already-dire humanitarian conditions will worsen without local-level security improvements.

The Consequences of Negotiated Settlements in Civil Wars, 1945–1993

1995 ◽  
Vol 89 (3) ◽  
pp. 681-690 ◽  
Author(s):  
Roy Licklider
Keyword(s):  
Civil War ◽  
Civil Wars ◽  
Power Sharing ◽  
Data Set ◽  
Negotiated Settlements

We know very little about how civil wars end. Harrison Wagner has argued that negotiated settlements of civil wars are likely to break down because segments of power-sharing governments retain the capacity for resorting to civil war while victory destroys the losers' organization, making it very difficult to resume the war. An analysis of a data set of 91 post-1945 civil wars generally supports this hypothesis but only in wars over identity issues. Moreover, while military victories may be less likely to break down than negotiated settlements of identity civil wars, they are also more likely to be followed by acts of genocide. Outsiders concerned with minimizing violence thus face a dilemma.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document