Journal Article - Quarterly Journal: International Security
Ending Civil Wars: A Case for Rebel Victory?
Summary
Since 1990, negotiated settlements have become the preferred means for settling civil wars. Historically, however, these types of settlements have proven largely ineffective: civil wars ended by negotiated settlement are more likely to recur than those ending in victory by one side or the other. A theoretical and statistical analysis of how civil wars end reveals that the type of ending influences the prospects for longer-term outcomes. An examination of all civil war endings since 1940 finds that rebel victories are more likely to secure the peace than are negotiated settlements. A statistical analysis of civil wars from 1940 to 2002 and the case of Uganda illustrate why rebel victories result in more stable outcomes. Expanding scholarly and policy analysis of civil war termination types beyond the current default of negotiated settlement to include victories provides a much larger set of cases and variables to draw upon to enhance understanding of the conditions most likely to support long-term stability, democracy, and prosperity.
For more information on this publication:
Please contact
International Security
For Academic Citation:
Monica Duffy Toft. “Ending Civil Wars: A Case for Rebel Victory?.” Quarterly Journal: International Security, vol. 34. no. 4. (Spring 2010): 7-36 .
- Recommended
- In the Spotlight
- Most Viewed
Recommended
Report
- Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs
Challenging Biases and Assumptions in Analysis: Could Israel Have Averted Intelligence Failure?
Analysis & Opinions
- Carnegie Endowment for International Peace
Iran and Israel's Dangerous Gambit
Analysis & Opinions
- Foreign Policy
America Fueled the Fire in the Middle East
In the Spotlight
Most Viewed
Analysis & Opinions
- New Straits Times
Gorbachev and the End of the Cold War
Paper
- Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs, Harvard Kennedy School
Attacking Artificial Intelligence: AI’s Security Vulnerability and What Policymakers Can Do About It
Analysis & Opinions
- Carnegie Endowment for International Peace
Iran and Israel's Dangerous Gambit
Summary
Since 1990, negotiated settlements have become the preferred means for settling civil wars. Historically, however, these types of settlements have proven largely ineffective: civil wars ended by negotiated settlement are more likely to recur than those ending in victory by one side or the other. A theoretical and statistical analysis of how civil wars end reveals that the type of ending influences the prospects for longer-term outcomes. An examination of all civil war endings since 1940 finds that rebel victories are more likely to secure the peace than are negotiated settlements. A statistical analysis of civil wars from 1940 to 2002 and the case of Uganda illustrate why rebel victories result in more stable outcomes. Expanding scholarly and policy analysis of civil war termination types beyond the current default of negotiated settlement to include victories provides a much larger set of cases and variables to draw upon to enhance understanding of the conditions most likely to support long-term stability, democracy, and prosperity.
- Recommended
- In the Spotlight
- Most Viewed
Recommended
Report - Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs
Challenging Biases and Assumptions in Analysis: Could Israel Have Averted Intelligence Failure?
Analysis & Opinions - Carnegie Endowment for International Peace
Iran and Israel's Dangerous Gambit
Analysis & Opinions - Foreign Policy
America Fueled the Fire in the Middle East
In the Spotlight
Most Viewed
Analysis & Opinions - New Straits Times
Gorbachev and the End of the Cold War
Paper - Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs, Harvard Kennedy School
Attacking Artificial Intelligence: AI’s Security Vulnerability and What Policymakers Can Do About It
Analysis & Opinions - Carnegie Endowment for International Peace
Iran and Israel's Dangerous Gambit