Articles

Historically, most civil wars have ended with the military defeat of the losing side. In the 1990s, by contrast, civil wars usually ended with a negotiated settlement. What accounts for this anomaly?

To what extent can international peacekeeping promote micro-foundations for positive peace after violence? Drawing on macro-level peacekeeping theory, the authors' approach uses novel experimental methods to illustrate how monitoring and enforcement by a neutral third party could conceivably enhance prosocial behavior between rival groups in a tense, postconflict peacekeeping environment.

When do states carry out mass violence against minority ethnic groups collaborating with adversaries during wartime? A comparison of the policies of the Austro-Hungarian, Ottoman, and Russian Empires during World War I shows that states with influential political organizations reflecting non-ethnic social divisions are less likely to pursue mass killings of ethnic minority collaborators. This factor may also help prevent mass killing in contemporary ethnic conflicts.

Claims that drones will soon remake warfare or international politics are unwarranted. Although almost a dozen states now possess armed drones, and more are racing to acquire them, they will not play a decisive role in interstate conflicts. Drones will rarely be “winning weapons,” because they are vulnerable to air defenses. States will, however, continue to use drones against terrorists and domestic opponents.

To what extent can prosocial norms (re-)emerge among rival groups following intense intergroup conflict? One school of thought posits that violence can strengthen intragroup bonding norms, entrenching parochialism and sustaining in-group biases. However, recent studies suggest that intergroup bridging norms can also improve once conflict ends. The authors' research offers insights into how prosocial bridging vs. parochial bonding norms evolve after violence.