View article

In the growing literature on the causes, courses, and conclusions of civil wars, the question of post-war peacebuilding and re-stabilization has loomed large. A number of studies have examined the correlates of lasting rather than transient and failed peace agreements and settlements. 1 Though findings have varied depending on the population of cases considered and the definitions of key variables, they have tended to highlight the importance of factors such as decisive victories, international security guarantees, power sharing and reconciliation agreements, state capacity building, democratic reforms, and economic reconstruction. 2

One of the most interesting questions regarding the outcome of civil wars is the role played by outside parties-states, powers, and organizations—in either promoting or dampening the combat and facilitating solutions. Indeed outside forceful intervention or meddling in such wars is proscribed under international law as a violation of state sovereignty, save for the presumed authority of state governments to invite assistance by other states. Intervention on behalf of rebels or insurgents generally is considered illegitimate, though in some circumstances, such as South Africa’s Apartheid struggles, the international community and international governmental organization resolutions favored the “justness” of the liberation struggle. Few studies, however, have looked systematically and in detail at the question of whether foreign intervention, and particularly forceful or military intervention in the wars themselves, generally increase or decrease the odds of what might be considered favorable outcomes and post-war stability …