Abstract
Territorial power-sharing arrangements in civil wars face trade-offs between broadening inclusions and dangers of secession. This article argues that in civil wars over a government, the commitment problem is overcome as secession is not in its political agenda, however, the central concern pertains to the issues that arise in policymaking. Granting autonomy at the subnational level leads to peace without weakening the central authority. In addition, in bargaining over policies with multiple conflict parties, a government strategically makes concessions of territorial power-sharing to retain the status quo of national policy and positions in the government in a situation where dominance by one party is not attainable. It signals a government’s less resolute attitude in accommodating additional rebel groups. Hence, territorial power-sharing entails positive externality. This article finds that in civil wars over a government, at a dyad level, the positive effects of territorial power-sharing in peace decreases over time. Instead, the likelihood of a peace agreement with another rebel group increases. The results imply that the effectiveness of the autonomy arrangement depends on strategic concessions and broader future inclusions.
Acknowledgement
The author would like to greatly thank Ismene Gizelis, Daina Chiba, Kristian Skrede Gleditsch, Dominik Duell, Martin Ottmann, Sara Mitchell, Lorena Castilla Medina, Andrew Edward Tchie, Marina Petrova, Katariina Mustasilta, Robert Nagel, for their comments on earlier version of drafts of the article.
References
Bieber, F., and S. Keil. 2009. “Power-Sharing Revisited: Lessons Learned in the Balkans?” Review of Central and East European Law 34 (4): 337–60. https://doi.org/10.1163/092598809X12474728805778.Suche in Google Scholar
Brancati, D. 2006. “Decentralization: Fueling the Fire or Dampening the Flames of Ethnic Conflict and Secessionism?” International Organization 60 (3): 651–85. https://doi.org/10.1017/s002081830606019x.Suche in Google Scholar
Carter, D. B., and C. S. Signorino. 2010. “Back to the Future: Modeling Time Dependence in Binary Data.” Political Analysis 18 (3): 271–92. https://doi.org/10.1093/pan/mpq013.Suche in Google Scholar
Cederman, L.-E., S. Hug, A. Schädel, and W. Julian. 2015. “Territorial Autonomy in the Shadow of Conflict: Too Little, Too Late?” American Political Science Review 109 (2): 354–70. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0003055415000118.Suche in Google Scholar
Chapman, T., and P. G. Roeder. 2007. “Partition as a Solution to Wars of Nationalism: The Importance of Institutions.” American Political Science Review 101 (4): 677–91. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0003055407070438.Suche in Google Scholar
Christia, F. 2012. Alliance Formation in Civil Wars. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9781139149426Suche in Google Scholar
Collier, P., and A. Hoeffler. 2004. “Greed and Grievance in Civil War.” Oxford Economic Papers 56 (4): 563–95. https://doi.org/10.1093/oep/gpf064.Suche in Google Scholar
Collins, S. D. 2010. “Indigenous Rights and Internal Wars: The Chiapas Conflict at 15 Years.” The Social Science Journal 47 (4): 773–88. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soscij.2010.05.006.Suche in Google Scholar
Cunningham, D. E. 2006. “Veto Players and Civil War Duration.” American Journal of Political Science 50 (4): 875–92. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-5907.2006.00221.x.Suche in Google Scholar
Cunningham, D. E., K. S. Gleditsch, and I. Salehyan. 2009. “It Takes Two: A Dyadic Analysis of Civil War Duration and Outcome.” Journal of Conflict Resolution 53 (4): 570–97. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022002709336458.Suche in Google Scholar
Cunningham, D. E., K. S. Gleditsch, and I. Salehyan. 2013. “Non-State Actors in Civil Wars: A New Dataset.” Conflict Management and Peace Science 30 (5): 516–31. https://doi.org/10.1177/0738894213499673.Suche in Google Scholar
Cunningham, K. G., R. Huang, and K. M. Sawyer. 2020. “Voting for Militants: Rebel Elections in Civil War.” Journal of Conflict Resolution, https://doi.org/10.1177/0022002720937750 (Epub ahead of print).Suche in Google Scholar
De Bruijn, M., and H. van Dijk. 2007. “The Multiple Experiences of Civil War in the Guéra Region of Chad, 1965–1990.” Sociologus 57: 61–98.Suche in Google Scholar
Fearon, J. D. 2004. “Why Do Some Civil Wars Last So Much Longer Than Others?” Journal of Peace Research 41 (3): 275–301. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022343304043770.Suche in Google Scholar
Fearon, J. D., and D. D. Laitin. 2006. Chad. Unpublished Manuscript.Suche in Google Scholar
Fjelde, H., and D. Nilsson. 2018. “The Rise of Rebel Contenders: Barriers to Entry and Fragmentation in Civil Wars.” Journal of Peace Research 55 (5): 551–65. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022343318767497.Suche in Google Scholar
Fortna, V. P. 2008. Does Peacekeeping Work?: Shaping Belligerents’ Choices after Civil War. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press.10.1515/9781400837731Suche in Google Scholar
Gates, S., B. A. T. Graham, Y. Lupu, H. Strand, and K. W. Strøm. 2016. “Power Sharing, Protection, and Peace.” The Journal of Politics 78 (2): 512–26. https://doi.org/10.1086/684366.Suche in Google Scholar
Gerring, J., S. C. Thacker, and C. Moreno. 2005. “Centripetal Democratic Governance: A Theory and Global Inquiry.” American Political Science Review 99 (4): 567–81. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0003055405051889.Suche in Google Scholar
Gleditsch, K. S. 2002. “Expanded Trade and GDP Data.” Journal of Conflict Resolution 46 (5): 712–24. https://doi.org/10.1177/002200202236171.Suche in Google Scholar
Gleditsch, N. P., P. Wallensteen, M. Eriksson, M. Sollenberg, and H. Strand. 2002. “Armed Conflict 1946–2001: A New Dataset.” Journal of Peace Research 39 (5): 615–37. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022343302039005007.Suche in Google Scholar
Guisinger, A., and A. Smith. 2002. “Honest Threats: The Interaction of Reputation and Political Institutions in International Crises.” Journal of Conflict Resolution 46 (2): 175–200. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022002702046002001.Suche in Google Scholar
Harbom, L., S. Högbladh, and P. Wallensteen. 2006. “Armed Conflict and Peace Agreements.” Journal of Peace Research 43 (5): 617–31. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022343306067613.Suche in Google Scholar
Hartzell, C., and M. Hoddie. 2003. “Institutionalizing Peace: Power Sharing and Post-Civil War Conflict Management.” American Journal of Political Science 47 (2): 318–32. https://doi.org/10.1111/1540-5907.00022.Suche in Google Scholar
Hartzell, C., and M. Hoddie. 2007. Crafting Peace: Power-Sharing Institutions and the Negotiated Settlement of Civil Wars. University Park: Pennsylvania State University Press.Suche in Google Scholar
Hartzell, C., and M. Hoddie. 2015. “The Art of the Possible: Power Sharing and Post-Civil War Democracy.” World Politics 67 (1): 37–71. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0043887114000306.Suche in Google Scholar
Hartzell, C., M. Hoddie, and D. Rothchild. 2001. “Stabilizing the Peace after Civil War: An Investigation of Some Key Variables.” International Organization 55 (1): 183–208. https://doi.org/10.1162/002081801551450.Suche in Google Scholar
Hoddie, M., and C. Hartzell. 2003. “Civil War Settlements and the Implementation of Military Power-Sharing Arrangements.” Journal of Peace Research 40 (3): 303–20. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022343303040003004.Suche in Google Scholar
Hoddie, M., and C. Hartzell. 2005. “Power Sharing in Peace Settlements: Initiating the Transition from Civil War.” In Sustainable Peace: Power and Democracy after Civil Wars, edited by P. G. Roeder, and D. Rothchild, 83–106. NY and London: Cornell University Press.Suche in Google Scholar
Högbladh, S. 2011. “Peace Agreements 1975–2011 – Updating the UCDP Peace Agreement Dataset.” In States in Armed Conflict 2011, edited by P. Therése, and L. Themnér, 39–56. Uppsala, Sweden: Uppsala University: Department of Peace and Conflict Research Report 99.Suche in Google Scholar
Horowitz, D. L. 1985. Ethnic Groups in Conflict. Berkeley: University of California Press.Suche in Google Scholar
Hultquist, P. 2013. “Power Parity and Peace? The Role of Relative Power in Civil War Settlement.” Journal of Peace Research 50 (5): 623–34. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022343313486281.Suche in Google Scholar
Jarstad, A. K., and D. Nilsson. 2008. “From Words to Deeds: The Implementation of Power-Sharing Pacts in Peace Accords.” Conflict Management and Peace Science 25 (3): 206–23. https://doi.org/10.1080/07388940802218945.Suche in Google Scholar
Jenne, E. K., S. M. Saideman, and W. Lowe. 2007. “Separatism as a Bargaining Posture: The Role of Leverage in Minority Radicalization.” Journal of Peace Research 44 (5): 539–58. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022343307080853.Suche in Google Scholar
Jennings, K. M. 2007. “The Struggle to Satisfy: DDR Through the Eyes of Ex-Combatants in Liberia.” International Peacekeeping 14 (2): 204–18. https://doi.org/10.1080/13533310601150800.Suche in Google Scholar
King, G., and L. Zeng. 2001. “Logistic Regression in Rare Events Data.” Political Analysis 9 (2): 137–63. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordjournals.pan.a004868.Suche in Google Scholar
Kydd, A. H. 2006. “When Can Mediators Build Trust?” American Political Science Review 100 (3): 449–62. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0003055406062290.Suche in Google Scholar
Lake, D. A., and D. Rothchild. 2005. “Territorial Decentralization and Civil War Settlements.” In Sustainable Peace: Power and Democracy after Civil Wars, edited by P. G. Roeder, and D. Rothchild, 109–32. NY and London: Cornell University Press.Suche in Google Scholar
Licht, A. A. 2011. “Change Comes with Time: Substantive Interpretation of Nonproportional Hazards in Event History Analysis.” Political Analysis 19: 227–43. https://doi.org/10.1093/pan/mpq039.Suche in Google Scholar
Lijphart, A. 1977. Democracy in Plural Societies: A Comparative Exploration. New Haven: Yale University Press.Suche in Google Scholar
Lijphart, A. 2007. Thinking about Democracy: Power Sharing and Majority Rule in Theory and Practice. New York: Routledge.10.4324/9780203934685Suche in Google Scholar
Martin, P. 2013. “Coming Together: Power-Sharing and the Durability of Negotiated Peace Settlements.” Civil Wars 15 (3): 332–58. https://doi.org/10.1080/13698249.2013.842747.Suche in Google Scholar
Mattes, M., and B. Savun. 2009. “Fostering Peace after Civil War: Commitment Problems and Agreement Design.” International Studies Quarterly 53 (3): 737–59. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2478.2009.00554.x.Suche in Google Scholar
May, R., and S. Massey. 2000. “Two Steps Forward, One Step Back: Chad’s Protracted ‘Transition to Democracy’.” Journal of Contemporary African Studies 18 (1): 107–32. https://doi.org/10.1080/025890000111995.Suche in Google Scholar
Mayor, A. B. C. 2000. Indigenous Autonomy in Mexico. Copenhagen: International Work Group for Indigenous Affairs.Suche in Google Scholar
Miles, W. F. S. 1995. “Tragic Tradeoffs: Democracy and Security in Chad.” The Journal of Modern African Studies 33 (1): 53–65. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0022278x0002084x.Suche in Google Scholar
Muggah, R. 2005. “No Magic Bullet: A Critical Perspective on Disarmament, Demobilization and Reintegration (DDR) and Weapons Reduction in Post-Conflict Contexts.” The Round Table 94 (379): 239–52. https://doi.org/10.1080/00358530500082684.Suche in Google Scholar
Norris, P. 2008. “Federalism and Decentralization.” In Driving Democracy: Do Power-Sharing Institutions Work?, edited by P. Norris, 157–85. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511790614.008Suche in Google Scholar
Ottmann, M., and J. Vüllers. 2014. “The Power-Sharing Event Dataset (PSED): A New Dataset on the Promises and Practices of Power-Sharing in Post-Conflict Countries.” Conflict Management and Peace Science 32 (3): 327–50. https://doi.org/10.1177/0738894214542753.Suche in Google Scholar
Pospieszna, P., and G. Schneider. 2013. “The Illusion of ‘Peace Through Power-Sharing’: Constitutional Choice in the Shadow of Civil War.” Civil Wars 15 (Suppl. 1): 44–70. https://doi.org/10.1080/13698249.2013.850877.Suche in Google Scholar
Powell, R. 1999. The Shadow of Power: States and Strategies in International Politics. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press.10.1515/9780691213989Suche in Google Scholar
Riker, W. H. 1964. Federalism: Origin, Operation, Significance. Boston: Little Brown.Suche in Google Scholar
Rodden, J. 2004. “Comparative Federalism and Decentralization: On Meaning and Measurement.” Comparative Politics 36 (4): 481–500. https://doi.org/10.2307/4150172.Suche in Google Scholar
Roeder, P. G. 2005. “Power Dividing as an Alternative to Ethnic Power Sharing.” In Sustainable Peace: Power and Democracy after Civil Wars, edited by P. G. Roeder, and D. Rothchild, 51–82. NY and London: Cornell University Press.Suche in Google Scholar
Ruggeri, A., T.-I. Gizelis, and D. Han. 2013. “Managing Mistrust: An Analysis of Cooperation with UN Peacekeeping in Africa.” Journal of Conflict Resolution 57 (3): 387–409. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022002712448906.Suche in Google Scholar
Sawyer, K., K. G. Cunningham, and W. Reed. 2015. “The Role of External Support in Civil War Termination.” Journal of Conflict Resolution 61 (6): 1–29. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022002715600761.Suche in Google Scholar
Schneckener, U. 2002. “Making Power-Sharing Work: Lessons from Successes and Failures in Ethnic Conflict Regulation.” Journal of Peace Research 39 (2): 203–28. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022343302039002004.Suche in Google Scholar
Simons, C., F. Zanker, A. Mehler, and D. M. Tull. 2013. “Power-Sharing in Africa’s War Zones: How Important is the Local Level?” The Journal of Modern African Studies 51 (4): 681–706. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0022278x13000645.Suche in Google Scholar
Sisk, T. D. 1996. Power Sharing and International Mediation in Ethnic Conflicts. DC: United States Institute of Peace Press.Suche in Google Scholar
Stahler-Sholk, R. 2007. “Resisting Neoliberal Homogenization: The Zapatista Autonomy Movement.” Latin American Perspectives 34 (2): 48–63. https://doi.org/10.1177/0094582x06298747.Suche in Google Scholar
Stedman, S. J. 1997. “Spoiler Problems in Peace Processes.” International Security 22 (2): 5–53. https://doi.org/10.1162/isec.22.2.5.Suche in Google Scholar
Stephen, L. 1995. “The Zapatista Army of National Liberation and the National Democratic Convention.” Latin American Perspectives 22 (4): 88–99. https://doi.org/10.1177/0094582x9502200408.Suche in Google Scholar
Sundberg, R., and E. Melander. 2013. “Introducing the UCDP Georeferenced Event Dataset.” Journal of Peace Research 50 (4): 523–32. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022343313484347.Suche in Google Scholar
Themnér, L., and P. Wallensteen. 2014. “Armed Conflicts, 1946–2013.” Journal of Peace Research 51 (4): 541–54. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022343314542076.Suche in Google Scholar
Treisman, D. 2007. The Architecture of Government: Rethinking Political Decentralization. New York: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511619151Suche in Google Scholar
Tsebelis, G. 2002. Veto Players: How Political Institutions Work. Princeton: Princeton University Press.10.1515/9781400831456Suche in Google Scholar
Wallensteen, P. 2015. Understanding Conflict Resolution. London: Sage.Suche in Google Scholar
Walter, B. F. 1997. “The Critical Barrier to Civil War Settlement.” International Organization 51 (3): 335–64. https://doi.org/10.1162/002081897550384.Suche in Google Scholar
Weingast, B. R. 1997. “The Political Foundations of Democracy and the Rule of the Law.” American Political Science Review 91 (2): 245–63. https://doi.org/10.2307/2952354.Suche in Google Scholar
Zanker, F., C. Simons, and A. Mehler. 2015. “Power, Peace, and Space in Africa: Revisiting Territorial Power Sharing.” African Affairs 114 (454): 72–91. https://doi.org/10.1093/afraf/adu064.Suche in Google Scholar
Supplementary Material
The online version of this article offers supplementary material (https://doi.org/10.1515/peps-2020-0020).
© 2020 Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston
Artikel in diesem Heft
- Frontmatter
- Editorial
- 4th Walter Isard Annual Award for the Best Article in Peace Economics Peace Science and Public Policy
- Research Articles
- Conceptual Ambiguity in Coding the Categories of Peace Agreement and Peace Process
- Conflict Externalization and the Quest for Peace: Theory and Case Evidence from Colombia
- Convergence or Divergence Patterns in Global Defence Spending: Further Evidence from a Nonlinear Single Factor Model
- Strategic Territorial Power-Sharing and Multi-Party Bargaining in Civil Wars
- A Literature Survey on Defense Expenditures – External Debt Nexus
Artikel in diesem Heft
- Frontmatter
- Editorial
- 4th Walter Isard Annual Award for the Best Article in Peace Economics Peace Science and Public Policy
- Research Articles
- Conceptual Ambiguity in Coding the Categories of Peace Agreement and Peace Process
- Conflict Externalization and the Quest for Peace: Theory and Case Evidence from Colombia
- Convergence or Divergence Patterns in Global Defence Spending: Further Evidence from a Nonlinear Single Factor Model
- Strategic Territorial Power-Sharing and Multi-Party Bargaining in Civil Wars
- A Literature Survey on Defense Expenditures – External Debt Nexus