Why Do Civil Wars End By Negotiated Settlement?

Words: 452
Pages: 2

The author seeks to explain the reasons why civil wars are difficult to end by negotiated settlements. According to her, evidence shows that most civil wars, unlike interstate wars, end with an outright victory by one faction instead of a negotiated settlement. She suggests that this trend does not imply that adversaries do not often negotiate or are not willing to negotiate, but the puzzle is that the negotiations often break down and warring factions continue to fight until one side eliminates the other.

The author essentially sets out to answer two questions. 1) Why do civil wars hardly end through a successfully negotiated settlement? 2) What conditions can lead to a successfully negotiated solution to civil wars?

Her main finding is that civil wars rarely end in a negotiated settlement not because adversaries are unable to compromise or have an irreconcilable difference but because adversaries themselves cannot trust each other to implement the terms of the settlement. She argues that, in the case of anarchy or a civil war where domestic institutions are nonfunctional, corrupt, or non-existent, adversaries have no means of ensuring compliance with negotiated agreements. In other words, adversaries are unable to ensure that no one cheats the other party. Furthermore, since negotiated settlements often involve disarmament and demobilization, adversaries are aware that cooperation to a negotiated settlement will leave them vulnerable to
…show more content…
Thus, why warring factions in a civil war will choose to continue to fight instead of accepting to negotiate?
The first assumption she notes is commitment problems. The author assumes that adversaries will refuse to cooperate and continue to fight once neither side knows for sure that during a state of vulnerability (disarming). The other party will also do same and will not be exploited by the