Third-party Interventions and the Duration of Intrastate Conflicts

TLDR

Recent research has begun to focus on outside interventions in civil conflicts, with the expectation that they would reduce conflict duration. The study tests hypotheses linking the type and timing of outside interventions to civil conflict duration. The authors analyze 150 civil conflicts from 1945–1999, including 101 with outside interventions. Hazard analysis shows that third‑party interventions generally extend conflict duration, and only biased interventions toward one side reduce the likelihood of a conflict ending in the next month.

Abstract

Recent research has begun to focus on the role of outside interventions in the duration of civil conflicts. Assuming that interventions are a form of conflict management, ex ante expectations would be that they would reduce a conflict's expected duration. Hypotheses relating the type and timing of outside interventions to the duration of civil conflicts are tested. The data incorporate 150 conflicts during the period from 1945 to 1999, 101 of which had outside interventions. Using a hazard analysis, the results suggest that third-party interventions tend to extend expected durations rather than shorten them. The only aspect of the strategy for intervening that reduces the likelihood that a conflict will end in the next month is that it be biased in favor of either the opposition or the government. In effect, neutral interventions are less effective than biased ones.