This study aims at examining the reasons why foreign countries (or third parties) militarily intervene in civil conflicts.
To better illustrate its argument, I begin with a brief discussion of two contrasting examples: the Sierra Leone Civil War (1991-2002) and the Casamance Conflict in Senegal (1982-2014). Sierra Leone and Senegal are very similar on a number of dimensions. Both countries are located in West Africa, possess ample natural resources including diamonds and gold (but no oil), and are former colonies of Western powers. In addition, both Sierra Leone and Senegal have small economies without significant ties to the West, are militarily weak, and have little geopolitical importance.
Therefore, if we only focus on such material factors, as Realists often do, it seems somewhat puzzling that the civil war in Sierra Leone triggered a military intervention by its former colonizer, Great Britain, whereas the one in Senegal did not.
If we extend our focus beyond material factors, one can see that the Sierra Leone Civil War differed from the Casamance Conflict in one important respect, which might help explain the difference in intervention outcomes: the level of violence against civilians.
While all intrastate wars are tragic and involve substantial human suffering, there is substantial variation in the extent and nature of the atrocities committed by the warring parties. Some civil conflicts experience widespread and even systematic violence against civilians such as rape, torture, and targeted killings, whereas in others this kind of violence is relatively rare.
The Sierra Leone Civil War is an example of the former type of conflict. More than 50,000 people died as a result of the war, the majority of them civilians. The years between 1997 and 2000 were marked by systematic atrocities committed against the civilian population, to the extent that some observers called it genocidal violence. In contrast, the Casamance Conflict was an intense but rather localized civil war. Fighting was largely restricted to the southern part of Senegal, and both warring parties showed relatively great restraint in their targeting of civilians.
Table of Contents
Abstract
Aim and Scope
Humanitarian Considerations in Third-Party Interventions
An Expected Utility Theory of Third-Party Interventions
Research Design and Data
Findings and Discussion
Robustness
Concluding Remarks
References
Research Objectives and Key Topics
This study investigates the conditional nature of humanitarianism in foreign policy, specifically examining when and for whom human rights violations in a conflict state influence third-party decisions to engage in military intervention.
- Development of an expected utility theory regarding third-party military interventions in civil wars.
- Analysis of the influence of non-major power status on humanitarian-driven interventions.
- Evaluation of how democratic institutions impact the likelihood of responding to human rights atrocities.
- Assessment of shifts in intervention behavior following the end of the Cold War.
- Empirical testing using dyadic data covering 174 civil wars from 1946 to 2008.
Excerpt from the Book
Humanitarian Considerations in Third-Party Interventions
Before elaborating on the conditions under which third parties intervene in civil conflicts, it is necessary to define a concept central to this study: intervention. At the most general level, a third party intervention is the involvement of a state, group of states, or organization(s) not directly associated with one of the warring parties in a civil war with the aim of influencing the outcome of the conflict (Regan 2000; 2002). According to Regan and Aydin (2006), such an involvement can take different forms: third-party intervention should be understood as a continuum, with diplomacy/mediation as the least intrusive form of intervention and military commitments as the most intrusive. Economic sanctions as a form of intervention lie somewhere in the middle of this continuum (Escriba-Folch 2010). This study exclusively focuses on the most intrusive form of third-party interventions, that is, military interventions. Keeping with the definition used by UCDP/PRIO, I understand military intervention as an independent state entering a civil conflict with troops to actively support one of the warring parties; this excludes instances where a third party simply supports one of the warring parties with money, weaponry, or other resources. Therefore, I use the terms “intervention”, “third-party intervention”, and “military intervention” synonymously in this study.
Chapter Summaries
Abstract: Provides a brief overview of the research argument, methodology, and core findings regarding humanitarian motives in military interventions.
Aim and Scope: Introduces the research puzzle using the contrasting examples of the Sierra Leone Civil War and the Casamance Conflict in Senegal to highlight the role of violence against civilians.
Humanitarian Considerations in Third-Party Interventions: Defines the scope of "military intervention" and reviews the existing literature on whether humanitarianism drives foreign policy.
An Expected Utility Theory of Third-Party Interventions: Develops a theoretical framework assuming rational state actors who intervene only when perceived benefits, driven by specific preferences, outweigh the costs.
Research Design and Data: Details the dataset construction (UCDP/PRIO) and the methodological approach using rare events logistic regression.
Findings and Discussion: Presents the empirical results of the statistical models and discusses the distribution of interventions across different types of states and regions.
Robustness: Performs several additional tests and sensitivity analyses to ensure that the empirical findings remain consistent across different model specifications and measures.
Concluding Remarks: Summarizes the study's conclusions, noting that while humanitarianism matters, its impact is highly conditional on state power status and the international environment.
References: Lists the academic literature and datasets used throughout the research.
Keywords
Humanitarianism, imperialism, human rights, intervention, civil war, conflict, violence, international relations, foreign policy, military, strategy, democracy, state power, Cold War, UCDP/PRIO.
Frequently Asked Questions
What is the core subject of this research?
The research examines the relationship between humanitarian concerns—specifically the level of violence against civilians in a conflict state—and the decision of third-party states to militarily intervene in civil wars.
What are the central thematic areas?
The work focuses on international relations, the political economy of conflict, the impact of democratic institutions on foreign policy, and the strategic behavior of major versus minor powers.
What is the primary research question?
The study asks under what specific conditions third-party states are motivated by humanitarian considerations to intervene in civil conflicts.
Which scientific methodology is applied?
The author uses quantitative analysis, specifically rare events logistic regression, on a large dyadic dataset of 174 civil wars occurring between 1946 and 2008.
What does the main body of the work cover?
It covers theoretical derivations of state preferences, detailed research design and variable selection, and extensive empirical testing with multiple robustness checks.
Which keywords characterize this study?
Key terms include humanitarianism, human rights, military intervention, civil war, democracy, and strategic interests of major powers.
Why do major powers differ from weaker states in their intervention behavior?
The study argues that major powers are primarily driven by the protection of the international status quo, which often overrides humanitarian concerns, whereas smaller states have more flexibility to pursue normative or humanitarian goals.
Does the end of the Cold War affect intervention patterns?
The author finds partial evidence that the international environment matters; however, the influence of the Cold War's end is not uniform across all categories of states, with major powers often maintaining power-political behaviors.
How does democracy influence the likelihood of intervention?
The analysis shows that democracies are generally more likely to intervene in response to human rights violations, but this tendency is significantly moderated by whether the state is also a major power.
- Arbeit zitieren
- Michael Neureiter (Autor:in), 2015, Humanitarianism and Third-Party Military Interventions in Civil Wars. A study of their relationship, München, GRIN Verlag, https://www.grin.com/document/962227
