Third Party Intervention in Peace Agreements: Making or Keeping the Peace? Evaluating the Impact of Single-State Non-Military Intervention on the Outcomes for Long-Lasting Peace and Stability in Post-war States

Abstract

Third party intervention has become increasingly important in modern-day conflict resolution. It has occurred in 70 percent of all conflicts since 1945 and conflict is six time more likely to be resolved when a third-party is involved. The claim that mediation plays a central role in modern-day conflict resolution is also reflected in a rapidly expanding body of literature. The number of studies published on international mediation has increased progressively since the early 1960s. Regardless, a big problem remains with respect to the outcomes of third party non-military intervention. While scholars are beginning to learn why it is more difficult to ensure long-run peace in relation to third party intervention, there is not yet a good understanding of what can be done to avoid the reoccurrence of violence, the break of an agreement, and intervention failure. The main goal of this paper is to highlight the possible ways in which single-state intervention in peace negotiations after civil war can negatively affect the outcome for long-lasting peace and stability. It will assess whether this type of intervention is necessary and whether there is a more practical solution to help secure successful implementation of peace negotiations and long-lasting peace in these conflict states. This paper will do so by examining the trends for success and failure of intervention from the Uppsala Conflict Data Program (UCDP) Peace Agreement Dataset and will use a case study to exemplify the findings from the dataset analysis. The paper will conclude that the analysis and case study demonstrate that single-state intervention in peace negotiations does not adequately enable a conflict state into sustaining long-term peace and stability. These interventions are not associated with long-term peace and stability in a war-torn state. Their reason for failure is mostly rooted in the mediator’s inability to be impartial. The more effective and appropriate policy solution would be to let the conflict come to an end naturally with one decisive victor.