Peace Agreements and Civil Wars in Africa: Insurgent Motivations, ...

Hypothesis a. A civil war agreement is more likely to be signed and to hold when mediated by third parties that deploy resources in support of the agreement.

Hypothesis b. A civil war agreement based on a deal between a third party and the mediator is more likely to be signed and to hold than one that does not include the mediator.

Hypothesis c. A civil war agreement is more likely to be signed and to hold when mediated by an impartial third party.

Conflict Dynamics

What were the motivations of the parties for signing the peace accords? Did any of the parties have reservations regarding parts or some terms of the agreements? What was the relationship among the parties when the peace agreements were signed? Did the civil wars seem “ripe” for resolution, or was settlement imposed upon the parties? Were the assumptions under which the accords were negotiated reflective of the military balance in the field? Under conflict dynamics, four types of barriers are suggested to explain why agreements are hard to reach and why they are even harder to hold. The first type of barrier prevents belligerents from initiating negotiations in the first place, the second prevents belligerents from concluding agreements, and the third includes barriers arising from the structure of civil wars. The fourth type of barrier is that arising from the activities of spoilers. Spoilers are groups who feel that a peace agreement threatens their interests and who, as a result, will seek to undermine its implementation. The following hypotheses will be tested:

Hypothesis a. A civil war agreement is more likely to be signed and to hold if both parties find themselves in a mutually hurting stalemate.

Hypothesis b. Civil war agreements are more likely to be signed and to hold if disputants have a consolidated structure than if they have a fractionalized chain of command.