Search Climate Insights Directory

The research paper develops a formal model and provides empirical analysis to argue that third-party military intervention in civil wars is driven by economic factors. The authors find that the likelihood of intervention increases when the conflict state has large oil reserves, when the global oil market is more oligopolistic (less competitive), and when the potential intervener is a net oil importer. Using a dyadic dataset from 1945-1999, the study demonstrates that the value of oil reserves and the intervener's balance of trade in oil are significant predictors of intervention, often exerting a larger impact than traditional factors like ethnic ties or Cold War dynamics.

The research argues that transnational ethnic ties increase the risk of civil war, but this effect is conditional on the domestic demographic size of the marginalized group. Using a triadic model and geocoded data, the authors find that larger excluded groups with kin in neighboring states are significantly more likely to engage in conflict than those without such ties, while the governmental status of the external kin group does not have a statistically significant impact.

The research demonstrates that states experiencing civil wars are significantly more likely to be involved in militarized interstate disputes (MIDs). Using data from 1946 to 2001, the authors find that this 'civil peace' effect is comparable in magnitude to the 'democratic peace' effect. Analysis of over 400 MIDs reveals that the increased risk is driven by states attempting to influence the outcome of civil wars through direct intervention, externalization (such as cross-border counter-insurgency), and unintended spillovers, rather than by opportunistic attacks on weakened states or diversionary wars to consolidate domestic power.

The research argues that civil war dynamics are best understood as dyadic interactions between governments and specific rebel groups rather than through aggregate national characteristics. Using new data on non-state actors, the authors find that militarily strong rebels tend to fight shorter wars and are more likely to achieve decisive victories or concessions. Conversely, conflicts are prolonged when rebels are militarily weak but maintain territorial control in the periphery, as they can evade government repression without being strong enough to force a settlement. The study also indicates that the availability of legal political wings for rebels shortens conflict duration, and that the likelihood of government victory decreases significantly as a conflict persists.