Russia’s Interventions in Ethnic Conflicts: The Case of Armenia and Azerbaijan, written by Coyle, James J.

During the Cold War, most international relations theorists and strategic studies analysts paid little attention to ethnic and other forms of communal conflict. Disregard for the importance of ethnic and nationality issues in world affairs, always misguided so far as the developing world was concerned, has been overtaken, in stunning fashion, by recent events from Abkhazia to Zaire. The essays in this volume advance our understanding of the causes of ethnic and communal conflict, the regional and international implications of such conflicts, and what the international community can do to minimize the potential for instability and violence. Drawn from recent issues of Survival, they are organized along thematic rather than regional lines, and will be required reading for scholars, students, and policymakers alike. The contributors to the volume include Michael Brown on the causes and implications of ethnic conflict, Anthony Smith on the ethnic sources of nationalism, David Welsh on domestic politics and ethnic conflict, Renee de Nevers on democratization and ethnic conflict, and Pierre Hassner on nationalism and internationalism. Jack Snyder writes on nationalism and the crisis of the post-Soviet state, Barry Posen on the security dilemma and ethnic conflict, Kathleen Newland on ethnic conflict and refugees, Jenonne Walker on international mediation of ethnic conflicts, and Robert Cooper and Mats Berdal on outside intervention in ethnic conflicts, Adam Roberts discusses the U.N. and international security, and John Chipman explores managing the politics of parochialism.

This article provides an introduction to this special issue on international intervention in conflict. It provides a brief overview of the different approaches to examining intervention. A summary of various approaches to intervention and definitions of success is provided, drawing on the other articles in this issue. A critique of local ownership is set out, drawing on articles in this issue and on the cases of Northern Ireland and the Balkans, particularly Kosovo. In conclusion, it is argued that most authors tend towards favouring either grass-roots or elite-driven approaches. However, this article highlights the merits of an elite-driven approach and emphasizes the need for more detailed investigation of the correct timing for local empowerment in a given conflict and the necessary conditions for its success.

Recently, ethnicity has received greater attention from international conflict scholars. This study explores a new aspect of how ethnic composition of states and the power of ethnic kin affect external state interventions in ethnic conflicts. Here it is hypothesized that states with dominant ethnic groups but still-significant ethnic minorities are expected to be more prone to intervention in ethnic conflict than states without one of these two characteristics. A new measure is proposed to capture such variation in ethnic composition more precisely. Looking at large-N panel data, it is found that ethnically fractionalized states with dominant ethnic groups are indeed the most likely to intervene in ethnic conflicts. Additionally, the power of the embattled ethnic kin minority, as determined by its settlement patterns in the host state, also increases the likelihood of intervention. Traditional variables like proximity and capability retain statistical significance. However, ethnic variables have the strongest effects on interventions in ethnic conflict.

Foreign intervention in ethnic conflicts has received significant attention in the last 20 years. Scholars have initially considered the sources for these interventions through instrumental and affective factors, though a better classification involves grouping these motives between domestic and international factors. The former category assumes that a third state’s internal politics best explain motives of intervention, and that domestic groups within the state have the greatest impact on foreign policy decision making. Theories based on domestic explanations assume that domestic politics greatly matter in the formulation of states’ decisions to intervene or not in ethnic conflicts elsewhere. As for the external explanations, scholars share a common assertion that the international environment is the central determinant explaining third state intervention. These explanations focus on the impact of institutions and international norms on the international relations of ethnic conflicts. In addition to these approaches, this area of research still contains many issues left unaddressed, such as how interference from outside might affect an ethnic conflict, and what forms of analysis might be used to study foreign interventions. Scholars have applied both quantitative and qualitative techniques, and the diaspora literature stands out for relying almost exclusively on case studies and on very notable cases. Otherwise, the rest of the work in this field follows the current standards by using a mixture of case studies and quantitative analyses depending on the questions in play.

The following introduction reviews the gaps in extant International Relations theory regarding foreign intervention in ethnic and ethnonational conflicts, proposing ways in which Rationalist and Constructivist approaches to International Relations could contribute to our understanding of such phenomena. The introduction then provides an overview of the special issue's five articles, which draw upon evidence from Africa, the Balkans, Northern Ireland, and the Basque Country to highlight the benefits and drawbacks of third-party intervention in ethnic and ethnonational conflicts. In doing so, they highlight many of the most salient issues affecting the practice of intervention and peacebuilding today.

Abstract.One of the most challenging developments for students of international relations is the resurgence of ethnic strife, including secessionism and irredentism. Basic questions are only beginning to be addressed in the post‐Cold War era. Why are some states more likely than others to intervene in ethnic conflicts? How can international norms about third‐party intervention in ethnic conflicts be evaded or ignored by some states but respected by others? Why are some states inclined to use force rather than mediation to resolve ethnic strife? In short, what accounts for the emergence of adventurous and belligerent foreign policies with respect to internal ethnic conflicts? These questions are of increasing importance to students of international politics, yet the dynamics and internationalisation of ethnic conflict are far from fully understood.This study focuses on the dynamics of third‐party intervention in ethnic strife and implications for peaceful resolution. The first section presents a model that identifies the general conditions under which ethnic strife is most likely to lead to intervention by third‐party states. The second uses four cases to illustrate, within the context of the model, different processes with respect to internationalisation of ethnic conflict. The third and final stage identifies implications for policy and theory, along with directions for future research.

The study of armed separatist movements (see in the literature review) is a complex process. A conflict involves various aspects, such as its origin, trajectory, escalation, the period of stalemate, negotiation, dispute settlement, and post-conflict peacebuilding. Studies on separatist movements have mostly focused on the strategies of fighting and post-conflict peacebuilding. Researchers have mainly analyzed the crisis's impact and its challenges to the civilians and armed forces. By taking the case of the United Liberation Front of Asom (ULFA) and Moro National Liberation Front (MNLF), this research aims to examine the role of mediator (3rd party negotiators) interventions in ethnic conflicts and give the mediators the proper credit for their efforts to attain peace. In the previous studies, there has been a lack of research on conflict prevention and what aspects to focus on once a peace agreement has been signed. There has been less research comparing the ethnic conflicts and the peace process involved in India and the Philippines. The cases focused on the thesis are unique in themselves. This dissertation adopts a cross-case comparison to answer the puzzle and focusing on private diplomacy and peacemaking in ethnic conflicts. By conducting in-field interviews, archival research, and using the previous scholarly works, the dissertation came out with the following conclusion. First, the research argues that coordination among the multiple third-party mediators is necessary to maintain peace on the ground and watchdog for the post-peace agreement deals. Furthermore, it is argued that the mediator's position and power are the most influential in determining the peace deal's direction. This thesis suggests that a mediator's connection and geographical location influence their motives for acting as a mediator. In some cases, a mediator who shares the same cultural roots and geographically close to the conflict comes forward to mediate, taking it as their moral responsibility. Finally, the timing of the intervention by the mediators is essential. A mediator can identify the early signs of the conflict and bring those concerns to the government to have peace before the conflict begins. Keywords: Separatist movements, Ethnic conflicts, Mediators, Coordination, Position and Power, Geographical location, Timing of the intervention

Raoul Naroll always saw social science as a crucial tool in the struggle to improve the human condition. His comparative cross-level framework for the analysis of social problems offers a powerful methodology for linking social scientific analysis and effective practice. This article draws on Naroll's comparative framework to consider ethnic conflict. His five-step approach is used to outline what is known about ethnic conflict and its management, to highlight areas in which additional research is needed, and to demon strate how Naroll's approach can lead to constructive interventions in intransigent ethnic conflicts, a highly visible and significant problem in all regions of the world today.

This research aimed to construct a model to examine the root causes, design the peace structure for intervention, and plan the pathways for transforming ethnic conflicts in the Balochistan province of Pakistan. The current approaches to intervention in ethnic conflicts often lack a thorough analysis of the complexity of conflicts and transformation plans. This research adopted the Systemic Conflict Transformation framework of the Berghof Foundation for Peace Support of 2006, with certain amendments to suit the context of Balochistan. The project is significant because implementing this model would lead to conflict resolution, relation-building, and peace in the region. A qualitative methodology with the case study approach has been employed to address the research objectives. This study incorporated non-structure interviews, a review of existing literature, and personal reflections for constructing a peace framework. The findings indicate that the systemic conflict model is applicable in the context of Balochistan. It effectively identifies the apparent and hidden factors of conflicts and offers a comprehensive and actionable plan for conflict transformation, providing a comprehensive solution. This study recommends adopting this model by state authorities, government, and peace agents involved in ethnic conflicts to foster peace and harmony and rebuild regional relations.

Ethnic conflict and international intervention have become increasingly important items on the international agenda since the end of the Cold War. Yet not all ethnic conflicts attract international intervention. While there are clearly other important motivations for international intervention, this study focuses on the influence of one of them: religion. Are religious conflicts perceived as more important to potential intervenors? Do those who intervene have religious affinities with the ethnic minorities on whose behalf they intervene? The results of this analysis find support for these relationships. Religious conflicts attract more political intervention by foreign governments and kindred groups to the minority living elsewhere. Intervening states are likely to have populations that are religiously similar to those minorities on whose behalf they intervene. Also, religious conflicts involving Christian and Moslem minorities attract military intervention by foreign governments about ten times as often as conflicts involving other religious minorities. These groups also attract more political intervention by kindred groups living elsewhere, whereas minorities that are not Christian or Moslem attract more intervention by NGOs and multi-state organizations.

Within the past few decades there has been a significant increase in multilateral interventions in ethnic conflicts in the name of peacekeeping. Most hope that these operations will assist in conflict resolution and reduce violence. However, recent examples indicate that this may not always be the case. This paper explores why international efforts to contain, curtail and resolve ethnic conflicts may not prove successful and even backfire. This enquiry is addressed by employing a cross-national comparative analysis of the involvement of peacekeeping operations in two recent ethnic conflict situations. A sociological model of mobilisation is systematically applied to the United Nations Assistance Mission for Rwanda (UNAMIR) in Rwanda (1994) and NATO's Kosovo Force (KFOR) in Kosovo (1999) to determine whether international actors addressed the primary components that led to mobilisation of the contentious parties. This work argues that the key to successful peacekeeping is to address the primary components of violence. The paper synthesises conflict studies with work on social mobilisation theory and research on peacekeeping, offering both theoretical and policy-relevant contributions to understanding the nexus between effective peacekeeping and factors leading to violent mobilisation.

Since the early 1990s, international intervention in ethnic conflict has gained increasing attention. The dramatic failures of the international community to respond effectively to genocide and violence in the Balkans, Rwanda and many other cases have led to criticisms of international actors for poor management and for failing to prevent conflict (Tonra, 2007). However, detailed accounts of international organizations’ policy-making processes in conflict resolution are relatively rare. This book focuses on the role of bureaucracies in two international organizations, the European Union (EU) and the United Nations (UN), in dealing with conflict and compares these organizations’ policy-making processes to determine how far they differ and why they differ from each other.KeywordsEuropean UnionMember StateUnited NationsState PreferencePolicy OutcomeThese keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

This article explores strategies in ethnic conflict, focusing on the roles of major structural actors and the risks of violence and genocide. It examines historical contexts, state responses, and the importance of international intervention in conflicts involving secession and replacement. The study highlights how states’ approaches can escalate tensions and the critical need for effective peacebuilding efforts. Emphasizing the complexity and interdependence of conflict strategies, the article discusses challenges in achieving lasting peace and order, especially in the post-USSR global landscape. It underscores the ongoing threat that violent ethnic conflicts pose to global peace and the necessity of coordinated responses to prevent genocide and promote stability.

C. Ernst and D. Chrobot-Mason suggest the need for “buffering” involving the defining of boundaries between people to foster a sense of internal safety. Much work is being done to develop and implement effective monitoring and evaluation of conflict resolution. V. Volkan has described in some detail the psychodynamic of projection in ethnic conflict in his treatise on “the need for enemies and allies.” In systems thinking a very important concept for conflict engagement is that conflicts normally spiral down a violent cycle. Intragroup conflict can be a cause of intergroup conflict, for example as members of groups project internal differences onto shared adversaries as one device for reducing their own animosity. Through a multi-staged developmental process of engaging internal conflicts and then building internal consensus over goals within groups, conditioning may occur to help foster consensus building between groups.

Book Review: International Relations: Foreign Interventions in Ethnic Conflicts