High stakes and low bars: How international recognition shapes the conduct of civil wars

When rebel groups engage incumbent governments in war for control of the state, questions of international recognition arise. International recognition determines which combatants can draw on state assets, receive overt military aid, and borrow as sovereigns—all of which can have profound consequences for the military balance during civil war. How do third-party states and international organizations determine whom to treat as a state's official government during civil war? Data from the sixty-one center-seeking wars initiated from 1945 to 2014 indicate that military victory is not a prerequisite for recognition. Instead, states generally rely on a simple test: control of the capital city. Seizing the capital does not foreshadow military victory. Civil wars often continue for many years after rebels take control and receive recognition. While geopolitical and economic motives outweigh the capital control test in a small number of important cases, combatants appear to anticipate that holding the capital will be sufficient for recognition. This expectation generates perverse incentives. In effect, the international community rewards combatants for capturing or holding, by any means necessary, an area with high concentrations of critical infrastructure and civilians. In the majority of cases where rebels contest the capital, more than half of its infrastructure is damaged or the majority of civilians are displaced (or both), likely fueling long-term state weakness

Recasting NATO's strategic concept : possible directions for the United States /

"To address its security challenges, the United States needs the active support of its allies. This means, in particular, ensuring that the states of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) remain able and willing to make a contribution to resolving their common security problems wherever possible. The revision of NATO's strategic concept offers an excellent opportunity to further this aim. It is a chance to build consensus about the future and thereby steer the alliance in a direction that will help keep it relevant. This paper examines five possible directions--refocus on Europe, new focus on the greater Middle East, focus on fragile states, focus on nonstate threats, and a global alliance of liberal democracies--the alliance might adopt, assessing them against certain key political and military criteria. It offers those involved in the rewrite both a range of potential options and a preliminary assessment of the feasibility and potential implications of each. The purpose is to encourage debate around the major, concrete problems that member states face."--RAND web site.Includes bibliographical references (pages 33-36).Introduction -- Direction 1: Refocus on Europe -- Direction 2: A new focus on the greater Middle East -- Direction 3: A focus on fragile states -- Direction 4: A focus on nonstate threats -- Direction 5: A global alliance of liberal democracies -- Conclusions."To address its security challenges, the United States needs the active support of its allies. This means, in particular, ensuring that the states of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) remain able and willing to make a contribution to resolving their common security problems wherever possible. The revision of NATO's strategic concept offers an excellent opportunity to further this aim. It is a chance to build consensus about the future and thereby steer the alliance in a direction that will help keep it relevant. This paper examines five possible directions--refocus on Europe, new focus on the greater Middle East, focus on fragile states, focus on nonstate threats, and a global alliance of liberal democracies--the alliance might adopt, assessing them against certain key political and military criteria. It offers those involved in the rewrite both a range of potential options and a preliminary assessment of the feasibility and potential implications of each. The purpose is to encourage debate around the major, concrete problems that member states face."--RAND web site.Sponsored by the United States Air ForcePrint version record.JSTO

Building a More Resilient Haitian State

Details challenges and recommendations for setting priorities, refocusing programs, and leveraging donor cooperation to improve Haiti's public services, including justice, security, economic policy, housing and infrastructure, education, and health

EU civilian crisis management : the record so far /

"The European Union has been deploying civilians in conflict and postconflict stabilization missions since 2003, and the scope of civilian missions is likely to increase in the future. This volume offers a general overview and assessment of the EU's civilian operations to date, as well as a more in-depth look at the two missions in which the EU has worked alongside NATO: the EU police-training mission in Afghanistan and the integrated rule of law mission in Kosovo. The author concludes with a discussion of the main policy implications for the United States and Europe."--Rand web site.Includes bibliographical references (pages 49-52)."The European Union has been deploying civilians in conflict and postconflict stabilization missions since 2003, and the scope of civilian missions is likely to increase in the future. This volume offers a general overview and assessment of the EU's civilian operations to date, as well as a more in-depth look at the two missions in which the EU has worked alongside NATO: the EU police-training mission in Afghanistan and the integrated rule of law mission in Kosovo. The author concludes with a discussion of the main policy implications for the United States and Europe."--Rand web site.Prepared for the Office of the Secretary of DefenseIntroduction -- The European Union's civilian military capabilities -- EUPOL Afghanistan -- EULEX Kosovo -- Conclusions.Print version record.Electronic reproduction.Master and use copy. Digital master created according to Benchmark for Faithful Digital Reproductions of Monographs and Serials, Version 1. Digital Library Federation, December 2002.digitizedJSTO