Power Sharing and the Rule of Law in the Aftermath of Civil War

What effect do power-sharing institutions agreed to as part of civil war settlements have on the development of the rule of law in post–civil war states? We contend that power-sharing measures facilitate the emergence of the rule of law in two ways. First, they establish a form of institutional constraint that promotes judicial autonomy and independence. Second, they foster a sense of security among judges and other political actors that bolsters commitment to the law. We demonstrate the plausibility of a positive relationship between power sharing and the rule of law through an analysis of post–civil war states between the years 1948 and 2006. Our findings suggest that civil war settlements can help to establish the rule of law when they include mechanisms aimed at allaying the insecurities of political actors in the postconflict environment

Power Sharing and Democracy in Post-Civil War States: The Art of the Possible

Power Sharing and Democracy in Post-Civil War States examines the challenge of promoting democracy in the aftermath of civil war. Hartzell and Hoddie argue that minimalist democracy is the most realistic form of democracy to which states emerging from civil war violence can aspire. The adoption of power-sharing institutions within civil war settlements helps mitigate insecurity and facilitate democracy\u27s emergence. Power sharing promotes \u27democratization from above\u27 by limiting the capacity of the state to engage in predatory behavior, and \u27democratization from below\u27 by empowering citizens to participate in politics. Drawing on cross-national and case study evidence, Hartzell and Hoddie find that post-civil war countries that adopt extensive power sharing are ultimately more successful in transitioning to minimalist democracy than countries that do not. Power Sharing and Democracy in Post-Civil War States presents a new and hopeful understanding of what democracy can look like and how it can be fostered.https://cupola.gettysburg.edu/books/1171/thumbnail.jp

Elections and Ethnic Civil War

Existing research on how democratization may influence the risk of civil war tends to consider only changes in the overall level of democracy and rarely examines explicitly the postulated mechanisms relating democratization to incentives for violence. The authors argue that typically highlighted key mechanisms imply that elections should be especially likely to affect ethnic groups’ inclination to resort to violence. Distinguishing between types of conflict and the order of competitive elections, the authors find that ethnic civil wars are more likely to erupt after competitive elections, especially after first and second elections following periods of no polling. When disaggregating to the level of individual ethnic groups and conflicts over territory or government, the authors find some support for the notion that ethno-nationalist mobilization and sore-loser effects provoke postelectoral violence. More specifically, although large groups in general are more likely to engage in governmental conflicts, they are especially likely to do so after noncompetitive elections. Competitive elections, however, strongly reduce the risk of conflict. </jats:p

Forms of Civil War Violence and Their Consequences for Future Public Health

Previous research concerning the relationship between conflict and public health finds that countries emerging from war face greater challenges in ensuring the well-being of their populations in comparison with states that have enjoyed political stability. This study seeks to extend this insight by considering how different civil war conflict strategies influence post-conflict public health. Drawing a distinction between deaths attributable to battle and those fatalities resulting from genocide/politicide, we find that the magnitude of genocide/politicide proves the more effective and consistent predictor of future rates of disability and death in the aftermath of civil war. The implications of this research are twofold. First, it lends support to an emerging literature suggesting that important distinctions exist between the forms of violence occurring during civil war. Second, of particular interest to policymakers, it identifies post-civil war states that have experienced the highest rates of genocide/politicide as the countries most in need of assistance in the aftermath of conflict

Segment States in the Developing World: Conflict\u27s Cause or Cure?

This book considers the relationship between territorial autonomy arrangements and ethnic conflict. As a means of ethnic conflict management, autonomy arrangements enjoy wide support among policymakers and academics. Countries ranging from the Sudan, the Philippines, and Britain have in recent years each experimented with the establishment of autonomy arrangements as a means of promoting peaceful interethnic relations. Philip Roeder’s study, Where Nation States Come From: Institutional Change in the Age of Nationalism, criticizes the use of territorial autonomy arrangements. Roeder contends that provisions for autonomy typically fail to manage tensions effectively between rival ethnic communities. Roeder further argues that provisions for autonomy actually enhance the likelihood that countries will experience interethnic tensions and dissolve along communal lines. This volume offers a critical examination of Roeder’s claim of a causal relationship between autonomy arrangements and increasing interethnic tensions. It presents case studies of territorial autonomy in the developing states of India, Nicaragua, Cameroon, and China. The case studies suggest that autonomy arrangements may in fact have pacifying effects under particular circumstances. The book concludes with a rejoinder by Roeder in which he offers a vigorous defense of his theory. This book was originally published as a special issue of Ethnopolitics. [From the publisher]https://cupola.gettysburg.edu/books/1063/thumbnail.jp

Externally Mandated Economic Liberalization and the Onset of Civil Conflict

This chapter focuses on the impact that IMF structural adjustment programs may have in weakening the state and thus increasing the likelihood of civil war onset

Short-Term Pain, Long-Term Gain? The Effects of IMF Economic Reform Programs on Public Health Performance

In this study, we evaluate the effects of the International Monetary Fund’s structural adjustment programs (SAPs) on the public health performance of countries. We test the claim made by proponents of SAPs that although these programs may produce short-term hardship for the countries adopting them, they will generate positive developmental effects in the long term. Methods. Our study draws on a global data set and employs a model that takes into account the potential for selection bias in the adoption of SAPs by states. Results. The central finding of the article is that SAPs in the short term raise the exposure of populations to conditions that increase incidences of disability and death. Contrary to the assertions made by the advocates of SAPs, we also find evidence that these programs have attenuated but still harmful effect on public health performance in the long term. Conclusions. This study highlights the negative influences of SAPs on public health and suggests that a need exists to reevaluate the claims that have been made regarding the developmental effects of these programs. [excerpt