The fact that many civil wars involve several warring parties is often highlighted as an obstacle to conflict resolution. However, this issue has so far attracted little attention in previous research. This article aims to contribute to filling this gap. It is argued that whereas only very strong rebel groups should be able to force concessions, a multiparty context can turn the tables and increase the chances for weak rebel groups to reach a deal. The empirical analysis is based on dyadic data covering the government and each rebel group in all internal armed conflicts, 1989—2003. In accordance with the theory, it is found that the likelihood that the government and a weak rebel group will reach a negotiated settlement increases with the number of warring parties in the conflict.
Bapat, N.A.2005. Insurgency and the opening of peace processes. Journal of Peace Research42(6): 699-717.
2.
BBC.2007. Darfur’s rebel groups reach deal (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/africa/6932625.stm).
3.
Brambor, T., W.R. Clark and M. Golder.2005. Understanding interaction models: Improving empirical analyses. Political Analysis14: 63-82.
4.
Braumoeller, B.F.2004. Hypothesis testing and multiplicative interaction terms . International Organization58(4): 807-820.
5.
Crump, L. and I.W. Zartman.2003. Multilateral negotiation and the management of complexity . International Negotiation8(1): 1-5.
6.
Cunningham, D.2006. Veto players and civil war duration. American Journal of Political Science50(4): 875-892.
7.
Cunningham, D., K.S. Gleditsch and I. Salehyan.2009. It takes two: A dyadic analysis of civil war duration and outcome. Journal of Conflict Resolution53(4): 570-597.
8.
DeRouen, K.R.J. and D. Sobek.2004. The dynamics of civil war duration and outcome . Journal of Peace Research41(3): 303-320.
9.
Dixon, J.S.2002. Governments, issues and war type: Addressing the role of nonstate actors in war. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the International Studies Association, 24-27 March, at New Orleans.
10.
Doyle, M.W. and N. Sambanis.2000. International peacebuilding: A theoretical and quantitative analysis. American Political Science Review94(4): 779-801.
11.
Doyle, M.W. and N. Sambanis.2006. Making War and Building Peace: United Nations Peace Operations . Princeton and Oxford : Princeton University Press.
12.
Fearon, J.D. and D.D. Laitin.2003. Ethnicity, insurgency, and civil war. American Political Science Review97(1): 75-90.
13.
Fortna, V.P.2004. Peace Time: Cease-Fire Agreements and the Durability of Peace. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
14.
Gent, S.E.2008. Going in when it counts: Military intervention and the outcome of civil conflicts. International Studies Quarterly52(4): 713-735.
15.
Hampson, F.O. and M. Hart.1995. Multilateral Negotiations: Lessons from Arms Control, Trade, and the Environment. Baltimore and London: Johns Hopkins University Press .
16.
Hartzell, C.A. and M. Hoddie.2007. Crafting Peace: Power-Sharing Institutions and the Negotiated Settlement of Civil Wars. Pennsylvania: Pennsylvania State University Press.
17.
Heldt, B. and P. Wallensteen.2006. Peacekeeping Operations: Global Patterns of Intervention and Success, 1948-2004, 2nd edn. Sandöverken: Folke Bernadotte Academy.
18.
Hopmann, P.T.1996. The Negotiation Process and the Resolution of International Conflicts. Columbia: University of South Carolina Press.
19.
ICG.2002. The Burundi rebellion and the ceasefire negotiations. In ICG Africa Briefing. Nairobi/Brussels.
20.
ICG.2004. End of transition in Burundi: The home stretch. In ICG Africa Report. Nairobi/ Brussels.
21.
Johnston, P.2007. Negotiated settlements and government strategy in civil war: Evidence from Darfur. Civil Wars9(4): 359-377.
22.
Kadera, K.M. and S. McLaughlin Mitchell.2005. Manna from heaven or forbidden fruit? The (ab) use of control variables in research on international conflict. Conflict Management and Peace Science22(4): 273-275.
23.
Kamm, H.1998. Cambodia: Report from a Stricken Land. New York: Arcade.
24.
Lichbach, M.I.1995. The Rebel’s Dilemma. Ann Arbor : University of Michigan Press.
25.
Marshall, M.G. and K. Jaggers.2003. Polity IV Project, political regime characteristics and transitions, 1800-2003 ( http://www.cidcm.umd.edu/inscr/polity/).
26.
Mason, D.T. and P.J. Fett.1996. How civil wars end: A rational choice approach . Journal of Conflict Resolution40(4): 546-568.
27.
Mason, D.T., J.P. Weingarten and P.J. Fett.1999. Win, lose, or draw: Predicting the outcome of civil wars . Political Research Quarterly52(2): 239-268.
28.
Mauro, P.1995. Corruption and growth. Quarterly Journal of Economics110(3): 681-712.
29.
Mitchell, C.R.1993. External peace-making initiatives and intra-national conflict . In The Internationalization of Communal Strife , ed. M. I. Midlarsky.London & New York: Routledge .
30.
Munck, G.L. and C. Kumar.1995. Civil conflicts and the conditions for successful intervention: A comparative study of Cambodia and El Salvador. Review of International Studies21(2): 159-181.
31.
Nilsson, D.2006. In the Shadow of Settlement: Multiple Rebel Groups and Precarious Peace. Uppsala: Department of Peace and Conflict Research, Uppsala University.
32.
Nilsson, D.2008. Partial peace: Rebel groups inside and outside of civil war settlements. Journal of Peace Research45(4): 479-495.
33.
Norton, E.C., H. Wang and C. Ai.2004. Computing interaction effects in logit and probit models . Stata Journal4(2): 103-116.
34.
Regan, P.M.2002. Civil Wars and Foreign Powers: Outside Intervention in Intrastate Conflict. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
35.
Söderberg Kovacs, M.2007. From rebellion to politics: The transformation of rebel groups to political parties in civil war processes. Report no. 77. Department of Peace and Conflict Research, Uppsala University .
36.
Stedman, S.J.1997. Spoiler problems in peace processes. International Security22(2): 5-53.
37.
Svensson, I.2006. Elusive peacemakers: A bargaining perspective on mediation in internal armed conflicts. Report no. 75. Department of Peace and Conflict Research, Uppsala University .
38.
Svensson, I.2007. Bias, bargaining, and peace brokers: How rebels commit to peace. Journal of Peace Research44(2): 177-194.
39.
Toft, M.D.2005. Peace through security? making negotiated settlements stick. Manuscript, Harvard University.
40.
Tomz, M., J. Wittenberg and G. King.2001. CLARIFY: Software for Interpreting and Presenting Statistical Results. Version 2.0Cambridge, MA: Harvard University, June 1. http://gking.harvard.edu .
41.
Ucdp.2006. The Uppsala Conflict Data Program. http://www.ucdp.uu.se.
42.
United Nations.2006. The national accounts main aggregates database (http://unstats.un.org/unsd/snaama/Introduction.asp).
43.
United Nations.2007. Darfur: UN envoy says formal political negotiations could start soon (http://www.un.org/apps/news/story.asp?NewsID=22607&Cr=darfur&Cr1= ).
44.
Walter, B.F.2002. Committing to Peace: The Successful Settlement of Civil Wars. Princeton and Oxford : Princeton University Press.
45.
Walter, B.F.2003. Explaining the intractability of territorial conflict . International Studies Review5(4): 137-153.
46.
Walter, B.F.2006. Building reputation: Why governments fight some separatists but not others. American Journal of Political Science50(2): 313-330.
47.
Zartman, I.W.1994. Two’s company and more’s a crowd: The complexities of multilateral negotiation. In International Multilateral Negotiation: Approaches to the Management of Complexity, ed. I. W. Zartman, pp. 1-10. San Francisco : Jossey-Bass.
48.
Zartman, I. W., ed. 1995. Elusive Peace: Negotiating an End to Civil Wars. Washington, DC : Brookings Institution.
49.
Zartman, I.W.2003. Conclusion: Managing complexity. International Negotiation8(1): 179-186.
