Civilian victimization and international military intervention in civil wars

Abstract

Civil wars are particularly destructive and asymmetric in nature. As a result, humanitarian crises and episodes of one-sided violence against civilians are likely to emerge. In the post-Cold War era, human rights norms have been strengthened by a global commitment stating that nations have a responsibility to protect people against war crimes. Although the doctrine does not require military responses, as episodes of one-sided violence increase dramatically in the midst of civil conflict, we would expect those cases to experience relatively swift foreign response, including military intervention; a growing trend of at least purportedly humanitarian interventions should be observable. Expectations relating to the responsibility to protect are tested on all civil conflicts occurring between 1989 and 2006. Findings indicate that there is little evidence that one-sided violence leads to military intervention, suggesting that the internationally community does not use its most powerful tool to protect civilians in trouble.

Notes

Notes

1 Indeed, as presented in the 2017 Ken Burns documentary on Vietnam, a US Pentagon document during the Johnson administration in 1965 listed US interests as: “70%—To avoid a humiliating US defeat (to our reputation as a guarantor); 20%—To keep SVN (and then adjacent) territory from Chinese hands; 10%—To permit the people of SVN to enjoy a better, freer way of life” (Draft Memorandum from John T. McNaughton to Robert McNamara, “Proposed Course of Action re: Vietnam,” (draft) 24 March 1965, Pentagon Papers, Vol. 3: 684–702).

2 Although the ACD dataset includes conflicts through 2017, our temporal domain is limited because the IMI data are only available to 2006.

3 Analyses examining government one-sided violence are limited to the country year because specific groups, or rebel dyads, are not identified with the data used. Cases of one-sided violence that did not include a country for the incidence of the attack were eliminated from the analyses.

4 Clearly, external actors may provide support for state or rebel actors by funneling weapons or other materials. For the purpose of this study, we focus intently on large-scale interventions designed to address civilian victimization. By using the IMI database, we are able to limit foreign military interventions to those with at least one thousand troops involved.

5 Note that because international law tends to rule interventions for rebels as illegitimate and a violation of the sovereignty principle, one would expect supportive and neutral interventions conspicuously to outnumber hostile interventions.

6 Democracies are regimes with 6 to 10 POLITY2 scores identified by Polity IV.

7 We also examined a warring state’s total population (logged) and its GDP/per capita. Both variables created significant collinearity issues, and neither provided much explanatory power. As a result, both were dropped from the models presented.

8 This analysis is limited to only those countries that experienced genocide and/or politicide as identified in the PITF dataset, due to a limitation in the data structure. Prior analyses of one-sided violence and FMI include all civil conflicts, however.

9 Including the percentage of change in refugees from the previous year created some collinearity concerns. The findings are consistent, regardless. As a result, both models are presented with and without this variable.

10 Predicted values were generated using Hamner and Kalkan’s (2012) observed value approach.

Additional information

Notes on contributors

Marie Olson Lounsbery

Marie Olson Lounsbery is an associate professor of political science at East Carolina University. Her research examines civil war and rebel group dynamics, military intervention, and peace processes. Her most recent book is Conflict Dynamics: Civil Wars, Armed Actors, and Their Tactics (University of Georgia Press, 2017, with Alethia Cook).

Frederic S. Pearson

Frederic Pearson is professor of political science and director of the Center for Peace and Conflict Studies at Wayne State University. His publications and research have concerned international military intervention, arms control, peacemaking, and patterns of civil war. He is currently studying the lessons learned in collaborative multilateral peacekeeping interventions.