Separation or Inclusion?

Testing Hypotheses on the End of Ethnic Conflict

Abstract

The question of how ethnic conflicts can be turned from violence to peace has become an urgent one for both scholars and policy makers. Some scholars have suggested that violent ethnic conflict leaves only one possible solution: the permanent separation of warring groups. Others have suggested that conflict endings are reliant on the intervention of outside mediators, or the depth of hostility between the two sides, or the balance of military power between them. This paper will examine these arguments empirically, by comparing the characteristics of conflicts and types of settlements reached across 48 violent nationalist conflicts from 1945-1996. Tests will examine correlations between level of violence, third party involvement, stereotyping, power balance, and type of resolution and duration of conflict. The results suggest that while the level of violence can have some impact on conflict outcomes, third party involvement can have a consistently significant impact, both ameliorating and exacerbating conflict.