What are the trends in and effects of early conflict prevention during the escalation of ethnic crises? This article uses a new dataset to analyse operational conflict prevention measures prior to the outbreak of war in intrastate ethnic conflicts between 1990 and 1998. Most preventive action is focused on a few high profile cases, and Asia in particular receives little attention. Diplomatic measures and relief efforts both have conflict dampening effects, while carrots (inducements) increase the likelihood of war. Other measures show no significant effects. Expectations about the effectiveness of coercive preventive measures may thus be overstated.
Developing and applying early conflict prevention measures has gained considerable attention on the international political agenda and in scholarly research. This is largely in response to serious failures in international responses, for example, in Bosnia (1992-1995) and Rwanda (1994). This study focuses exclusively on short-term operational conflict prevention, rather than on structural or long-term aspects. The scope is also confined to the escalatory phase of conflict.
Existing research on conflict prevention is restricted by two main factors. Firstly, there is a lack of systematic data on preventive action during the escalatory phase of conflict for a large set of comparable situations. Secondly, in the absence of a global overview of cases, there is no real baseline from which to evaluate the effects of preventive measures. In order to bridge this gap, this study employs a new dataset: the Early Conflict Prevention in Ethnic Crisis (ECPEC). This large-N dataset provides comparable data on 67 countries that differ both in terms of the type of preventive action and crisis outcomes. The following patterns emerge:
- Verbal attention (such as statements expressing concern, a willingness to take action, praise or condemnation) and facilitation (including support for communication and dialogue between parties) are the main forms of preventive measures during the escalatory phase of conflict.
- Coercive measures and forceful intervention seem to only be used after the outbreak of ethnic hostilities, rather than during the escalatory phase.
- Preventive action is most common in Europe and the Middle East. Asia receives comparably little attention.
- Preventive measures tend to focus on a relatively small number of high profile cases (such as Northern Ireland, the Balkans, Afghanistan and Iraq).
- The five major powers (P5), except China, are the most active third parties in early conflict prevention. Neighbouring states, the UN and regional organisations are also among the most active interveners.
- In Europe and the Middle East, the P5 are the single most active third party, measured in both presence and active engagement. In Africa, the UN and regional actors have been the most present and actively engaged third parties.
The new dataset also allows for the systematic evaluation of the effects of the different types of preventive measures. International actors should note that:
- Relief efforts and preventive diplomacy have a conflict-dampening effect and therefore reduce the likelihood of an escalation to war.
- Carrots (inducements) tend to increase the risk of escalation to war. This may be because they increase the political costs for the main parties to back down or de-escalate crises.
- Third party coordination and sticks (threats/coercion) do not have a significant impact on the likelihood of a crisis escalating to war.
- Third parties tend to engage in preventive action in crises that are more likely to escalate to war. This is an important finding for future research as the failure to consider this selection effect may lead to biased results by underestimating the conflict dampening effect of preventive measures.
