Frida Möller

Managing Intrastate Low-Intensity Armed Conflict 1993–2004: A New Dataset

This article presents a new event dataset covering third-party measures in intrastate low-intensity conflict dyads for the period 1993–2004, Managing Low-Intensity Intrastate Conflict (MILC). The rationale behind MILC is to enable the systematic study of third-party conflict management activities that might contribute to preventing these minor conflicts from escalating to the level of full-scale war. Intrastate armed conflict dyads are followed, and third-party activities mapped, until the dyad escalates to full-scale war or the dyad becomes inactive. The dataset contains information on the intermediaries as well as the different types of measures undertaken. The data include measures such as different types of talks, good offices, arbitration, fact-finding missions, permanent observation missions, and peacekeeping. In addition, a wealth of novel descriptive findings is presented, such as the distribution of third-party efforts over regions as well as over individual conflict dyads. We notice that the Middle East attracts the most third-party involvement relative to the number of active conflict dyads. Asia, in contrast, is relatively neglected given the high number of conflicts on the continent. The trend in third-party activity over time is presented, and we show that the number of third-party efforts globally is relatively constant over the period of study with the exception of a dramatic spike in activity related to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict in the years 2000–2002. The distribution of different types of measures and third parties is also presented. The most active third parties include several major powers and intergovernmental organizations, but also a few middle powers.

Early Conflict Prevention in Ethnic Crises, 1990—98 A New Dataset*

n this article we present a new dataset: the Early Conflict Prevention in Ethnic Crises dataset (ECPEC). It contains data on operational conflict prevention in 67 ethnic crises in the period 1990—98 that vary in terms of both preventive action and crisis outcomes. The new dataset thus allows for the evaluation of the effects of different types of preventive measures and also gives an overview of who takes what measures and in what conflicts. The global overview shows some interesting patterns. Preventive activity in the escalatory phase of ethnic conflict is dominated by verbal attention and facilitation. Coercive measures are rarely employed prior to the outbreak of war. Preventive action is most common in Europe and the Middle East, while crises in Asia tend to receive comparatively little attention. Most of the preventive action is focused on a relatively small number of high profile cases like those in Northern Ireland, the Balkans, Afghanistan, and Iraq. Major Powers (with the exception of China), neighboring states, the UN, and regional organizations are the most active interveners. To illustrate the usefulness of a large-N dataset on preventive measures, we also present a first analysis of the effects of different types of measures. The findings suggest that diplomatic measures and relief efforts both have conflict dampening effects, while carrots (inducements) increase the likelihood of escalation to war. Other measures show no significant effects in this sample. The findings also show that third parties are more likely to intervene in conflicts that are more prone to escalate to war. This implies that unless we account for the propensity of third parties to intervene in the more difficult cases, we risk underestimating the effects of preventive measures.In this article we present a new dataset: the Early Conflict Prevention in Ethnic Crises dataset (ECPEC). It contains data on operational conflict prevention in 67 ethnic crises in the period 1990—98 that vary in terms of both preventive action and crisis outcomes. The new dataset thus allows for the evaluation of the effects of different types of preventive measures and also gives an overview of who takes what measures and in what conflicts. The global overview shows some interesting patterns. Preventive activity in the escalatory phase of ethnic conflict is dominated by verbal attention and facilitation. Coercive measures are rarely employed prior to the outbreak of war. Preventive action is most common in Europe and the Middle East, while crises in Asia tend to receive comparatively little attention. Most of the preventive action is focused on a relatively small number of high profile cases like those in Northern Ireland, the Balkans, Afghanistan, and Iraq. Major Powers (with the exception of China), neighboring states, the UN, and regional organizations are the most active interveners. To illustrate the usefulness of a large-N dataset on preventive measures, we also present a first analysis of the effects of different types of measures. The findings suggest that diplomatic measures and relief efforts both have conflict dampening effects, while carrots (inducements) increase the likelihood of escalation to war. Other measures show no significant effects in this sample. The findings also show that third parties are more likely to intervene in conflicts that are more prone to escalate to war. This implies that unless we account for the propensity of third parties to intervene in the more difficult cases, we risk underestimating the effects of preventive measures.

Early conflict prevention in ethnic conflicts, 1990-1998 : a New Data Set

n this article we present a new dataset: the Early Conflict Prevention in Ethnic Crises dataset (ECPEC). It contains data on operational conflict prevention in 67 ethnic crises in the period 1990—98 that vary in terms of both preventive action and crisis outcomes. The new dataset thus allows for the evaluation of the effects of different types of preventive measures and also gives an overview of who takes what measures and in what conflicts. The global overview shows some interesting patterns. Preventive activity in the escalatory phase of ethnic conflict is dominated by verbal attention and facilitation. Coercive measures are rarely employed prior to the outbreak of war. Preventive action is most common in Europe and the Middle East, while crises in Asia tend to receive comparatively little attention. Most of the preventive action is focused on a relatively small number of high profile cases like those in Northern Ireland, the Balkans, Afghanistan, and Iraq. Major Powers (with the exception of China), neighboring states, the UN, and regional organizations are the most active interveners. To illustrate the usefulness of a large-N dataset on preventive measures, we also present a first analysis of the effects of different types of measures. The findings suggest that diplomatic measures and relief efforts both have conflict dampening effects, while carrots (inducements) increase the likelihood of escalation to war. Other measures show no significant effects in this sample. The findings also show that third parties are more likely to intervene in conflicts that are more prone to escalate to war. This implies that unless we account for the propensity of third parties to intervene in the more difficult cases, we risk underestimating the effects of preventive measures.In this article we present a new dataset: the Early Conflict Prevention in Ethnic Crises dataset (ECPEC). It contains data on operational conflict prevention in 67 ethnic crises in the period 1990—98 that vary in terms of both preventive action and crisis outcomes. The new dataset thus allows for the evaluation of the effects of different types of preventive measures and also gives an overview of who takes what measures and in what conflicts. The global overview shows some interesting patterns. Preventive activity in the escalatory phase of ethnic conflict is dominated by verbal attention and facilitation. Coercive measures are rarely employed prior to the outbreak of war. Preventive action is most common in Europe and the Middle East, while crises in Asia tend to receive comparatively little attention. Most of the preventive action is focused on a relatively small number of high profile cases like those in Northern Ireland, the Balkans, Afghanistan, and Iraq. Major Powers (with the exception of China), neighboring states, the UN, and regional organizations are the most active interveners. To illustrate the usefulness of a large-N dataset on preventive measures, we also present a first analysis of the effects of different types of measures. The findings suggest that diplomatic measures and relief efforts both have conflict dampening effects, while carrots (inducements) increase the likelihood of escalation to war. Other measures show no significant effects in this sample. The findings also show that third parties are more likely to intervene in conflicts that are more prone to escalate to war. This implies that unless we account for the propensity of third parties to intervene in the more difficult cases, we risk underestimating the effects of preventive measures.

Data on Women's Participation in UN, EU, and OSCE Field Missions: Trends, Possibilities, and Problems

NATO ACO Action Plan. (2011) ACO Gender Action Plan. SH/OPI CIM/4000/18/11TT 280875, SHAPE, July 18. NATO ACT Action Plan. (2010) NATO/EAPC Policy on the Implementation of UNSCR 1325 on Women, Peace and Security and Related Resolutions. PPC(EAPC)N(2010)0011-REV1, November 18. NATO. (2010) STANAG 2116 NATO Codes for Grades of Military Personnel (6th ed). Available at http://www.scribd.com/doc/3299785/stanag-2116]. NCGP. (2012) Handbook for Delegates, NATO Committee on Gender Perspectives. Available at http://www.nato.int/issues/women_nato/2012/HANDBOOK_2012. pdf. Obradovic, Lana. (2010) Being All She Can Be: Gender Integration in NATO Military Forces. Dissertation, City University of New York. Schjølset, Anita. (2010) NATO and the Women: Exploring the Gender Gap in the Armed Forces. PRIO Paper. Available at http://www.prio.no/sptrans/1767627514/Schjolset_FDreport_July2010_final_.pdf UN Report. (2010) Women and Peace and Security. Report (S/2010/173) of the Secretary-General, 6 April. Available at http://www.un.org/ga/search/view_doc. asp?symbol=S/2010/173 United Nations Security Council. (2000) Resolution 1325. S /RES/1325. New York: United Nations. Available at http://www.un.org/events/res_1325e.pdf