The DOI matches its Crossref record; 36 of the 36 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Fostering Peace After Civil War: Commitment Problems and Agreement Design: Fostering Peace After Civil War
Open accessAbstract
Lasting peace after civil war is difficult to establish. One promising way to ensure durable peace is by carefully designing civil war settlements. We use a single theoretical model to integrate existing work on civil war agreement design and to identify additional agreement provisions that should be particularly successful at bringing about enduring peace. We make use of the bargaining model of war which points to commitment problems as a central explanation for civil war. We argue that two types of provisions should mitigate commitment problems: fear-reducing and cost-increasing provisions. Fear-reducing provisions such as third-party guarantees and power-sharing alleviate the belligerents’ concerns about opportunism by the other side. Provisions such as the separation of forces make the resumption of hostilities undesirable by increasing the costs of further fighting. Using newly expanded data on civil war agreements between 1945 and 2005, we demonstrate that cost-increasing provisions indeed reduce the chance of civil war recurrence. We also identify political power-sharing as the most promising fear-reducing provision.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Ethnicity, Insurgency, and Civil War
FEARON, J. D., & LAITIN, D. D. (2003) · American Political Science Review · doi:10.1017/s0003055403000534 · Cited by 7,366
Greed and grievance in civil war
Collier, P. (2004) · Oxford Economic Papers · doi:10.1093/oep/gpf064 · Cited by 6,101
Rationalist explanations for war
Fearon, J. D. (1995) · International Organization · doi:10.1017/s0020818300033324 · Cited by 3,995
Armed Conflict 1946-2001: A New Dataset
GLEDITSCH, N. P., WALLENSTEEN, P., ERIKSSON, M., SOLLENBERG, M., & STRAND, H. (2002) · Journal of Peace Research · doi:10.1177/0022343302039005007 · Cited by 3,846 · cited 3×
“(Gleditsch et al. 2002).”
BackgroundMethodInfluentialPatterns of democracy: government forms and performance in thirty-six countries
(2000) · Choice Reviews Online · doi:10.5860/choice.37-4738 · Cited by 2,990
Democracy in Plural Societies: A Comparative Exploration
Nagata, J., & Lijphart, A. (1979) · International Journal · doi:10.2307/40201796 · Cited by 2,255
Pochet, P. (2006) · Griffith Research Online · Cited by 1,550
Event History Modeling: A Guide for Social Scientists
Box-Steffensmeier, J. M., & Jones, B. S. (2004) · Cambridge University Press eBooks · doi:10.1017/cbo9780511790874 · Cited by 1,335
International Peacebuilding: A Theoretical and Quantitative Analysis
Doyle, M. W., & Sambanis, N. (2000) · American Political Science Review · doi:10.2307/2586208 · Cited by 1,234
Event history modeling a guide for social scientists
Box‐Steffensmeier, J. M., & Jones, B. (2005) · Cited by 1,203
Cited by
Territorial Autonomy in the Shadow of Conflict: Too Little, Too Late?
CEDERMAN, L.-E., HUG, S., SCHÄDEL, A., & WUCHERPFENNIG, J. (2015) · American Political Science Review · doi:10.1017/s0003055415000118 · Cited by 221
Metadata
- Authors
- Mattes, M., & Savun, B.
- Venue
- International Studies Quarterly
- Publisher
- Oxford University Press (OUP)
- Published
- 2009-09
- Volume
- 53
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 737-759
- ISSN
- 0020-8833 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W1770574608
- Cited by
- 296
- References
- 36
- FWCI
- 21.71
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Fostering Peace After Civil War: Commitment Problems and Agreement Design: Fostering Peace After Civil War. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1111/j.1468-2478.2009.00554.x
- The paper
- Mattes, M., & Savun, B. (2009). Fostering Peace After Civil War: Commitment Problems and Agreement Design: Fostering Peace After Civil War. International Studies Quarterly. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2478.2009.00554.x
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.