Veto Players and Civil War Duration
Abstract
Civil wars show a remarkable variation in how long they last. Some end within days; others continue for decades. What explains the extreme intractability of some wars while others are resolved quickly? This article argues that conflicts with multiple actors who must approve a settlement (veto players) are longer because there are fewer acceptable agreements, information asymmetries are more acute, and shifting alliances and incentives to hold out make negotiation more difficult. This veto player approach to explaining variation in civil war duration is tested using a new dataset containing monthly data on all parties to each civil war begun since World War II. The statistical analysis shows a strong correlation between the number of veto players and the duration of civil war.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
David Cunningham (2006) and Kathleen Gallagher Cunningham (2013) find that the number of parties involved increases conflict duration by raising uncertainty and exacerbating commitment problems.
“David Cunningham (2006) and Kathleen Gallagher Cunningham (2013) find that the former increases conflict duration by raising uncertainty and exacerbating commitment problems.”
From Dynamics and Logics of Civil War (2017) · cites this paper as David Cunningham (2006)
Cites
Monitoring Trends in Global Combat: A New Dataset of Battle Deaths
Lacina, B., & Gleditsch, N. P. (2005) · European Journal of Population / Revue européenne de Démographie · doi:10.1007/s10680-005-6851-6 · Cited by 784 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Inequality, Grievances, and Civil War
Cederman, L.-E., Gleditsch, K. S., & Buhaug, H. (2013) · doi:10.1017/cbo9781139084161 · Cited by 978 · see citing works
Dynamics and Logics of Civil War
Cederman, L.-E., & Vogt, M. (2017) · Journal of Conflict Resolution · doi:10.1177/0022002717721385 · Cited by 205 · see citing works
Carey, S. C., & Mitchell, N. J. (2017) · Annual Review of Political Science · doi:10.1146/annurev-polisci-051915-045433 · Cited by 106 · see citing works
The politics of survival or business as usual? Exploring the effects of armed conflict on corruption
Lohaus, M., & Bussmann, M. (2021) · Journal of International Relations and Development · doi:10.1057/s41268-020-00186-9 · Cited by 6 · see citing works
- Authors
- Cunningham, D. E.
- Affiliations
- Harvard University (US)
- Corresponding author
- Cunningham, David E.
- ORCID
- Cunningham, David E.
- Venue
- American Journal of Political Science
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2006-09-19
- Volume
- 50
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 875-892
- ISSN
- 0092-5853 (ISSN-L)
- 1540-5907
- OpenAlex
- W2104431072
- Cited by
- 522
- References
- 1
- Citations by year
- 2026: 12 · 2025: 30 · 2024: 19 · 2023: 22 · 2022: 18 · 2021: 39 · 2020: 68 · 2019: 41 · 2018: 25 · 2017: 33 · 2016: 24 · 2015: 33 · 2014: 27 · 2013: 31 · 2012: 31
- FWCI
- 31.34
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- American Journal of Political Science (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Political Conflict and Governance
- Social Sciences › Political Science and International Relations › Electoral Systems and Political Participation
- Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Peacebuilding and International Security
- Keywords
- civil war duration, veto players, conflict resolution, coalition formation, information asymmetry, negotiation
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