This award was funded through the Social and Behavioral Dimensions of National Security, Conflict, and Cooperation competition, a joint venture between NSF and the Department of Defense. Until the end of the Cold War it was conventional wisdom that civil wars ended in military victories. Nonetheless over twenty negotiated settlements of civil wars have been reached after 1989 in places as disparate as El Salvador and South Africa. Some of these compromise settlements have ended civil wars and have resulted in postwar regimes that are substantially more democratic than their predecessors. These settlements have usually involved some form of power-sharing among the former contestants and other sectors of society. Many of these agreements have, as a central component, provisions to merge personnel from competing armed groups into a single national army. However, there has been little or no analysis of how people who have been killing one another with considerable skill and enthusiasm can be merged into a single military force, other than a few scattered case studies and some contradictory aggregate data analyses. This project involves a number of country specialists preparing case studies of how their countries merged competing military forces after civil wars. All of the studies respond to a common set of questions. The authors will then attend a conference, along with a number of specialists in comparative analysis, to refine their individual studies and start to draw comparisons across them. The studies will then be revised into an edited book together with chapters from some of the comparative specialists. The goal is to suggest for policymakers both when merging militaries is more or less likely to succeed and what techniques are appropriate under different circumstances.
|Effective start/end date||9/15/09 → 8/31/12|
- National Science Foundation (NSF)