Peace and Conflict Review Volume 8 – Issue 1 – Winter 2013/2014
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Peace and Conflict Review Volume 8 – Issue 1 – Winter 2013/2014 ISSN: 1659-3995 Articles Democratization and Inter-State Disputes: Re-evaluating the Effects of Political Institutions and Politicized Ethnicity Afa’anwi Che Relationships, sex and conflict among young people in South Kivu, Democratic Republic of Congo Maroyi Mulumeoderhwa and Geoff Harris Does cash induce corruption in DDR programmes? Unpacking the experience from Nepal DB Subedi Conflict Assessment of the El Diquís Hydroelectric Project: When Renewable Energy Poses Environmental Threats & Human Rights Violations Harmony Todd Peaceful Partitions: Obvious Cases? Implications of Czechoslovakia’s Partition for Post-Conflict Peacebuilding Miriam Matejova Special Feature Revisiting the Utility of the Early Warning and Early Response Mechanisms in Africa: Any Role for Civil Society? Olumuyiwa Babatunde Amao, Dorcas Ettang, Ufo Okeke-Uzodike, and Clementine Tugizamana Peacebuilding in Palestinian Civil Society: Influencing a Peace Process from the Bottom-Up Sara Cady Culture, Conflict Resolution and the Legacy of Colonialism: the incommensurabilty of justice systems in postcolonial Cameroon Melissa Lauren Gang Peace and Conflict Review ISSN: 1659-3995 International Board of Editors Alexander I Gray, University of Deusto, Spain Paul Rogers, Stephan Emilov Nikolov, University of Bradford, UK Institute of Sociology, Bulgarian Academy of Sciences, Kevin Avruch, Bulgaria George Mason University, USA Francisco Sagasti, Elisabeth Porter, Director, Agenda Peru, Peru School of Communications, International Studies and Barbara Tint, Languages, University of South Australia Portland State University, USA Priyankar Upadhyaya, Mary Jo Larson, Banaras Hindu University Varanasi, India International Consultant in Conflict Resolution, USA Ryokichi Hirono, Kazuyo Yamane, Professor Emeritus, Seikei University, Tokyo Ritsumeikan University, Japan Linda Johnston, Necla Tschirgi, Kennesaw State University, Georgia former President, International Peace Academy Christof Heyns, George Cheney, University of Pretoria, South Africa University of Utah Edward Newman, United of Birmingham, UK Associate Editors Ulrike Christine Paula Niens, University of Ulster, Coleraine, NI, UK Victoria Fontan, UPEACE Lori K. Sudderth, Robert Fletcher, UPEACE Quinnipiac University, USA Jan Breitling, UPEACE Kasaija Phillip Apuuli, Brian Dowd-Uribe, UPEACE Makerere University, Uganda Surya Nath Prasad, Managing Editor Executive Vice President of International Association of Educators for World Peace Ross Ryan [email protected] Peace and Conflict Review is a peer-reviewed, open-access journal dedicated to the publication of high quality academic articles in the field of peace and conflict studies on a semi-annual basis. For further information, including guidelines for contributors, please visit www.review.upeace.org. Peace and Conflict Review is hosted at the headquarters of the United Nations mandated University for Peace (UPEACE) in San José, Costa Rica and is produced in association with University for Peace Press and the UPEACE Research Center. Research articles published in this journal are submitted for blind review to members of our board of editors or other referees with relevant expertise and may undergo additional editing before publication. The responsibilities for opinions and conclusions rest entirely on the respective author(s). Publication does not necessarily constitute endorsement of the same by the Peace and Conflict Review or the University for Peace. Copyrights of all papers published in this journal are reserved by the Peace and Conflict Review and University for Peace Press. Manuscripts submitted to the Peace and Conflict Review may automatically be considered for publication in other UPEACE publications, such as the Peace and Conflict Monitor. Editorial Note Welcome to the winter 2013/2014 issue of the Peace and Conflict Review, the 1st issue of our 8th volume. It is my pleasure to introduce this new and thought-provoking collection of articles, which together offer a wealth of new data and innovative analyses to our field. Anchoring the issue is a special selection of articles on culture, conflict, civil society and peacebuilding, for which we owe a debt of gratitude to Dr Anthony Wanis-St. John, director of the International Peace and Conflict Resolution MA program at American University in Washington D.C. Amao, Ettang, Uzodike, and Tugizimana begin the feature by providing us with a helpful overview of civil society-based peacebuilding efforts, with a particular focus on mechanisms for early warning and early response in Ghana and Kenya. Sara Cady’s article on Palestinian peacebuilding further explores the connection between civil society and peace by drawing our attention to the specific historical contexts in which they develop and operate. In the final paper in this section, Melissa Gang traces the present state of conflict resolution in Cameroon back to the collision between the conciliatory indigenous practices with retributive practices and values imposed by colonialism. Our regular articles, as usual, cover a broad range of content, exploring dynamics of peace and conflict from the level of interpersonal relationships, through communities and ethnic groups, and up to the national and international levels of political organization. Along the way, these articles touch on issues of democracy, sexuality, disarmament and demobilization, environmental governance, indigenous rights, borders and partitions, and justice. Rather than review the content of each article here, or pull out all of the overarching themes, I invite you to scroll down and peruse the abstracts and articles themselves, and engage directly with each author’s unique approach to the themes and methods of peace and conflict studies. It is our hope that this collection will be a useful resource in your own research, as we continue to reach across disciplines and collaborate toward a greater understanding of the challenges of violence and insecurity we commonly face, and the potential we all have to contribute to a more just, sustainable, and peaceful world. I am grateful to all of our contributors, our board of editors, and to you, our readers, for helping to make this issue of the Peace and Conflict Review possible. As always, comments and contributions are more than welcome; please direct all correspondence to [email protected]. Ross Ryan Managing Editor Democratization and Inter-State Disputes Re-evaluating the Effects of Political Institutions and Politicized Ethnicity Afa’anwi Che* Empirical evidence regarding the relationship between the relative strength and coherence of political institutions and the propensity of democratizing states to go to war is inconclusive. Focusing on the immediate post-Cold War period not covered in extant quantitative assessments, and on militarized inter-state disputes, rather than full-scale wars, this paper re-evaluates the importance of political institutions as they relate to the democratization—war linkage. Further, this study uses a recent ethnopolitical polarization index to assess the impact of polarization on democratization and war. Results suggest that political institutions and politicized ethnicity are both relevant factors to the belligerency of democratizing states, however, chi-square tests reveal no statistically significant association in their effects. Hence, democracy promotion policies ought to pursue both institution-building and multiculturalism for auspicious democratic outcomes. * Afa’anwi Che is a doctoral candidate in the Department of Political and Cultural Studies at Swansea University, UK. His research investigates conditions relevant to democratization and warfare. 1 Peace and Conflict Review 8.1 2014 Prominent studies linking democratization and incentives for involvement in international wars (Mansfield and Snyder, 1995a, 1995b, 1996) have endured enormous criticisms. Critics have either argued the contrary, that democratization mitigates war proclivity (e.g. Wolf, 1996; Ward and Gleditsch, 1998, 2000) or simply faulted Mansfield and Snyder’s research design (e.g. Enterline, 1996; Thompson and Tucker, 1997a, 1997b). At the turn of the century, Mansfield and Snyder (2002, 2005) revised their research design and propounded a qualified democratization and war (DnW) linkage. Their newer thesis: a) disaggregates democratizing states into two categories, namely, incomplete democratizers (transitioning from autocracy to mixed or anocratic regimes) and complete democratizers (from either autocracy or anocracy, to democracy); and b) stipulates incomplete democratizers as disproportionately war prone. The greater risk associated with incomplete democratizers is attributed to weak and ineffective political institutions. On the other hand, political institutions in complete democratizers are stronger and more coherent with those of older democracies. Thus, the institutional constraints (separation of powers, uncensored media outlets, free and fair elections, political accountability, and so on) that engender prudent foreign policies and a separate peace among democracies similarly induce lower levels of war involvement for coherent or complete democratizers (Mansfield and Snyder, 2002: 300–301). However, while Mansfield and Snyder (2002, 2005) evince institutional strength differences as determinants of conflict (non-)participation for democratizers, a recent empirical evaluation by Narang and Nelson (2009) finds almost no corroborative evidence. Narang