The view from the bottom
| DOI | 10.1177/0022343316628813 |
| Author | Amanda Murdie,David R Davis,Maya Wilson |
| Published date | 01 May 2016 |
| Date | 01 May 2016 |
| Subject Matter | Research Articles |
The view from the bottom:
Networks of conflict resolution
organizations and international peace
Maya Wilson
Department of Political Science, Emory University
David R Davis
Department of Political Science, Emory University
Amanda Murdie
Department of Political Science, University of Missouri
Abstract
Networks of international nongovernmental organizations with missions concerning conflict resolution (CROs)
conduct a number of innovative international programs designed to promote peace. Is this network of CROs
effective? In this article, we argue that the CRO network can transmit information and promote norms of peace
that help in reducing international conflict. Our theoretical argument builds on earlier work concerning international
governmental organizations (IGOs) and peace and we examine whether and how the connections among states
through CRO ties can lead to reductions in international conflict. We test the key empirical implication of our
argument – concerning how the CRO network can foster peace – using new social network measures that focus on
the actual network of citizens and elites connected internationally by CROs, rather than focusing on the size or
presence of civil society within a state. We find considerable support for our central hypothesis that the network of
international CROs is associated with peace. When a state is more embedded within the CRO network, international
bellicosity from that state is diminished. This result holds at both the monadic and dyadic (non-directed and
directed) levels of analysis. At the dyadic level, the CRO network works even when we account for the IGO network
with a similar conflict resolution focus. At the dyadic level, we find that the greater the number of possible CRO
informational channels between the states in the dyad, the less bellicosity within the dyad.
Keywords
conflict resolution, INGOs, networks
On 27 August 2014, the first hard evidence that Russian
soldiers were fighting in Ukraine hit the international
news. A nongovernmental organization, the Union of
Russian Soldiers’ Mothers, had collected reports from
families across Russia, and told reporters that hundreds
of soldiers had been killed or wounded in action in
Ukraine during the previous week. They documented
that many of the dead had come from bases near the
Ukrainian border, and produced reports from military
hospitals in that region receiving a sudden influx of
wounded soldiers. Despite the Russian government’s
denial of involvement in Ukraine and refusal to inform
the families of fallen soldiers where they died, the orga-
nization used its network to piece together compelling
evidence that Russian soldiers, on Putin’s orders, were
fighting, and dying in Ukraine (Boldyrev, 2014). The
next day, NATO released the first images showing Rus-
sian activity in Ukraine, estimating that more than 1,000
Corresponding author:
murdiea@missouri.edu
Journal of Peace Research
2016, Vol. 53(3) 442–458
ªThe Author(s) 2016
Reprints and permission:
sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.nav
DOI: 10.1177/0022343316628813
jpr.sagepub.com
Russian soldiers were on Ukrainian soil. The Union of
Russian Soldiers’ Mothers gathered reports from its
members and offered its own estimate of 15,000 (Kates,
2014).
Other international nongovernmental organizations,
such as Amnesty International and the Human Rights
HouseNetwork,anumbrellaorganizationofNGOs
from 13 countries, including Russia, Ukraine, Georgia,
Poland, Armenia, Belarus, and the United Kingdom,
also issued reports highlighting Russian involvement in
the Ukrainian conflict in violation of international law.
The information provided by these organizations con-
tributed to the increased pressure on world leaders to
acknowledge and condemn the intervention and impose
sanctions to force Russia to de-escalate (Lowe, 2014).
The work of the Union of Russian Soldiers’ Mothers
in the Russia–Ukraine conflict is not unique. At the
beginning of the 21st century, almost 1,200 interna-
tional nongovernmental organizations (INGOs) with
conflict resolution focused missio ns existed (hereafter,
we refer to Conflict Resolution Organizations as
CROs).
1
The efforts of these organizations encompass
a broad range of actions, including but not limited to:
providing information about the occurrence or potential
use of violence; mobili zing a variety of domestic and
international actors to work to prevent or limit violence;
working to increase the willingness and capacity of
domestic, national, and international actors to become
involved in peacemaking efforts; and pressuring parties
to cease the use of violence. For example, two CROs, the
African Centre for the Constructive Resolution of Dis-
putes (ACCORD) and the Crisis Management Initiative
(CMI), have partnered with the African Union’s (AU)
Conflict Management Division to increase the media-
tion support capacity of the AU. These CROs developed
mediation handbooks, provided training for AU staff,
and assisted in compiling a mediation roster and map
of African non-state actors engaged in the field of media-
tion and conflict resolution (ACCORD – AU Mediation
Support Project, 2015). The information provided by
these CROs can reduce the time and transaction costs
of deploying a mediation team to a crisis situation and
facilitate contact among mediators on the ground.
Members of CROs often speak with policymakers,
encouraging the nonviolent resolution of international
conflict. In Jammu and Kashmir, the local president of
the CRO People’s Forum for Peace and Democracy, an
organization with members that are both Pakistani and
Indian citizens, recently urged the ‘governments of India
and Pakistan to take immediate steps to put an end to the
hostilities’. In response to recent territorial tensions
within Jammu and Kashmir, CRO representatives
encouraged both Pakistan and India to ‘come to the talks
table for the sake of peace and welfare of the people in
the region’ (Press Trust of India, 2013).
CROs can also build trust within local communities
and conduct innovative international conflict resolution
programs, often bringing people on both sides of aninter-
national conflict together for the first time. This can help
reduce international conflict by changing perceptions
about the costs and benefits of both violent and nonvio-
lent foreign policy options. For example, the Hello Peace
project began in 2002 when an Israeli dialed the wrong
number and ended up connected to a Palestinian, who
was surprised to find her so understanding. The Parents
Circle Families Forum, a joint Israeli and Palestinian
CRO focused on reconciliation, used its network to
launch the project and has since facilitated over one mil-
lion conversations among Israelis and Palestinians. The
organization offers individuals the opportunity to talk to
someone from the other side of the conflict and provides
suggestions to facilitate phone dialogues, such as starting
with their hopes for both peoples, and encourages the
participants to make lasting friendships (Grange, 2007).
CROs and other international nongovernmental
organizations have long been seen as ‘primary carriers
of world culture’ (Boli & Thomas, 1997: 182), a world
culture that prizes peace over violence. CROs and other
INGOs are central to many peace-promotion and rights
advocacy networks, and have been key norm entrepre-
neurs in the spread of nonviolent norms of international
conduct (Keck & Sikkink, 1998). Despite the interna-
tional attention these organizations have received for
their role in Track 2 diplomacy (Davidson & Montville,
1981/82; Economist, 2011), very little scholarly research
has examined whether the work of CROs to connect
citizens across states and facilitate conflict management
actually leads to a reduction in international bellicosity.
2
1
We define an INGO as any non-profit, open membership
organization that is active in multiple countries and not controlled
by a government or government agent. This definition is consistent
with the Yearbook of International Orga nizations (UIA, 2001/02).
The description of the organization in the Yearbook is used to
determine whether it is classified as a conflict resolution
organization, as discussed below. We refer to these organizations as
‘conflict resolution organizations’ to be consistent with how these
organizations are referenced in the practitioner community.
2
Exceptions include Crocker et al., 2004; Kaufman, 2006; Branco,
2011.
Wilson et al. 443
To continue reading
Request your trial