When do natural disasters lead to negotiations in a civil war?
| Author | Brian Lai,Stephen Nemeth |
| Published date | 01 January 2022 |
| Date | 01 January 2022 |
| DOI | http://doi.org/10.1177/00223433211061952 |
| Subject Matter | Regular Articles |
When do natural disasters lead
to negotiations in a civil war?
Stephen Nemeth
Department of Political Science, Oklahoma State University
Brian Lai
Department of Political Science, University of Iowa
Abstract
The effect of natural disasters on the end of civil wars has received little attention from scholars. We argue that the
effect of disasters on conflict negotiation is dependent on which combatant is victimized by disaster. Drawing on a
bargaining model, we argue that disasters create costs that alter the capabilities of the rebels and government. In order
for these changes to lead to negotiations, the effects of a disaster have to lead to the mutual expectation that military
victory is unlikely in the short term. When both sides are hit by a natural disaster, this mutual expectation is likely to
form because both sides face significant costs to engaging in conflict in the short term. When one side is impacted,
the non-affected side is likely to see an opportunity to gain against its rival while the side facing the devastation of a
natural disaster may see only a temporary setback that it can recover from. This may lead both sides to not update
their beliefs about the costs of war, or their chances of victory. We evaluate these hypotheses by examining all
territorial civil wars from 1980 to 2005 using a more precise measure of disaster location. We find that when both
sides are hit by a disaster, the likelihood of negotiation consistently increases. When only one side is impacted, the
effect on negotiations is not consistent across model specifications.
Keywords
civil war, natural disaster, negotiation
How do natural disasters influence the onset of negoti-
ations between the government and a rebel group in a
civil war? Natural disasters have been shown to have
divergent effects. Take the case of the 2004 tsunami;
in Indonesia, the event led to successful negotiations
between the Indonesian government and GAM (Free
Aceh Movement). Conversely, in Sri Lanka, the same
event did not lead to peace negotiations. In fact, conflict
continued between the LTTE and the government, even
leading to struggles over the distribution of aid (Bauman,
Ayalew & Paul, 2007; Beardsley & McQuinn, 2009; Le
Billon & Waizenegger, 2007).
The Philippines provides another example of the dif-
fering effects of a natural disaster on negotiations. The
New People’s Army (NPA), a secessionist rebel group,
has faced two strong typhoons in the past 15 years in
areas under its control. In neither of these cases did the
NPA seek negotiations with the government, instead
declaring a unilateral ceasefire until they were ready to
engage in conflict again (Walch, 2014, 2018). Just as
these three cases all saw different outcomes after large
natural disasters, research on the relationship between
natural disasters and civil conflict has produced a wide
variety of results. Some find that disasters provoke and
exacerbate civil conflicts (Berrebi & Ostwald, 2011),
while others argue they can lead to negotiations and
reduce the likelihood of conflict (Kreutz, 2012). We
address these divergent findings by more precisely
addressing disaster location, which of the combatant
sides it impacts, and its effects on the start of
Corresponding author:
stephen.nemeth@okstate.edu
Journal of Peace Research
2022, Vol. 59(1) 28–42
ªThe Author(s) 2022
Article reuse guidelines:
sagepub.com/journals-permissions
DOI: 10.1177/00223433211061952
journals.sagepub.com/home/jpr
To continue reading
Request your trial