Post-conflict peacebuilding: A critical survey of the literature and avenues for future research
Bibliographic record
Abstract
How and why do some civil wars end in a peace that endures while other civil wars re-ignite? The existing literature comes to contradictory and puzzling conclusions. For example, while some scholars and development practitioners argue that differences in post-conflict peace-building outcomes were to be explained by the intervention of the international community, other scholars focus on how a civil war ends -whether it ended in a government victory, a rebel victory or a negotiated settlement. By contrast, more recent studies find that states' attributes such as the level of economic development; pre-war level of democracy; the degree of ethnic fractionalisation; and state dependence on oil exports influence the outcomes of post-conflict peacebuilding. Although these explanations focus on different aspects and use different explanatory variables to explain the variation in post-conflict peacebuilding, they are complementary and overlapping in many important ways. This paper presents an in-depth review of a wide body of theoretical and empirical research on post-conflict peacebuilding. The review covers three stands of literature on peace and conflict research which include: (1) those that focus on the root causes of the initial conflict, (2) those that focus on how the original war was fought, and finally, (3) those that focus on post-conflict peacebuilding. The insights from this literature reveals that while existing studies on the transition from civil war to peace have yielded considerable insights, there are a number of weaknesses and gaps. Some policy conclusions are drawn and directions for future research are suggested.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.008 | 0.018 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".