Rethinking Disarmament: The Role of Weapons in the Resolution of Internal Armed Conflicts

Since the end of Cold War there has been an increase in the number internal conflicts and with it a corresponding rise in the number of third party interventions. Third parties, motivated by humanitarian concerns and spillover effects, have sought to create stable conditions for the termination of internal conflicts and the reconstruction of shattered societies. The disarmament of combatants has emerged as a leading practice. Disarmament is based on the arrestingly simple logic that the elimination of weapons removes the means by which combatants fight, thereby forcing them to commit to peace. Despite this emergent practice, however, belligerents consistently retain, and, in some cases, acquire weapons, even after signing peace agreements. Proponents of disarmament tend to view the retention of weapons as evidence of spoiling, yet disarmament leaves actors with little recourse in the likely event that a peace process collapses and conflict resumes. I argue that actors often retain weapons because the risk of violent reversal remains high even after the signing of a peace agreement. In the likely event of the breakdown of peace, weapons can be used to help ensure survival of those who retain them. This research explores the role of weapons and disarmament in internal conflicts with reference to both historical (the American War of Independence) and contemporary examples (Israel-Palestine and El Salvador). Though not all are examples of successful peacemaking, weapons played a productive role not only securing combatants, but also by allowing them to make more credible commitments and take greater risks associated with peace. This research reveals a paradox: while weapons provide belligerents with much-needed insurance, allowing them to take risks associated with peacemaking, retaining weapons appears to magnify the likelihood that an agreement will fail. Nevertheless, belligerents have at their disposal various ways to overcome this problem. I conclude by discussing the ways in which third parties may better support such initiatives.Ph.D