Non-state conflicts, peacekeeping, and the conclusion of local agreements

Much of the quantitative conflict resolution literature focuses on peacemaking efforts aimed at resolving international conflict or civil wars that involve state forces, while ignoring non-state conflict between communal groups, rebel groups, or militias. This article aims to contribute to filling this gap in research. I first put forward a typology of non-state conflicts, based two dimensions: (1) whether the conflictissues are local or national; and (2) whether the conflict parties receiveexternal support or not. Next, I provide some descriptive statistics on the conclusion of peace agreements in non-state conflicts, which suggest that in locations of peacekeeping operations, the involvement of peacekeeping staff in negotiations makes these negotiations more likely to end in the conclusion of an agreement. The article considers several possible causal mechanism that drive this effectiveness, including the arranging of logistics, the provision of security, and mitigating biases of relevant stakeholders