outcomes of a potential war between them. Not only
are the two sides uncertain about the actual distribution of capabilities between them, but the level of resolve their opponent has in pressing its claim is also
unclear. War provides a mechanism for the two sides
to gather information about one another’s capabilities
and resolve, with war ending when the two sides can
determine the likely outcome of the confrontation. By
stopping fighting, however, peacekeeping interrupts
this flow of information, leaving uncertainty about
who would win were the conflict to continue and
what the terms of settlement might be.
Peacekeeping can also undermine the conflict resolution process in a second fashion. Negotiation and
mediation expert I. William Zartman points to the important role of what he terms as a “hurting stalemate,”
a condition in which conflicting sides reach a point
in which neither can defeat the other militarily and
impose its own terms of settlement, and each continues to bear unsustainable costs.10 Intense conflict can
provide the means by which these costs are imposed
upon the warring sides as each continues to experience casualties and the loss of resources devoted to the
conflict. In turn, as a hurting stalemate develops, the
pain produced by it can create incentives for the belligerents to look for a way out of their conflict, making
them more amenable toward peace settlements. The
deployment of peacekeepers to a conflict, while potentially serving to help manage the conflict, also lessens the “ripeness” of a conflict for a peace agreement.
In dampening the level of conflict between the belligerents, peacekeepers also reduce the conflict costs
faced by the two sides. At the same time, the presence
of peacekeepers can reduce the time pressure placed
on the combatants to reach a settlement.11 From this
5