and successful mediation and negotiation, at least
relative to not deploying such an operation. Available
data do not permit a direct comparison with letting
the parties fight on, an option that is embedded within
the broad category of “no peacekeeping.”17
Keeping the Peace: Stability and Peace Duration
Whether peacekeeping or other processes produce a halt in fighting, wars eventually do end, but
there remains the concern of preventing a renewal of
that violent conflict. Thus, there has been substantial
attention to “peace duration,” or the time lapse until fighting is renewed as a barometer used to assess
the success or “stability” of a given option.18 Clearly,
peace operations likely supervise different post-conflict scenarios than ones occasioned by their absence.
The former usually derive from peace agreements
agreed to by the participants. Post-conflict situations
in which one side was victorious or was able to compel its enemy into stopping the fighting might result
in a peace agreement, but this is not necessarily the
case; the conditions might be imposed by the dominant side. Nevertheless, how long peace lasts can be
compared across these different outcomes.
Most studies of peacekeeping operations find that
they are effective at reducing conflict and preventing
future violence. Countries that receive peacekeepers,
on average, are more likely to remain stable compared
to those without such operations. Peacekeeping’s positive effect on stability relies on the ability of such operations to convey information between belligerents, reduce the chance of accidental skirmishes, and provide
detection and accountability for any violations of the
cease-fire. Compared to civil wars that experience no
8