| I argue that the primary cause of civil conflict recurrence is the state's lack of capabilities and motivation to prevent internal violence. Civil conflicts often decimate countries, leaving them with little capacity for reconstruction. Consequently, the government cannot control its territory, or extract resources for further development. Further, civil conflict often brings about extensive loss of life, destroys economic systems, destabilizes the region, and in the worst cases can allow terrorist groups to flourish. As a result, international actors have a primary interest in managing the international security environment, and this task includes the durable resolution of civil conflict.; I expect state-building to construct a durable peace following civil conflicts by expanding state capacity, and thus improving the ability of the state to prevent conflict recurrence.{09}A capable state can meet the needs of its people, fulfill its post-conflict commitments, and withstand challenges to its legitimacy. In many cases, states are unable to execute all of these functions immediately following civil conflicts, and may need the assistance of the international community in order to do so.; Despite the increasing reliance on state-building by policy-makers, no systematic analyses have been conducted on its potential to build a durable peace. In this study, I undertake a statistical evaluation of state-building following civil conflicts between 1918 and 2000. I find that efforts aimed at long-term goals are the most effective. Additionally, security guarantees and economic development are not the panacea that many scholars and policy-makers assume. Efforts to promote social reconciliation, build a civic society, and improve the performance of the government are much more effective. The analyses support my central argument, and demonstrate that state-building is an effective means of building durable peace following civil conflicts. |
