18
Table 2: Negotiated Civil War Settlements, 1988-1997
War
Name of Agreement
Year Concluded
Principal Third
Party
1. Angola I
Bicesse Accords
1991
UN
2. Angola II
Lusaka Protocol
1994
UN
3. Bosnia
Dayton Accords
1995
NATO
4. Cambodia
Paris Agreement
1991
UN
5. Croatia I
Vance Plan
1992
UN
6. Croatia II
Basic Agreement
1995
UN
7. El Salvador
Chapultepec Accord
1992
UN
8. Georgia – S. Ossetia
-
1992
Russia
9. Georgia - Abkhazia
Moscow Treaty
1994
CIS/Russia
10. Guatemala
-
1996
UN
11. Liberia
Abuja II Accord
1996
ECOWAS
12. Moldova
-
1992
Russia
13. Mozambique
Rome Accords
1992
UN
14. Namibia
Namibia Accords
1988
UN
15. Nicaragua
Toncontin Accord
1990
UN
16. Rwanda
Arusha Agreement
1993
UN
17. Tajikistan
General Agreement
1997
CIS/Russia
5. Measuring the Variables
In order to test my argument, we need empirical measures of the following four
variables: impartiality; commitment problem type; intervention strategy; and intervention
success. I operationalize these variables as follows.
Impartiality: As discussed in chapter 1, conceptually impartiality is most usefully
defined as a continuous variable that represents the degree to which an actor lacks
substantive preferences over how two or more disputants divide a contested good.
Although useful analytically, this definition does not tell us much about how to measure
impartiality empirically. Actors’ preferences are not directly observable, while the actual
the parties in the implementation of the agreement, I coded the third party that made the greatest personnel
commitment as the principal intervener.