.svg)
Order Now
Table of Contents
Introduction
The understanding of war is difficult, since in the end it aims to promote a lasting peace. Domestic commitment promotes the understanding of war through the development of promising strategies, which facilitate durable peace by well-designed war settlements. Domestic commitment designs the agreement and recognizes extra agreement provision, which guarantee success in enduring peace. They employ the bargaining model of war that identifies the areas of commitment problems or the main sources of war. It contributes to the understanding of war through the application of two types of provisions, which mitigates commitment problems. They include the cost-increasing and fear-reducing provisions. The cost-increasing provision involves the separation of forces, which renders the resumption of aggression undesirable, since it increases the costs of more fights. It was discovered that the application of the recently expanded data on war agreements showed that the cost-increasing provision had lowered the possibilities of recurrence of war (Doyle 199). Fear-reducing provisions include third-party power-sharing and guarantees to alleviate the belligerent powers’ anxiety of opportunism by the other side. The recognition of political power-sharing, which was considered the most encouraging fear-reducing provision, had promoted understanding.
There has been a rising studious interest in the identification of the durability of the settlement of war. Such interest reflected the realities of present international politics. Domestic wars may be more deadly, frequent and longer as compared to interstate wars, and they are recognized more difficult to settle peacefully. The increased and widespread of domestic wars and the difficulties in settling them have led to the adoption of the most effective policies, especially for the international communities. Their research had helped to determine whether the domestic war agreements promoted long-lasting peace between domestic opponents or not. Thus, this paper is attempting to examine and analyze how domestic commitment has contributed to the understanding of war.
Discussion
The domestic commitment is developed and employed by the bargaining model of war to promote the understanding of war. It was through the provision of a systematic theoretical account, which determined how and why certain kinds of provisions guarantee long-lasting peace. The application of a fear-reducing provision, which was designed to reduce fear and insecurity of the belligerent sides concerning future activities of the opponent, granted constraints for the rival’s capability to renege on the deal. Cost-increasing provisions led to the rising cost due to further fighting of the belligerent powers who became less likely to opt to recommence their military campaigns. They also believe that the opponent may renege on the peaceful deal. The understanding of war is achieved through the provision of a unified theoretical account of domestic war. The settlement agreement was is to be according to the understanding of domestic war, since the commitment problem promotes the integration of present study and the recognition of extra provisions, which is important for developing lasting peace.
Other provisions, such as the withdrawal of foreign forces or separation of troops, have contributed to the understanding of war. The belligerent powers’ costs of fighting increased due to such provisions, and, therefore, it made them prefer not to fight, but to implement peace. Based on the carried out analysis, the application of cost-increasing provisions showed a significant reduction in the risk of renewed domestic war. The third-party provision of assurances is significant for warranting amity after the war. There are various ways of understanding war through power-sharing, such as the development of argument concerning the central role of political power-sharing, which reduce additional conflict and the invention of empirical backing for the hypothesis. The components of domestic war are designed to suit the political power-sharing, cost-increasing provisions and third-party guarantees, which are employed to promote the understanding of war. Therefore, systematic understanding of design options is available. With the understanding of how different types of provisions are mitigated, the possibility of conflict repetition increases the aptitude of the third parties and adversaries to prevent further bloodshed.
What is more, domestic commitment utilizes the bargaining theory, since it has discovered that war is always costly and the conflicting parties should accept to settle an ex-ante negotiated agreement to avoid the ex-post incompetence of war. The parties are advised to bargain peacefully, which is similar to negotiating at the end of war to avoid the costs of fighting. There are commitment problems, which are significant causes of bargaining failures. They work well at first by settling the conflict and preventing the parties from avoiding war. Again, it makes it hard to settle and implement a lasting settlement. Therefore, the commitment problem promotes the development of durable peace and establishes better understanding of different kinds of problem as well as designs a means of mitigating issues. The domestic commitment provides significant guidance to the kind of agreement provision that is employed to promote the comprehension of war.
The agreement guarantees third-party security with specific safeguards, which lead to the self-enforcement of the implementation of a successful war settlement. Domestic commitment convinces the third-party to provide a guarantees concerning the deal between the opponents. The provision of security guarantee enables the parties to commit themselves to the promise of protecting the group who is the victim of its opponent’s opportunism. This understanding is promoted since the belligerent powers under these conditions are unlikely to break the agreement. The scholars recommend the level of understanding of the war that has contributed to domestic commitment, as it is evident in the work of non-societal model of democracy. The inclusion of power-sharing into the agreement or the settlement of war enables domestic opponents to improve the durability of sustaining peace in the absence of third-party guarantees. Furthermore, the employment of power-sharing provision promotes the development of peace. It is achieved through the prevention of either the rebel’s or the government’s ability to govern single-handedly without opponents making decisions in these areas. These provisions protect the domestic group who is not involved in violence and discrimination of the new state. Therefore, the power-sharing among parties is the component used in the provision of fear reduction. These components are designed to reduce the sides’ fear and insecurity concerning future actions of their adversaries.
Domestic commitment employs the addictive measures of power-sharing in order to show the power-sharing arrangements that improve the durability of peace. The aggregate measure concerning the power-sharing provision facilitates the reinforcement of other provisions. Furthermore, extra mechanism of power-sharing lessens the fear of participants of being disadvantaged. Those parties who are involved in the settling of war agree on multiple power-sharing provisions. Therefore, the failure on one dimension does not interrupt peace, because other forms of power-sharing remain in place. The understanding of war is achieved through the agreement where the involved parties settle on multiple dimensions of power-sharing, which show a significant reduction of all parties’ concerns of opportunism and commitment to peace by the adversary. In addition, the application of addictive measure of power-sharing promotes the understanding and its significance, because some types of power-sharing arrangements have additional effects when fostering peace. As policymakers attempt to design and implemented durable settlements, domestic commitment contributes to the comprehension of war. It is through domestic commitment where potential and right parties contribute to development of durable peace.
There are several types of domestic commitment, which contribute to the understanding of war. For instance, seeking reliable information from the long-tenured leaders who develop ways and strategies of fighting long-lasting wars is one possibility. Thus, the possessions of guidance tenure on the war is modified by some of the constraining power. It is achieved through strong domestic institutions that constrain a leader from defaulting on promises to the protestors and improving the workability of the agreed policies even in the future. In addition, some leaders are to be removed from power later, but the constraints ‘lock in’ any payment, which the leader has received from a comparatively freer hand because of serving a long tenure.
Moreover, domestic commitment contributes to the understanding of war by manipulating the trustworthiness of the leaders. It is achieved by ensuring those systems which have high executive restrictions and instruments for leader-specific punishments and enable leaders to be in power by adhering and abiding to the rule of law together with any preceding agreements. Furthermore, the policies agreed upon by the constrained leader are adhered to under the guidance of power-sharing institutions. However, the existence of multiple veto players renders it hard for the states to renege an enhanced understanding of war. It is through the commitment of such domestic institutions that modify the impact of long-leader occupancy who facilitate the understanding of war. It was is achieved by guaranteeing the protestors that no leader should vacillate from the earlier policies, and, thus, any projected change in the policy renders the rebels to be locked in one place by the domestic veto players. Those leaders who have served for longer periods promote the understanding of war, since they maintain and craft political deals, which are accepted by the political elites and domestic groups of the country. Thus, those leaders who are potentially unable to renege on the agreement are to be punished in order to reduce commitment problems, which could constrain a rebel leader from negotiating. Therefore, the long-serving leader is able to reduce the period of war and develop peace. Although the policies of the state enhance the understanding of war by creating an ability to bargain with the leaders in order to end the war quickly, there is no fear of oscillation in the behavior of the leader’s. Even though the leaders who have served for long in the office enable the opponents to identify who should lead them in future, they do not ameliorate any commitment problems, but ensured their intractability. The rebel group faces significant variance in the understanding of war proportional to the policies governing a long-serving leader. The variance determines the expectation of how long a leader should be in the office to cause credible concession to the rebel. Therefore, the long-lasting war can be caused by commitment problems due to the long tenure of a leader.
The mechanisms, which are used by domestic institutions to influence the credibility of leaders, involve high executive systems, such as leader-specific punishment, where the leaders in power are to comply with the rule of law and any preceding agreements (Kent 420). Domestic commitment ensures that the policies decided by the leader under constraint by power-sharing are sticky even with the presence of multiple veto player who could make it hard for the state to renege. They modify the impact of long-served leader who may vacillate from the preceding policies.
Conclusion
The increased and widespread difficulties of settling of domestic wars have led to the adoption of the most effective policies, especially for the international communities. They help determine whether the domestic war agreements promote a long-lasting peace between belligerent powers. Domestic commitment designs the agreement and recognizes extra agreement provision, which help to guarantee the success of enduring peace. They employ the bargaining model of war which identified the areas of commitment problems, which are the main sources of war. These provisions contribute to the understanding of war through the application of two types of provisions which mitigate commitment problems. They include fear reduction and third-party provision, or the manipulation of the trustworthiness of the leaders. It is achieved through ensuring those systems which have high executive restrictions and instruments for leader-specific punishments, which enable leaders in power to adhere to the rule of law. Furthermore, the policies agreed upon by the constrained leader are made sticky by the power-sharing institutions. The third party guarantees are important for ensuring peace after war. Various ways of understanding war include power-sharing and the development of argument concerning central role of political power-sharing in order to reduce additional conflict and invent empirical backing for the hypothesis. Thus, the components of domestic war include political power-sharing, cost-increasing provisions and third-party guarantees, all of which are employed in order to promote the comprehension of war. Additionally, it is through the commitment of domestic institutions that the impact of long-leader occupancy, which facilitates war, is modified. It achieved by guaranteeing the protestors that no leader will vacillate from the earlier policies, and, thus, any projected change in the policy renders the rebels to be locked in place by the domestic veto players.
