Comparative Study of Post-Conflict Peace Building

本文是对冷战结束后冲突后和平建筑的比较研究。在三年的研究期间，我试图找出导致和平建设成功的因素，如柬埔寨和东帝汶的情况，以及和平建设失败的因素，如波斯尼亚，阿富汗和伊拉克。造成冲突后建设的对比结果的主要因素之一来自武装冲突本身的性质。政府冲突或意识形态冲突后的和平建设往往能够成功地进行，自由民主制度似乎得到了很好的植入，而领土冲突或种族冲突的和平建设似乎相当困难，因为冲突后社会仍然在种族断层线上严重分裂。在种族分裂的社会中，几乎不可能植入自由民主制度。这就提出了一个问题，即建立民主和平的做法是有限的，因为有些国家或地区似乎不可能在不打破国界框架或不引起种族战争的情况下实现民主化。

This is a comparative case study of post-conflict peace buildings after the end of Cold War. During the three years research period, I tried to find out the factors that would cause successful peace building such as the cases of Cambodia and East Timor, and failed peace building such as Bosnia, Afghanistan, and Iraqi. One of the main factors that would cause the contrasted result of the post-conflict building derives from the nature of armed conflict itself. The post conflict peace building after governmental conflict, or ideological conflict over the government tends to be successfully carried out and the liberal democratic institution seems to be well implanted, whereas that of territorial conflict, or ethnic conflicts seems to be quite difficult due to the fact that post-conflict society is still deeply divided at the ethnic fault line. It is almost impossible to implant liberal democratic institution in the ethnically divided society. This raises a question thatthere is a limit to the practice of democratic peace building since there seems countries or regions that are not possible to be democratized without breaking the framework of the national boarders, or without causing ethnic war.