{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.014300306435137897, 'fraction_numerical': 0.008171603677221655, 'mean_word_length': 5.363636363636363, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Keeping Peace or Spurring Violence? Unintended Effects of Peace Operations on Violence against Civilians

Are peace operations effective in managing violence against civilians in civil wars? I examine the short-term effects of peace operations on the intensity of violence against the civilian population in internal conflicts. Missions are often sent to ongoing conflicts, where the warring parties have not yet managed to settle their dispute through the use of military means. I propose three mechanisms through which the presence of a third party may increase the parties' incentives to target civilians. A quantitative assessment of all intrastate armed conflicts, 1989–2006, shows that while the presence of a peace operation does not have a clear effect on government violence, it is associated with higher levels of violence by rebel groups. Only UN peace operations with an explicit mandate to protect civilians significantly reduce violence against civilians by rebels.