Causes And International Responses To The Darfur Conflict Essay.

This course requires students to participate actively in class discussions. The such that the instructor serves as facilitator for class discussion. Students are class fully prepared for such class discussion. Students also need to write ant-paper on theories and a major issue in international politics. Specifically one for the seminar as follows: seminar is structured as expected to come to lytical and critique term paper is required.

The Complexity of the Conflict in Darfur

Sudan is a land which has been influenced by a considerable number of multiple damaging civil wars. The country has viewed conflicts that from the international perspective have proved to be as destructive as any interstate war. Sometimes they were more devastating in terms of war casualties, refugees along with the social and moral values of the country (Bariagaber, 2016).

This civil war of Darfur in western Sudan illustrates one of the grimmest face of human society. In this five year long civil war more than two million people were affected for which the United Nations referred this after effect of the conflict as the world’s worst humanitarian crisis. The civil war was started against government installations by the attacks of rebel groups which are the Justice and Equality movement and Sudan Liberation army (Beber, Roessler & Scacco, 2014). However, as the insurgency characteristics of this conflict reveals that it was a tribal conflict among the Africans and the Arabs but this explanation however fails to satisfy the scholars. This essay identifies that factors that played essential role as the reasons of this conflict. The ethnic abhorrence among the tribes and groups does not satisfy or justify the reason of the civil war (Kalpakian, 2017). Darfur is one of the implicit examples that proves that there cannot be a single reason for a war.

The war in Darfur had revealed that there were various factors that ignited the ethnic hatred among the groups that created this necessary condition where the government could not escape war hence devastating violence erupted. The close study in this essay reveals that there were chiefly two reasons that added final eruption were- the utilization of the Janjaweed Militia in the counterinsurgency movement by the government and the environmental threats that was continuously affecting the region. Both these reasons played essential role, though in different way, contributing in dividing the society of Darfur in two poles (Langer & Demarest, 2017). This worsen the situation of this region and helped generation high level of violence that featured the civil war.

Most importantly, this analysis of the conflict has different point of view which goes beyond the explanation of ethnic hatred though it seemed as well as promoted across the world. The most important aspect of this war can be the conflict regarding the land ownership. This is a vital need for achieving peace in Darfur. This essay has implied broader understanding of such complex issues that affected the peace negotiations (Fjelde & Hultman, 2014). However, these were ignored during the time of war hence peace agreements as well as prospects for finding solutions became gradually unrealistic.  

Factors leading to the Darfur Conflict

The Essay discusses the Darfur conflict in the light of different theroies and proves the relevance of these theories in the modern real world and the international response to this conflict. The area of Darfur under Sudan government has grabbed attention of the world for its mass atrocities and bloodshed since 2003. America and Europe was overwhelmed with an extraordinary wave of violence and solidarity which were animated by widespread media coverage as well as vocal advocacy movement. The government of these developed nations enquired the call for action in order to alleviate the anguish of the sufferers of conflict. Darfur hosts the most expensive as well as largest UN peacekeeping mission in the world (Keohane & Martin, 2014). The European Union had deployed its largest military crisis management mission across the border of Eastern Chad. Darfur conflict is the first situation to which the UN Security Council had referred to the International Criminal Court. However, it can be said that world’s most important powers such as the EU, Russia, China, the U.S., the U.K and African Union are supplementing the joint mediation determinations of the UN. This analysis derives a series of proposals from various theoretical frameworks and then examines them.

This conflict in Darfur gives birth to different questions such as Why this conflict attracted the superpowers in the world? Why this particular conflict triggered such attraction replacing various contemporary crises? In order to clarify the global engagement of this conflict, different international relationship theories are much helpful. First is the structural realism that emphasises the substantial interests and competition among the intervening states as the pivotal factor of involvement in Darfur. Liberal internationalist and progressive representative theories interpreted that the international involvement is an attempt for improvement of international society to build a world order grounded on justice as well as human rights. The essay opposes realism as it is appropriate to explain why there were no full-fledged military interference took place at Darfur, whereas theories of world order point to the prominence of international standards in international reaction to this crisis (Mahmaden & Mahamoud, 2015). However, both these theories fail to answer this puzzle. Therefore, the essay involves with the constructivist theory through which, the conflict can be viewed as consequence of a continuous course of norms cascade which fostered institutionalization of the international norms relating to the humanitarian intervention. The normative structure of the world politics, an essential vector of the traits of the states in international realm, recently changed very much that the exercise of sovereignty incorporates a notion of responsibility (Maystadt, Calderone & You, 2014).

International Engagement with the Darfur Crisis

After the Independence, the region of Darfur had been chiefly seen as a marginal are by the Khartoum Government. Therefore, this region suffered a considerable amount of neglect for its poor transportation and little investment in its education and health sector. This condition ignited the sentiment of resentment among the local people and they started to arm themselves in 1990s. The conflict in Darfur, is racial more than religious (OKORO & OBENI, 2017). The Arabs established Janjaweed militaries with the help of Sudanese army. On the other side the non-Arab Africans formed Sudan Liberation Army and the Justice and Equality Movement. From January of 2008 to March of 2009, this conflict generated more than 2,000 violent deaths. Rodolphe Adada, joint head of the UNAU peacekeeping mission, referred this conflict to be a “low-intensity conflict” (Pugh, Cooper & Turner, 2016).

As a large part of Darfur engaged in conflict, the National Congress Party of Sudan government negotiated a deal with the insurgents Sudan People’s Liberation Army. This peace deal aimed to end the bloodshed. All the international powers and press were focuses on the negotiation to end the civil war (Aradau & Hill, 2013). The NGOs like International Crisis Group and Amnesty International, published the reports that announced the end of violence in Darfur. Therefore, no response for escalating violence could be found.

The international media continued to focus and grab attention on Darfur. The Christian organizations as well as Congressional Black Caucus had campaigned in South Sudan for long years. As a result of these efforts, the House of Representatives along with the Senate of the US passed the resolution that declared the Darfur crisis to be a genocide (Rana, 2015). This label gave push to the budding Darfur advocacy movement that brought together the issues like human rights, faith based groups with the Save Darfur Coalition that was established in July 2004. After US claimed the conflict to be a genocide, the State Department started an investigation for determining whether the violence in Darfur had been a genocide. Based on interactions with the Darfurian refugees, the investigators enquiry was affirmative (Savelsberg, 2017). Secretary of State Colin Power stated that genocide was taking place at Darfur. Despite the fact that he insisted that such determination do not have any implications for the U.S. policy in Sudan. The European Parliament in September of 2004 passed a resolution that referred the crimes committed in that place as tantamount to genocide.

Different theories to understand the International Response to the Crisis

Darfur conflict was so powerfull and appealing that mobilized the civil societies around the world. There are a considerable number of NGOs and journalists who began to watch such incidents more closely and continuously. They started to lobby states for responding such armed conflicts in different parts of the world. Their initiative to grab the attention of the public opinion towards the suffering of the civilians in that neglected part of the globe. The chief aim of these advocates are to create an extremely compelling narrative as well as its remedies that generated resonance with the public opinion as well as the decision makers. This the original side of the conflict was revealed that accuses the evil government of Sudan. This government manipulated the vicious Arabs and their tribal militia and persuaded them for indulging in genocide against the Africans (Thompson & Udogu, 2016). This propaganda of making the world aware about the violence on the innocent victims by the Arabs was essential. It brought the perpetrators to the justice by involving the west that they failed to do in case of Rwanda in 1994 namely intervening the evil militia. Gradually, the conflict of the region progressed and the violence diminished because of the international response grew more sophisticated. The chief elements of Darfur narrative were genocide. This conflict between Arabs and the Africans, the needs for external intervention was perpetuated over the recent years.

Under this circumstances and growing attention of world politics to Darfur issue, world’s biggest humanitarian operation had been set up in western Sudan. Promoted by substantial contributions by the international donors, Darfur hosted more than 10,000 humanitarians as well as 100 relief agencies immediately since mid-2004. These agencies were chiefly concerned with the internally displaced persons (Baylis, Owens & Smith, 2017). The international engagement facilitated the peace negotiations among Sudanese government and the Darfur rebels. In 2004, with the presence of Chadian government and support by the AU and the international facilitators, Sudanese government signed the Agreement with the Darfur rebels. In spite the agreement, the conflict did not stop. However, the agreement had only achieved the establishment of Ceasefire Commission and the African Union Mission (Schleussner et al., 2016). This mission initially had few peacekeepers which now increased for the intervention of the EU. For this, the mission could monitor and deployed soldiers for protection tasks.

The peacekeeping concern on the part of United Nations made Darfur conflict an important issue in the UN corridor. In April, the Secretary general issued a strong commitment to stop the genocide as establish human rights in that particular region. International Commission of Inquiry was set up for investigating the nature of crime (Selby & Hoffmann, 2014). After the failure of peace agreement, the African Union became the main mediator. With the AU, there were many observers like the US and the European governments who participated in the peace mission. This led to adoption of Declaration of Principles that was a more inclusive agreement for peace in future. The mediation agency consequently stepped up efforts, but it failed to grasp an agreement between these parties (Thompson & Udogu, 2016). Therefore, the patience of these sponsors of the Abuja talks slowly ran out. Both the U.S. as well as the U.K. were predominantly eager to achieve the settlement to please their particular public opinions. In this situation, a fake end date for the completion of the Abuja talks had been set and a coercive “deadline diplomacy” had been used for persuading the parties for signing the agreement. The impact of such pressure was for dividing the rebel movements. Both these governments desired to deployed successfully the UN peacekeeping mission in this region (Boye, 2014). 

This robust mission replacing AMIS was the concern for all the advocacy groups in the US. It claimed for humanitarian concern as well as intervention because it was the responsibility of the international community for protecting the Darfur people. Therefore, the US government invested a significant amount of political capital for negotiation and deployment of the peacekeeping mission in Darfur. Despite the fact, there was initial resistance of Department of Peacekeeping Operations of the UN, the US government did this to satisfy the advocates. This peace negotiation in Abuja conceived to end the war as quickly as possible. The parties were compelled to sign with the Department of Peacekeeping Operations for effective and sound negotiation process. Again it was strongly opposed by the government of Sudan who portrayed the mission to be an imperial project for recolonising Sudan (Behr & Kirke, 2017). In this case, Khartoum receive sufficient back up from China and postponed the process of the agreement therefore, blocked the deployment of the peacekeepers by taking another year of negotiation process. However, China later supported the initiative of peacekeeping in Darfur.

The US government received strong support from the global superpowers for the UNAMID. The student activists allied with the Save Darfur Coalition organized a positive Sudan divestment campaign, similar to the anti-apartheid campaigns in South Africa. In spite of playing vital role in peacekeeping mission in Darfur, the European nations were less active than the US but the situation changed when Kouchner the foreign minister of France joined hands in this operation. He was an advocate of the humanitarian intervention in Darfur from the very beginning and was played active role in coordination of Urgence Darfur (Cruikshank, 2014). Kouchner proposed for establishment of the peacekeeping force in the eastern part of Chad and north-east Central African Republic with the aim to encompass the war in Darfur across its border. Therefore, he convinced the EU for sponsoring the peacekeeping mission to deploy force in this region.

With the involvement of world politics in the civil war of Darfur, the context of this crisis changed drastically that led to diminishing violence. However, conflict among the armed groups intensified where the signatory colleagues of the non-signatory rebel movement associated with the Sudan government, attacked each other (Serneels & Verpoorten, 2015). During this period, violence and attacks against the humanitarian organizations vastly increased so as the inter-tribal clashes. In 2007 all the significant resources as well as inclusive apaches of AU and UN failed. The biggest challenge became managing the awkward coordination among the Arab countries which were gradually getting involved peace process (De Waal et al., 2014). The situation got more complicated as the President of Sudan Omar al-Bashir was charged with war crime and crimes of genocide at the ICC. This controversial initiative ignited international response to Darfur crisis. Despite the fact that Khartoum suspended cooperation with the international agencies and expelled humanitarian NGOs out of anger, the western countries welcomed this decision of ICC. African countries refused to cooperate with the ICC in this case and mandated panel for reconciliation of peace and justice in Sudan.

As mentioned in the previous section, the international responses for the civil war in Darfur were not always consistent. The analyses demonstrated multifaceted dimensions in pursuing the proper reasons of the war as well as possible factors that could potentially influence the negotiation for peace. Different dimensions an interventions have undermined one another. This section records the exceptional magnitude of the global relation theories (Fjelde & Hultman, 2014). Different conceptions and theories have driven the world politics in different ways. The essay analyses the Darfur crisis by putting it into the larger context of international relations theories as well as different conceptions that drives the world politics. The Darfur conflict can be analyse through the lenses of theories like structural realism, liberal internationalism and conservatism.

Morgenthau and Carr applied the theory of structural realism which was based on the political thoughts of Hobbes and Machiavelli in analysing the international relationships in the 20^th century. The founder of this particular theory was Kenneth Waltz’s who stated that the phenomenon of the world politics largely depends on the embedded structure of international system (Grimm & Berger, 2016). Therefore, international order is somewhat different from a national order as there is no singular world government to control the nations. Here anarchy becomes more prominent when the states are originally interested in survival. It also balances the relationship with international organizations so that it can have relative gain of power. However, Waltz’ theory was opposed by Mearsheimer, the leading advocate of ‘offensive realism’ (Bessner & Guilhot, 2015). He argued that the states want to persist under anarchy through the maximization of their power compared to other states. From a realistic point of view, the external involvement in a weak context is required for elimination of terrorist threats within the country, organised crime and prevention of rogue nations from acquiring powerful weapons.

The case of Darfur can be seen from the realist framework as there were no strong military intervention to prevent such violence in 2003. At that time, it was only the USA which was capable of carrying out a huge military intervention for prevention of anarchy. There is discussion to pursue this way of intervention but some issues associated with the consequences prevented this intervention. First of all, the US army was overstretched and it was costly to deploy army in a region like Darfur where there is no possibility of terrorist emergence or having attractive amount of natural resources (Simón, 2017). Beside these, invasion in the Muslim country may have pessimistic repercussion that may fuel the terrorist groups’ propaganda material for further violence in the USA (Hagan & Rymond-Richmond, 2015). 

The theory of structural realism also provides a paradoxical explanation for involvement of the US in this conflict. The primary interest of the USA government was to ensure that this region does not become haven of terrorists because the US had suffered previously when Osama Bin-Laden operated his group in Sudan. Secondly the most lucrative subject of oil contract access attracted the US. Therefore, the most rational policy for the US government was to build a cordial relationship with Sudan government for ensuring oil contracts as well as prevention of terrorism (Totten, 2017). The theory however prescribed the USA to manage Sudan as Saudi Arabia which actually they did at the time of cold war. The Sudanese government was the largest recipients of US aid in the sub- Saharan Africa as they were supporting the US ally. However, these days US has been perusing contrary policy with Khartoum which was of confrontation instead of cooperation. In order to understand the global response to the crisis of Darfur, it is necessary to view beyond realism as well as contemplate other alternative theories like Liberal internationalism theory.

This theory opposes the view of seeing the behaviour of nations contained by structure of international system. On the contrary it believes in determination of domestic order for the state’s international relationship (Keohane & Martin, 2014). The idea of perpetual peace by Kant states that according to the liberal theory, the liberal states cannot involve in wars as they have constraints and responsibilities towards its citizens who have no desire for war. According to the liberalists, the democratic countries do not engage in wars against each other but they behave bellicosely towards the authoritarian states (Moyn, 2013). Therefore, for building a peaceful world, promotion of democracy and human rights in accordance with rule of law is mandatory.

The school of English liberalist scholars view the theory closer to realism who state that the world politics basically depend on the concepts of international society which are order and justice. This is therefore necessary for the states to try towards greater justice within international society, by extending their solidarity to human beings all over the world and recognizing them as members of international society in their own right (Ibrahim, 2015). These two concepts form a normative case for the humanitarian intervention. This assigns to the idea of foreign intervention as well as military force to prevent atrocities against a population where the government is unable and unwilling to provide protection. This idea supports the concept of just war. This concept was widely used for international intervention in domestic politics but had no humanitarian approach but egoistic motives to acquire power. The growing concern for human rights these concepts of power pose threat for the principles of sovereignty as well as interference. Therefore, the humanitarian intervention has been promoted by the liberal internationalists (Beswick, 2014). They view it as a contribution to building the world with good governance along with preservation of human rights. on the other hand, the solidarity concept sees the importance of realization of justice in the international society. For both these concepts, putting norms relating to humanitarian intervention in practice establishes a sign of growth along with an element of new and just world order.

From the perspectives of the liberalist theory, the crisis of Darfur is an example of failed humanitarian intervention. According to them, the international peace protectors did not successfully accomplish their duty to protect the interest of the people of Darfur. These people were in the benevolence of the genocidal Janjaweed militia of Khartoum. Therefore, the international response to this crisis was largely late and little (Jackson & Sorensen, 2015). On the contrary, the alternative readings view the late international response for establishing humanitarian intervention, as path of acceptance of humanitarian intervention on the part of the state (Giacovas et al., 2017). However, these international powers helped more than only addressing trouble of affected populations that they did previously. Now, the peacekeepers force was deployed to provide protection to the civilians; the ICC was set a mandate to arraign those who were responsible for criminalities in Darfur; steps were taken against the government of Sudan for its intransigence; satisfied effort was placed into negotiating the peace settlement; finally, a humanitarian procedure was established to secure the livings of the war victims (Joseph, 2014).

The theory of constructivism directly opposes the ideology of rationalist theories of liberalism and realism. Both these theories identify the interest of the state to act exogenous to solve the problems of social and international interaction. The states only face restraints in the environment in which they operate. On the contrary, Constructivists assume the interest of the state must act endogenous as they are socially constructed (Moyn, 2013). The effect of ideational along with normative structures of the world politics, on material condition is also focused in this theory. According to the Constructivist theory, shared ideology as well as value paly essential part in the behaviour of the state for maintaining the international connection therefore, shape their social identities. Thus the theory of constructivism defuses the international norms and define them as collective expectation of prover behaviour of the states. The theory aims to explain the impact of these norms in the domestic policies of a state (Caccamise et al., 2015). The norms emerge by competing with the other normative constellations and then are institutionalized in the international level. After such process, the state conforms with the norm as the consequence of the persuasive measures of its peers and socialization.

These norms have significant origin. They are actively formed by the agents with strong notions of desirable as well as appropriate behaviour within the community (Pugh, Cooper & Turner, 2016). These agents are the norm entrepreneurs and mostly non-governmental organizations who promote a specific normative projects like human rights, women’s rights and environmental sustainability. These groups involve in the alliances with individuals or similar believers to form a ‘transnational advocacy network. These advocacy networks. They deploy limited as well as symbolic material issues and became influential when reconfigure the state’s interest with favours to a number of ‘principled issues’ ranging from the struggle against the apartheid, ban of the anti-personnel landmines and the human rights. These cases demonstrate the mutual constitution among the agents and the structures. This represents a core proposal of the constructivist theory. Normative as well as ideational structures can maintain the identities and interest of the states but both these structures are non-existent if they do not offer well-informed practices for those actors.

The Darfur conflict is important for the agent structure communications in the politics of the world. Therefore, it was receiving such magnitude of international responses. The mentioned theory discusses the evolution of normative structure in the world’s politics by supporting the humanitarian intervention. However, this structure discussed by the constructivist theory is not sufficient to spur the international action. This need to be activated through a resolute advocacy movement. therefore, particular civil society stage was formed for coordinating atrocities in this region. All the agencies like Save Darfur Coalition in the U.S, Darfur program of the NGO Aegis Trust in the U.K and Urgence Darfur in France were built to provide a platform for operating advocacy activities in Darfur (Jumbert, 2014). All these groups organised a wide deployed coalition of the interested organizations that ranged from the human rights organizations, conflict resolution practitioners, faith-based groups, Hollywood celebrities, liberal pundits and even student groups. These groups believed in their action which was based on the rightness of humanitarian intervention (Hagan & Rymond-Richmond, 2015). This was also an international intervention in that particular region. These activists called the principle of their responsibility for protecting the peace to be the intellectual underpinning of movement that they arranged in Darfur. These agencies however perceived this Darfur conflict to be a test case in order to reach the way for building a more just world order. These people lobbied the states very effectively in order to respond to violence and mass atrocities in Darfur. These foreign agencies such as Save Darfur created the scorecards for rating voting performance of each of the Congressperson on the issues that were relevant for Darfur then.

All these mechanisms had been instrumental in the Congress’ passing of Accountability and Divestment Act of Sudan in 2007. Civil society assemblies were concerned about the crisis of Darfur therefore, lobbied the associates of the UN Security Council, particularly in the U.S. they wanted to get permit of the condition in Darfur to be mentioned to the ICC. In France, the movements on Darfur cemented the path for Kouchner’s indication to send the peacekeepers for the protection of the Darfurian refugees and war victims in Chad. China, though initially supported the civil war in Darfur but finally, was compelled by these activists for abandoning its carte blanche backing to the government of Sudan (Joseph, 2014). 

Therefore, it can be concluded that these theories and analysis with insights answer the resolution for the first puzzle that why the Darfur conflict had generated such a compelling and far-reaching international response. This persuasive international response by the political superpowers was made possible only by the rising acceptance, which complies with the fact that all the states have duty to react to the mass atrocities and civil violence, irrespective of their material benefits. Against such backdrop, the actions of the states have been generated by some widespread civil society movement around the issue of crisis in Darfur. The reports of vehemence and mass atrocities had triggered extensive society mobilization that stood against the operation of the state and questioned the government. As expected all the powerful states that host the sturdiest advocacy movements in Darfur such as the U.S. along with France, had shown the toughest response, even though they were criticised by the opponents who suspected militarily intervention for self-interest.

References:

Aradau, C., & Hill, A. (2013). The politics of drawing: Children, evidence, and the Darfur conflict. International Political Sociology, 7(4), 368-387.

Bariagaber, A. (2016). Conflict and the refugee experience: flight, exile, and repatriation in the Horn of Africa. Routledge.

Baylis, J., Owens, P., & Smith, S. (Eds.). (2017). The globalization of world politics: An introduction to international relations. Oxford University Press.

Behr, H., & Kirke, X. (2017). The Tale of a ‘Realism’in International Relations. E-International Relations. https://www. e-ir. info/2014/06/13/the-tale-of-a-realism-in-international-relations/. Accessed, 9.

Bessner, D., & Guilhot, N. (2015). How Realism Waltzed Off: Liberalism and Decisionmaking in Kenneth Waltz's Neorealism. International Security, 40(2), 87-118.

Beswick, D. (2014). The risks of African military capacity building: Lessons from Rwanda. African Affairs, 113(451), 212-231.

Boye, R. R. (2014). Peacekeeping and Conflict Resolution in Darfur: A Critical Analysis of UN-AU Hybridization Mechanism. US-China L. Rev., 11, 1052.

Caccamise, D., Friend, A., Littrell-Baez, M. K., & Kintsch, E. (2015). Constructivist theory as a framework for instruction and assessment of reading comprehension. Comprehension instruction: Research-based best practices, 3.

Cruikshank, S. A. (2014). “Trail of Corpses”: Newsweek, Time, and US News & World Report’s Coverage of Genocide in Southern Sudan, 1989-2005. Journal of Magazine & New Media Research, 15(2).

De Waal, A., Hazlett, C., Davenport, C., & Kennedy, J. (2014). The epidemiology of lethal violence in Darfur: Using micro-data to explore complex patterns of ongoing armed conflict. Social Science & Medicine, 120, 368-377.

Giacovas, C., Intemann, N., Danca, E., McNicholas, J., Williams, S., & Woulfe, M. (2017). The Undergraduate Journal of Global Citizenship. Undergraduate Journal of Global Citizenship, 2(2), 1.

Grimm, V., & Berger, U. (2016). Structural realism, emergence, and predictions in next-generation ecological modelling: Synthesis from a special issue. Ecological modelling, 326, 177-187.

Hagan, J., & Rymond-Richmond, W. (2015). Human Rights and International Humanitarian Law. Leading Rogue State: The US and Human Rights, 186.

Ibrahim, A. A. D. (2015). THE IMPACT OF DARFUR CONFLICT ON LIVESTOCK POPULATION AND PASTORALIST LIVELIHOODS: CASE STUDY OF CENTRAL AND WEST DARFUR STATES (2003–2014) (Doctoral dissertation, Sudan University of Science & Technology).

Jackson, R., & Sørensen, G. (2015). Introduction to international relations: theories and approaches. Oxford university press.

Joseph, J. (2014). Realism and Neorealism in International Relations Theory. The Encyclopedia of Political Thought.

Jumbert, M. G. (2014). How Sudan’s ‘rogue’state label shaped US responses to the Darfur conflict: what’s the problem and who’s in charge?. Third World Quarterly, 35(2), 284-299.

Keohane, R. O., & Martin, L. L. (2014). Institutional theory as a research program. The Realism Reader, 320.

Keohane, R. O., & Martin, L. L. (2014). Institutional theory as a research program. The Realism Reader, 320.

Mahmaden, A. M., & Mahamoud, A. (2015). The Impact of Darfur Conflict on Agro-Pastoralists in Displacement Camps(Doctoral dissertation, UOFK).

Maystadt, J. F., Calderone, M., & You, L. (2014). Local warming and violent conflict in North and South Sudan. Journal of Economic Geography, 15(3), 649-671.

Moyn, S. (2013). The International Law That Is America: Reflections on the Last Chapter of The Gentle Civilizer of Nations. Temp. Int'l & Comp. LJ, 27, 399.

OKORO, N., & OBENI, E. (2017). Periscoping the NWICO debate using Nigerian Press coverage of Darfur conflict in Sudan as a case study. International Journal of communication, 7(1).

Pugh, M., Cooper, N., & Turner, M. (Eds.). (2016). Whose peace? Critical perspectives on the political economy of peacebuilding. Springer.

Rana, W. (2015). Theory of complex interdependence: a comparative analysis of realist and neoliberal thoughts. International Journal of Business and Social Science, 6(2).

Savelsberg, J. J. (2017). International Criminal Law as One Response to World Suffering: General Observations and the Case of Darfur. In Alleviating World Suffering (pp. 361-373). Springer International Publishing.

Schleussner, C. F., Donges, J. F., Donner, R. V., & Schellnhuber, H. J. (2016). Armed-conflict risks enhanced by climate-related disasters in ethnically fractionalized countries. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 113(33), 9216-9221.

Selby, J., & Hoffmann, C. (2014). Beyond scarcity: rethinking water, climate change and conflict in the Sudans. Global Environmental Change, 29, 360-370.

Serneels, P., & Verpoorten, M. (2015). The impact of armed conflict on economic performance: evidence from Rwanda. Journal of Conflict Resolution, 59(4), 555-592.

Simón, L. (2017). Neorealism, Security Cooperation, and Europe's Relative Gains Dilemma. Security Studies, 26(2), 185-212.

Totten, S. (2017). Plight and Fate of Women During and Following Genocide: Volume 7, Genocide-A Critical Bibliographic Review. Routledge.