Historically, civil wars ended in one-sided victory. With the end of the Cold War, however, the very nature of how civil wars end shifted: wars became two times more likely to terminate in negotiated settlement than in victory. Since the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, the proportion of victories has increased, especially for civil wars that include a terrorist group; wars are also ending less frequently. Why would civil war termination vary by time period? The literature on civil wars looks to three basic types of causes: domesticstructural factors, bargaining dynamics, and types of international intervention. Current explanations cannot account for why civil wars would end differently in different time periods because, as Kenneth Waltz might say, they are “reductionist” in nature. Material and ideational factors constitute the international political environment, which varies in different time periods. This environment drives outside actors' normative strategies of viewing victory, negotiation, or stabilization as the appropriate solution to civil war. These norms, in turn, directly affect how civil wars end. A novel, three-part methodological approach using quantitative analysis, case studies, and original content analysis demonstrates that civil wars tend to end the way external actors think they ought to end.

中文翻译：

---

内战如何结束：国际体系、规范和外部参与者的作用

从历史上看，内战以单方面的胜利告终。然而，随着冷战的结束，内战结束方式的本质发生了变化：战争以谈判解决的可能性是胜利的两倍。自 2001 年 9 月 11 日的恐怖袭击以来，胜利的比例有所增加，特别是对于包括恐怖组织在内的内战；战争也不再那么频繁地结束。为什么内战终止会因时间段而异？关于内战的文献着眼于三种基本类型的原因：国内结构因素、谈判动态和国际干预类型。当前的解释无法解释为什么内战会在不同的时间段以不同的方式结束，因为正如肯尼思·沃尔兹 (Kenneth Waltz) 所说，内战本质上是“还原论者”。物质和观念因素构成了国际政治环境，它在不同时期有所不同。这种环境推动了外部行动者将胜利、谈判或稳定视为内战的适当解决方案的规范策略。反过来，这些规范直接影响内战的结束方式。一种使用定量分析、案例研究和原创内容分析的新颖的、由三部分组成的方法论方法表明，内战往往会以外部参与者认为应该结束的方式结束。