Do rebel group violations of international humanitarian law during civil war—in particular, attacks on noncombatant civilians—affect conflict outcomes? I argue that in the post-Cold War era, rebel groups that donottarget civilians have used the framework of international humanitarian law to appeal for diplomatic support from Western governments and intergovernmental organizations. However, rebel group appeals for international diplomatic support are most likely to be effective when the rebel group can contrast its own restraint toward civilians with the government's abuses. Rebel groups that donottarget civilians in the face of government abuses, therefore, are likely to be able to translate increased international diplomatic support into more favorable conflict outcomes. Using original cross-national data on rebel group violence against civilians in all civil wars from 1989 to 2010, I show that rebel groups that exercise restraint toward civilians in the face of government violence are more likely to secure favorable conflict outcomes. I also probe the causal mechanism linking rebel group behavior to conflict outcomes, showing that when a rebel group exercises restraint toward civilians and the government commits atrocities, Western governments and intergovernmental organizations are more likely to take coercive diplomatic action against the government. The evidence shows that rebel groups can translate this increased diplomatic support into favorable political outcomes.

中文翻译：

---

后冷战时代的反叛团体、国际人道主义法和内战结果

反叛团体在内战期间违反国际人道法——特别是袭击非战斗平民——会影响冲突结果吗？我认为，在后冷战时代，反叛团体不是目标平民利用国际人道法框架呼吁西方政府和政府间组织提供外交支持。然而，当反叛组织能够将自己对平民的克制与政府的滥用职权进行对比时，反叛组织寻求国际外交支持的呼吁最有可能发挥作用。反叛团体不是因此，在面对政府滥用职权的情况下以平民为目标，可能能够将增加的国际外交支持转化为更有利的冲突结果。使用 1989 年至 2010 年所有内战中反叛团体对平民的暴力行为的原始跨国数据，我表明，在政府暴力面前对平民保持克制的反叛团体更有可能获得有利的冲突结果。我还探讨了将反叛组织行为与冲突结果联系起来的因果机制，表明当反叛组织对平民采取克制并且政府犯下暴行时，西方政府和政府间组织更有可能对政府采取强制外交行动。