Description
Why do third parties intervene in conflicts under the banner of peace? While prior research emphasizes political or normative motives, growing evidence highlights the role of unilateral agendas and material incentives. This study offers empirical foundations for the concept of the peace–military–mercantile complex, introduced here to theorize how economic interests shape conflict intervention decisions. As climate change strains resources and conflict zones grant access to extractives, resource acquisition becomes a key driver of intervention. We test this claim using a quasi-experimental, staggered-treatment difference-in-differences (DID) framework, leveraging detailed geospatial data on extraction operations in conflict areas. Two DID models assess how the presence of extraction sites influences three forms of third-party intervention: (1) non-coercive mediation, (2) military intervention, and (3) coercive mediation—combined military and diplomatic engagement. Findings will offer empirical insight into how extraction activity affects both the likelihood and type of third-party involvement. We expect that new extraction operations increase third-party mediation and military actions. These results challenge dominant narratives of neutral peace-making and peacekeeping and emphasize the political-economic motivations underpinning contemporary interventions. Ultimately, this research questions the presumed altruism of peace efforts and highlights the convergence of conflict resolution, military action, and global economic competition.
