ABSTRACT
Sets of challenges and opportunities third parties face during their interventions contributing to or preventing implementation of their stated goals and objectives can be viewed at three separate but much interconnected levels: systemic, internal sub-systemic and external sub-systemic. Administrative, political and ethnic dividing lines may further complicate or enhance actions of interveners depending on the directions of their support. It would utterly be naive to imagine that third parties engage in interventions, which are by definition costly endeavors, entirely with the purpose of saving lives of the people affected by conflicts. Direction of the third party support to the conflicting parties proved to be insignificant in the statistic analysis of the success of all interventions, even with the value closes to the significant variables in the regression model. In broad sense institutionalization of interventions means legitimating presence of the third party on the territory of the target country and the options its offers to the belligerent factions.
