Peace talks are one of the most visible ways that actors attempt to end conflict. They often elicit significant media attention and public enthusiasm. Yet, most do not result in an actual ceasefire or a lasting peace agreement. Why is that? One reason may be that peace negotiations are more than mere “talks.” They require significant effort and commitment over many years to produce real gains.
Another reason is that they have to overcome fundamental disagreements between conflict parties, particularly about the nature of peace and how to implement it. In addition, they must contend with the ubiquity of spoilers who want to sabotage or derail a process.
These factors and others may explain why peace talks do not always produce a lasting settlement, even when the structural and contextual conditions are broadly similar. However, a number of studies have also suggested that the success or failure of a negotiation depends on the framework within which it takes place. Negotiation frameworks can help mitigate information asymmetry and commitment problems, enable power-sharing arrangements, address structural causes of conflict, and withstand exogenous shocks to political life.
About the Author
