As armed conflict and political unrest swell across the globe, international actors and nonviolent activists continue to search for ways to resolve wars. Peace talks—a series of diplomatic negotiations between warring parties or governments to reach a comprehensive peace agreement—are one key tool for peacebuilding. Often involving the use of ceasefires, national dialogues, negotiations on a treaty or constitution, and regional mediation, peace talks can unlock trade opportunities, investment, infrastructure development, and economic prosperity.
Yet the success of these conversations depends on a variety of factors, including how each side approaches the talks and how each party understands its own goals and interests. Inevitably, the process of reaching a comprehensive peace agreement is often fraught with tensions and mistrust. And the way in which peace talks are structured can also shape their outcome, as a lack of ground rules or rigid timeframes can create distrust and lead to an agreement that isn’t good for everyone.
A key challenge remains determining how to include nonviolent social movements, which are an essential partner for peace. They can help kick-start peace negotiations by pushing warring parties to the table, they can legitimise negotiation processes by promoting equity and amplifying marginalised voices, and they can also support peace accords by mobilising to hold negotiators accountable. At the same time, however, more attention should be paid to how activists navigate the many risks that come with engagement in peace talks. They may face increased risks to their personal safety, be subjected to cooptation that diverts movement energy and water down demands, or even lose momentum for change if they become too involved in elite-level negotiations.