Peace talks have the potential to change the way that armed conflict is resolved and can be a powerful tool for ending human suffering. But despite a common desire to reduce violence, the results of peace negotiations can vary significantly between countries. The key is the framework within which peace talks are conducted: whether it legalizes the process, publicizes progress and setbacks, mitigates information asymmetry and commitment problems, and addresses root causes of conflict.
Although it’s not easy to implement a perfect framework, we can identify common features of successful negotiation processes:
A legalized and public peace-talks process legitimizes the adversaries in the eyes of the public; reveals the issues at stake; sets guidelines that protect the negotiations from exogenous shocks; and allows third parties (nonbinding civil society representatives, nongovernmental organisations, or other groups) to participate. These features increase the likelihood of a final agreement because they alleviate the adversaries’ information asymmetry, address their commitment problems, and help them identify their most pressing needs.
Moreover, strong preparation anticipates implementation and includes planning for milestone tracking and verification teams, and a detailed roadmap. These technical details often make the difference between a lasting peace agreement and a failed one, as they help shape the political context in which the agreement is implemented. They also prevent spoilers from derailing the process by targeting vulnerable actors who are not in the negotiations, as was the case with both the Colombian and Turkish peace processes.
About the Author
