ULI451U-CONFLICT RESOLUTION
Chapter 4: The Main Characteristics of Peace Processes
Peace as a Process
A peace process is an essential part of conflict resolution. It creates time and space for parties to discuss political options. While this concept referred mostly to the negotiation and mediation stages of conflict resolution at the official level (Saunders, 1999), it has expanded to include a broader framework, actors, phases, and attempts of conflict resolution today.
Darby and Mac Ginty (2003:2) define the peace process as “peace initiatives involving the main antagonists in a protracted conflict.” According to Saunders (1999:19), the peace process should involve all levels of body politics because of its multi-level structure. In this regard, the more comprehensive definition of the peace process is “the series of actions that lead up to the resolution of conflict and the negotiation and signing of a peace accord, as well as the series of actions that implement and consolidate the agreement afterward” (Brewer, 2015: 648). Brewer also makes a distinction between the social and political sides of the peace process. The political peace process refers to the peace settlements negotiated by political representatives and third parties. The social peace process refers to the reconciliation phase of the peace process. The main characteristics of the peace process is having a stop-start dynamic and its fragility.
Conditions for Peace Negotiations
One of the fragile and challenging phases of the peace process is the pre-negotiation. Because conflicting parties mostly start peace talks while violence continues. The advantage of pre-negotiations is that it is unofficial. The conflicting parties can communicate without binding decisions and official commitments.
The ripeness theory is one of the most prominent explanations in conflict studies to understand conditions for a peace settlement. According to Zartman (2001), parties resolve conflicts only when they are ready to do so. It is mostly based on cost-benefit analysis. When conflicting parties calculate the cost and benefit of a conflict, the cost should be perceived as a catastrophe. Ripeness theory is used to explain the success or failure of negotiations in different conflict analyses by researchers.
Following Zartman; Dean Pruitt developed and elaborated upon the readiness theory, a modification of the ripeness theory. According to Pruitt (2007), readiness is a characteristic of a conflicting party that reflects its top leaders’ thinking regarding the conflict. Readiness not only refers to a moment or condition, but encourages conciliatory behavior in a wide range of scales. Readiness theory offers two psychological variables that lead parties to sit down at the negotiation table: motivation and optimism.
Negotiations
Negotiations, which have an essential importance in conflict resolution, are the second phase of the peace
process. In this phase, which parties can compromise to find a solution and reach an agreement becomes more evident. Mayer (2000: 142) defines negotiation as “an interaction in which people try to meet their needs or accomplish their goals by reaching an agreement with others who are trying to get their own needs met”. When opposing parties want to find solutions, they have to accept that this process includes trade-offs with a lot of give-and-take. It is important to remember that it is not realistic to expect to be satisfied with all demands and resolve the problem without discussion.
The parties may also employ back-channel communication not only in pre-negotiation but in the negotiation period. While back-channel communication occurs secretly between opposing parties, front-channel communications are publicly known (Pruitt, 2007). Back- channel communications provide flexibility to the participant to talk about important issues without public opinion pressure. While more heterogeneous groups join front-channel negotiations, its number is reduced in the back-channel. Each member of the crowded group works as an audience and warns each other to compromise in front-channel negotiations. On the other side, it is more likely to reach consensus with small groups in the back- channel negotiations and create interpersonal relations.
In the negotiation period, negotiators and mediators play a significant role. Mayer (2000:46) defines a negotiator as the one “who presses for a particular set of interests or needs to be met.” A mediator or facilitator who intervenes in a conflict neutrally helps parties communicate and reach a decision.
Bercovich and Lutmar (2012) point out four advantages of negotiation in conflict resolution. One of the main advantages of negotiation is for conflicting parties to sign an agreement to stop the conflict that conforms to their interests. The second advantage is that this period is less costly. Third, negotiation provides and establishes a proper step for the next phases. Lastly, the negotiation gives legitimacy to the process and provides a basis for future actions. In the negotiation phase, parties have time and space to interpret and reframe their positions. Communication plays a significant role in reframing the negotiation process. According to Mayer (2000), good communication, helps conflicting parties establish an active dialogue.
Conflicting parties may prefer different strategies during negotiations. Positional bargaining is one of the most common strategies of negotiation. Also known as distributive bargaining, Its reference point is the “zero- sum” and “win-lose” solution based on the ‘you versus me’ approach. The second negotiation strategy is integrative bargaining, which is also called interest-based bargaining. It focuses on mutual gains and “win-win” solutions. The third method, principled negotiation, involves positional and integrative bargaining strategies
and can be adapted to all negotiation processes. It has four essential points: people, interests, options and criteria.
When parties break up talks without an agreement, progress, compromise, or mutual gains, they risk not only the negotiations but also the future of the peace process. After deadlock or failure, parties may return to violence. Some studies (Guelke, 2003; Bercovitch and Lutmar, 2012) define the elements of understanding the origins of the failure or deadlock of negotiation. They are: Insisting on irreconcilable aims; the level of uncertainty; the flow of misinformation; political leaders; the timing of the negotiations.
Signing a Peace Agreement
The third phase of the peace process is signing the peace agreement. A peace agreement is defined by Bell and Badanjak (2019: 453) as “a signed formal document by conflicting parties to stop a conflict after negotiations”. This legal document is open to the public and may be produced by some or all parties. Contemporary peace agreements have similarities about language and adaptation of international concepts. International actors’ involvement, including the United Nations (UN), European Union (EU), and Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE), have increased and diversified in the creation and implementation of peace agreements. Although a peace agreement is seen as an integral part of the peace process today, a ceasefire without a peace agreement, one-sided victory, or ending violence without an agreement are also distinct possibilities (Kreutz, 2010). Peace agreements may involve more than one document, such as security agreements, framework agreements, or power-sharing arrangements. Nevertheless, all settlements are not prerequisites or compulsory for peace processes. Each type of agreement has different purposes and formulates various implementation processes for lasting peace.
Christian Bell (2020) categorizes peace agreements to clarify their functions and roles. Pre-negotiation agreements, often are bilateral agreements that include key actors of the conflict. They tend to be secret arrangements. By these agreements, parties focus on building trust and security for further talks, creating ceasefire agreements to temporarily stop war, proclaiming amnesties for negotiators, and establishing monitoring teams to oversee ceasefires. They design procedural and structural topics, such as location, negotiators, the involvement of third parties, and a timetable for negotiations. Framework or substantive agreements are the second type of peace agreement and have similarities with pre-negotiation agreements. However, these agreements are designed with more detailed and comprehensive issues. Parties want to move forward by signing a framework agreement, but do not need to come to a final agreement. They may confirm the desire for a resumption of peace talks and organize peace panels, schedules, and venues.
The last type of peace agreement are implementation agreements, which have specific terms and provisions. While pre-negotiation and framework agreements formulate a few of the dispute issues between conflicting parties, comprehensive agreements designate all the differences of opinion between the conflicting sides. Their scope expands not only in terms of content but also in terms of actors’ participation. The purpose of implementation agreements is to formulate terms about various parts of conflict resolutions to facilitate the implementation period, including development, human rights, and economic or social issues.
Putnam (2002: 246) points out the regulatory role of peace agreements and describes them as an “intermediary step between armed conflict and the design and consolidation of new, postconflict structures of government”. Peace agreements regulate many topics for peacebuilding, from daily life practices to power-sharing. To make a distinction between the objectives of peace agreements, Hampson (2008) proposes a useful categorization. security, good governance, the public good, and democratization Security has always been one of the priorities for conflicting parties. Fundamental security conditions provide a safe zone to implement political, economic, and social terms. Wallensteen (2002) defines five criteria to manage security issues: Demilitarisation and a unified army; giving guarantees for leaders; international involvement, such as peacekeeping forces; power-sharing ; amnesty to leaders, officers, and soldiers. Good governance and the public good provide provisions about the return of displaced people, rebuilding conflict- affected areas, rehabilitation and development projects, and regulation of the education system including all minorities and disadvantaged groups. Democratization is the last and most challenging aim of peace agreements. Peace agreements establish democratic institutions, laws, constitutions, elections, and political parties to regulate the transition period. Thus, parties may create an autonomous system and regulate relations between the central government and autonomous regions.
Implementing a Peace Agreement
Although the main aim of a peace accord is to define the terms and the implementation process, it does not guarantee the success of the establishment of peace agreements in the post-conflict environment.
The first point is the content of peace agreements. Hampson (2008) underlines defining the roots of the conflict, issues of the agreement, the needs to be resolved, and possible outcomes of negotiations while designing a settlement. On the contrary, if they involve irrelevant issues, it may complicate the implementation process. Wording has an important role in the implementation period. An agreement offers all implementers a guideline during the establishment period. Thus, the provisions of peace agreements should be clear and precise in order not to cause contradictory results. The third procedural
component is a timetable, which should be created to clarify the implementation period. A timeline sets a time- frame for all implementers, including conflicting parties and third parties.
A successful peace agreement refers not only to a document conforming to international standards but also a path to establish durable peace while addressing fundamental issues and the roots of conflict.
Varennes (2003), who examined more than 200 peace accords after the Second World War, defines several characteristics for successful peace agreements. The main features of these are having provisions about independence, autonomy, or power-sharing. Successful agreements also give guarantees of human rights and regulate fair distribution of resources or employment. They formulate minority rights and involve minorities and indigenous groups in creating the settlements. A successful agreement may have all or some of these.third parties’ involvement in the implementation process helps build trust between conflicting parties and develop mechanisms (DeRouen et al., 2010). According to Putnam (2002), parties should find a balance between demand and tensions to success peace and human rights.
The implementation of peace agreements and peacebuilding are intertwined and interdependent by nature. Implementation forms a link between negotiation and peacebuilding. However, while the implementation stage has short-term objectives, peacebuilding is a long- term process. While peacebuilding is based on broader indicators such as justice, democracy, and development, the evaluation of the success of implementation is relatively narrower (Stedman, 2001). Signing a peace agreement is a significant achievement in a peace process. However, it alone is insufficient to establish peace. In this sense, notably in societies divided by civil wars, transitional mechanisms should be developed in order to overcome violence and build social justice. Peacebuilding is a multi-level and interwoven process. Although peace agreements provide a roadmap for implementation mechanisms, during the transition period, new institutions and mechanisms may be needed in order to address the needs and expectations of the parties or people. Therefore, the post-settlement period requires additional components, such as respecting human rights, creating a dialogue between diverse cultures, democratic participation, economic development, and equality. In this vein, it needs stakeholders from national to international levels for peacebuilding. International guarantors, civil society, and local actors contribute to this complex period.