To save content items to your account,
please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies.
If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account.
Find out more about saving content to .
To save content items to your Kindle, first ensure firstname.lastname@example.org
is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings
on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part
of your Kindle email address below.
Find out more about saving to your Kindle.
Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations.
‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi.
‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.
Given the huge number of writings covering power sharing in general, and its relationship to internal conflict in particular, it is essential to summarize what has been written in order to position the current work in this context. Thus, the first half of the chapter offers a straightforward overview of the relevant literatures. While this summary pays attention to conceptual issues and how the literature has analyzed the consequences of power sharing in broad terms, the primary focus is on conflict. Proceeding chronologically, the chapter starts with an account of the central divide in comparative politics between those perspectives that endorse power sharing, and those that oppose it. We retrace this classical divide back to the early writings of Lijphart, who introduced his consociational approach to stable democracy in divided societies in opposition to majoritarian democracy as practiced in Anglo-Saxon countries. The review of the literature covers its main stages together with work by other scholars working within this tradition as well as its main critics, including most prominently Horowitz, Rothchild and Roeder, and more recently research by Gates, Strøm and others. We then turn to the literature on post-conflict agreements. A section summarizing the main arguments for and against power sharing follows. The chapter ends with a discussion of the four challenges identified in Chapter 1.
There is an emerging consensus that international intervention can secure peace by helping combatants resolve commitment problems following civil wars. But how do interveners accomplish this? Some suggest that intervention primarily works through military coercion, while others propose non-military instruments. We build on the existing literature to theorize that interveners commonly condition political, economic, and legal incentives on compliance with peace processes. Despite a rich literature on intervention, scholars have only started to test the underlying instruments. This article takes a critical step toward this end, examining peacekeeping missions led by the United Nations from 1989 to 2012. Contrary to conventional wisdom, we show military coercion is neither commonly used nor necessary to ensure peace. Missions that employ conditional incentives—on which we collect original data—are consistently correlated with a reduced risk of conflict recurrence, even when controlling for observed selection effects, and regardless of whether they are also authorized to use military coercion.
Later years have seen the growth of a vibrant theoretical discussion on agonistic peace and the importance of creating space for contestation, plurality, and dissensus post-accord. However, there has been very few attempts at embedding agonistic theory in empirical analyses of peace agreements. This study attends to that lacuna by investigating how agonistic principles can be integrated and investigated in peace agreements. We suggest a threefold set of indicators for assessing the degree to which peace agreements are invested with agonistic dynamics: (1) what types of spaces for interaction are offered post-accord; (2) what forms of inclusion are stipulated; and (3) how is the peace agreement framed in terms of conflict termination and consensus/dissensus? We illustrate how the various indicators could be put into motion in concrete analyses applying them to examples from the Oslo Accords, the Belfast Agreement, and the Colombian Peace Agreement. Finally, we discuss four dilemmas and problematiques of integrating agonistic ideas in peace agreements; the issue of power, the mixing of agonistic and liberal ideals in peace agreements, the principle of ‘nothing is agreed until everything is agreed’ and the related double-edged potential of constructive ambiguity and finally the challenges of implementing peace agreements.
We explore whether including cultural reforms in an intra-state peace accord facilitates its success. We distinguish between accommodationist and integrationist cultural provisions and employ a mixed research method combining negative binomial regression on a data set of all intra-state political agreements concluded between 1989 and 2017, and an in-depth analysis of the 1998 Good Friday Agreement for Northern Ireland. We recognize the important reassuring effect of accommodationist cultural reforms in separatist conflicts. However, we also find that they have an important and hitherto overlooked reputational effect across all conflict types. By enhancing the reputation of negotiating leaders, accommodationist cultural provisions contribute to ending violence by preventing leadership challenges, rebel fragmentation and remobilization across all civil conflicts. By the same logic, and despite the overwhelming emphasis of peace agreements on integrationist cultural initiatives, integrationist cultural reforms problematize leaders' ability to commit to pacts and to ensure compliance among their rank and file.
This chapter begins with an overview of police integration worldwide. Nearly 40 percent of modern peace agreements include police reforms, and the makeup of the police rank and file is often central to these reforms. Yet, despite the police’s central role in peace-building, existing literature on power sharing pays little attention to this critical institution. I argue that in divided societies, the police rank-and-file’s unique combination of three characteristics – visibility, discretion, and capacity for violence – makes it especially influential in shaping citizen–state relations. The second half of the chapter details causal mechanisms linking police integration with citizens’ attitudes and expectations. For example, language differences between officers and citizens may make citizens feel less comfortable communicating with officers, or citizens may fear that cultural differences will prevent officers from understanding their situation. When the police are integrated at the patrol-level, officers can monitor their colleagues’ treatment of coethnic citizens and deter bad behavior.
The conclusion examines my argument’s implications for both scholarship and policy. For scholars, the evidence I offer here challenges the strict geographic and chronological separation between time periods and peacekeeping missions that some studies take as given. For policymakers, the arguments and evidence I advance contribute to ongoing debates about the future of peace operations. Peacekeeping today is turning increasingly towards a more military posture—but key among my argument’s implications is the idea that if the reconstruction, investment, and refugee resettlement services the international community can provide are more important than security protection to some combatants, then tying negotiation, peacekeeping, and intervention more tightly to the UN’s aid and humanitarian agencies may represent another, better direction for the UN.
The United Nation’s 1990s peacekeeping and peacemaking provoked introspection at the UN, but did not doom the UN’s peacekeeping or peacemaking enterprises. Why does UN peacekeeping remain a desirable part of peace processes despite its reputation as an ineffective measure of protection for civilian populations and warring parties alike? This book investigates why peacekeeping survived its early catastrophes and how this survival should lead us to reconsider how peacekeeping works. I advance two key claims: first, I argue the UN’s central role in peacemaking and peacekeeping worldwide means peace operations have structural consequences: what the UN does in one place can shift strategies, outcomes, and options available to parties to conflict in other places. Second, drawing peace processes in Rwanda and Guatemala, I argue combatants turn to the UN because its presence enables unique tactical, symbolic, and post-conflict reconstruction outcomes that have little to do with the end of fighting. Combatants who negotiate with the UN’s assistance after peacekeeping failures may do so because negotiation affords them benefits even when they are neither invested in peace nor convinced the UN can help them achieve it. The introduction outlines the problem, situates the answer, and summarizes each chapter of the book.
Chapter 3 examines the international law attempts to regulate the financial aspects of war economies, in particular through UN sanctions. The chapter examines UN sanctions, in particular assets freezes and commodity sanctions, counterterrorism financing, attempts by the Council to police natural resource extraction in war zones, and efforts to create standards governing the regulation of commodity chains from conflict zones.
A growing body of scholarship connects the participation of women and the inclusion of gender provisions to the sustainability of peace settlements. But how do women's groups navigate gender power structures and gendered forms of violence within complex and fragile political bargaining processes aimed at ending large-scale conflict? The 2016 Colombian peace agreement, internationally applauded for its inclusion of strong gender provisions and women's participation as negotiators and peace advocates, is a significant case for examining these questions. Drawing on original case material, including interviews of key actors on different sides of the conflict – this article analyses the political bargaining dynamics within and among women's movements, the Santos government and the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (Fuerzas Armadas Revolucionarias de Colombia, FARC). We argue that the inclusion of women was pivotal in transforming the elite bargaining process and power structures of Colombian society enabling a gender-based approach to the substantive peace agenda addressing transitional gender justice for sexual violence survivors and gender-equal redistribution through land and rural reform programmes. The study suggests that deeply situated political bargaining analysis is essential to navigating gender in elite bargains rather than a one-size-fits-all approach to inclusive peace.
Experiments are increasingly used to better understand various aspects of civil conflict. A critical barrier to peace is often conflict recurrence after a settlement or other attempt to end fighting between sides. This chapter examines the growing literature on experiments in post-conflict contexts to understand their contributions and limitations to our understanding of the dynamics in this period. It argues that work on post-conflict contexts takes two different perspectives: a peace stabilization approach emphasizes special problems from civil conflict, including how to sustain peace agreements, while a peace consolidation approach emphasizes problems common to statebuilding, including how to reconstruct communities. Both seek in part to prevent conflict recurrence, though, and that is the focus of this chapter. Although more existing theory links stabilization programs with enduring peace, more existing experiments examine consolidation programs. Both approaches would benefit from new work. Post-conflict contexts in general, however, are difficult environments in which to work, and so experiments face three interrelated challenges: first, these contexts present special ethical challenges due to both the high stakes of peace and the sensitivity of subjects; second, these are complex treatments often conducted simultaneously by different actors, and these are treatments that depend on both institutional change and behavioral responses, so change is the constant in these contexts; and, third, these contexts also face heterogeneity in terms of programs but also contexts that mean the lessons may not travel even among post-conflict settings. Despite these challenges, experiments in post-conflict contexts hold promise for advancing our understanding of enduring peace.
In 1999 the United Nations performed a significant about-face in its policy concerning the use of amnesties in peace negotiations. Where once it had condoned and even supported the use of amnesties, including those that immunise perpetrators of human rights violations against prosecutions and punishment, the UN Secretary-General, Kofi Annan, now issued a statement prohibiting UN peace negotiators from offering amnesties for human rights violations, even when the signing of a peace agreement was at stake. This chapter introduces the United Nations’ anti-amnesty policy, provides an overview of its theoretical underpinnings, development, establishment as a policy norm, and considers its implications for peace negotiators.
Drawing on a new peace agreements dataset, this chapter maps general trends in the use of amnesties in peace agreements from 1980 to 2015 and situates Asian peacemaking practice within them. Focusing on a range of conflict-related, economic and political variables, as well as the engagement of the United Nations (UN) in peace negotiations, it provides a set of preliminary explanations for the continued persistence of amnesties in Asian peace processes. The chapter highlights the existence of an unusually strong relationship between separatist conflict and the rejection of the UN’s anti-amnesty policy in Asia, demonstrates that, in contrast to the global sample, Asian democracies are no more or less likely to allow amnesties for human rights violations than authoritarian regimes, and shows that the relative lack of engagement by the UN in Asian peace negotiations is a significant factor in the continued use of amnesties for human rights violations in the region.
In the past two decades, peace negotiators around the world have increasingly accepted that granting amnesties for human rights violations is no longer an acceptable bargaining tool or incentive, even when the signing of a peace agreement is at stake. While many states that previously saw sweeping amnesties as integral to their peace processes now avoid amnesties for human rights violations, this anti-amnesty turn has been conspicuously absent in Asia. In Negotiating Peace: Amnesties, Justice and Human Rights Renée Jeffery examines why peace negotiators in Asia have resisted global anti-impunity measures more fervently and successfully than their counterparts around the world. Drawing on a new global dataset of 146 peace agreements (1980–2015) and with in-depth analysis of four key cases - Timor-Leste, Aceh Indonesia, Nepal and the Philippines - Jeffery uncovers the legal, political, economic and cultural reasons for the persistent popularity of amnesties in Asian peace processes.
This concluding chapter revisits some of the key issue areas in peace settlements, which have been covered in the International Law and Peace Settlements volume, to demonstrate how past settlement practice has added to the repertoire of legal tools that can be deployed in conflict settlement, and to highlight the contours of the relationship between this settlement practice and international law. By reflecting on the ‘patterns’ of approaches and provisions that have emerged in settlement practice in addressing these key issues, the chapter lays some empirical foundations to interrogate the normative character of these emerging ‘patterns’ of legal tools in peace-making. The normativity to legal tools for peace-making is considered in the context of the diversity in settlement actors and in the legal character of settlements, with a view to identifying how settlement practice has affected international law, and whether it is possible, helpful or necessary to proclaim the existence of a lex pacificatoria.
nternational lawyers and political economists look at exits from armed conflict from different perspectives. From a legal perspective, the role of law has been to provide a framework to regulate the use of force and to articulate a common vision of the pathways towards constitutional democracies. In the post-Cold War period, the UN and other international actors hoped to end armed conflict through peace agreements, peacekeeping, statebuilding and peacebuilding – summarised as creating a ‘liberal peace’. But armed conflicts have become internal and complex – and there has been widespread recognition that the ‘liberal peace’ has not, and cannot, deliver. From a political economy perspective, the process of forming political settlements gives some explanation: law is less relevant than the reordering of partisan interests of power holders. This questions the viability of attempts to build a ‘liberal peace’. The insights of political economy are thus a reality check to inform the search for viable alternatives to prevent or exit violent conflict.
Although democratisation can be a vital component of peace settlements, formulaic applications of supposed international norms of democratic governance are potentially counterproductive. Each conflict situation is different; many situations do not admit of prefabricated solutions that one can justly expect all reasonable contestants to accept, either at the outset or as events develop. Procedural standards associated with the ‘democratic entitlement’ obscure the underlying purposes that democratic forms, to be meaningful, need to fulfil. Post-conflict conditions, typically marked by sharp social divisions and a lack of agreement on the political community’s basic premises, are precisely the conditions in which it cannot be taken for granted that standard procedural norms will work to produce democratic social realities. Improvisation is thus essential. Peace and democracy may both be better served if the international lawyers stand aside.
Peace settlements are notoriously difficult to reach in religiously associated conflicts, particularly in intra-state armed conflicts where the religious identity and nature of the state is at stake. Despite that apparent intractability, however, some peace settlements have been crafted for contemporary intra-state armed conflicts where there have been religious incompatible claims and aspirations. This chapter explores the legal tools developed in such settlements and discusses their wider applicability as conflict resolution mechanisms. The analysis identifies seven specific conflict resolution mechanisms that have been utilised to address the religious dimensions of armed conflicts: constitutional secularism, religious freedom, religious power-sharing, religious autonomy, legalisation of religious political parties, inclusion of religious civil society actors and religious bonding. These seven mechanisms are analysed as part of two fundamentally different approaches to conflict resolution of religious dimensions: division vs integration; and reinforcement or decrease in the role of religion. The chapter demonstrates how religiously defined conflicts can also be transformed and brought to peaceful, negotiated endings.
This introductory chapter identifies the key questions and themes for the International Law and Peace Settlements volume, and provides a framework and conceptual map for analysing the relationship between international law and peace settlement practice. In particular, it examines the concepts of peace and war, and their relation to law, before developing a working lexicon for peace agreements and settlements. The chapter then critically examines the legal character of peace agreements and settlement commitments as ‘legal tools’ for peace-making. This analysis provides essential foundations to map out the ways in which peace settlements and international law can interact. Those forms of interaction become key focal points for the various contributions in the remainder of the volume. The thematic rationale and structure of the volume is explained to orientate the reader in light of its key themes and questions.
This chapter attempts to assess whether and to what extent international law can be seen as governing intra-state peace agreements; and, by turning to the practice of negotiating such agreements, whether international legal obligations, such as with respect to the inclusion of civil society actors, have emerged or are currently emerging. Demonstrating that there exist complex relationships between the practice reflected in peace agreements and international law, the chapter argues that when trying to understand these relationships, much depends on our theoretical stance vis-à-vis international law. Relying on an interactional and pluralistic conception of law, this chapter emphasises the relevance of process-related obligations and the continuous creation and adjustment of legal norms. Finally, the chapter considers the reasons why it might be desirable to ground the practice of peace agreements in international law and to allow this practice to contribute to the development of international law.
International Law and Peace Settlements provides a systematic and comprehensive assessment of the relationship between international law and peace settlement practice across core settlement issues, e.g. transitional justice, human rights, refugees, self-determination, power-sharing, and wealth-sharing. The contributions address key cross-cutting questions on the legal status of peace agreements, the potential for developing international law, and the role of key actors – such as non-state armed groups, third-state witnesses and guarantors, and the UN Security Council – in the legalisation and internationalisation of settlement commitments. In recent years, significant scholarly work has examined facets of the relationship between international law and peace settlements, through concepts such as jus post bellum and lex pacificatoria. International Law and Peace Settlements drives forward the debate on the legalisation and internationalisation of peace agreements with diverse contributions from leading academics and practitioners in international law and conflict resolution.