Peace talks are a series of formal discussions between nation-states or groups of people held to resolve conflict and facilitate peace. Peace talks can be inclusive, involving all actors in a conflict, or exclusive, involving one or more of the conflict dyads. They may also involve other actors such as mediators, neighboring countries, political parties, NGOs, and guarantors.
Scholarly work on the success and failure of peace processes suggests that negotiation frameworks matter significantly. They are important because they determine whether the adversaries will be able to identify each other and agree on a common set of principles to guide negotiations, mitigate information asymmetry, and reduce commitment problems. They also provide a legal framework for protecting the process from exogenous shocks and spoilers, as well as for legitimizing the participants and facilitating their participation.
This article examines the components of a negotiation framework and describes how they affect peace negotiations, using Colombia and Turkey as case studies. It reveals that, even in similar initial conditions, different negotiation frameworks can lead to divergent outcomes and a range of barriers impeding the resolution of protracted and intractable conflicts.
In many cases, the main barrier is how “peace” is understood by the conflict parties. This often includes the perception that an agreement will end violence and suffering instantly, whereas in fact, peace is rarely achieved without painful compromises. Another important barrier is the lack of incentives for negotiating. This can be due to the fact that a peace deal often makes little sense for the government (e.g., when they have already made substantial military gains) or that the rebels do not see much to gain from the negotiations (e.g., when they are heavily factionalized).
About the Author
