Peace talks are complex and costly processes, but they are also crucial. Often, they aim to resolve a conflict’s structural causes. As a result, they are prone to breakdowns.
One way to prevent these breakdowns is to ensure that all stakeholders are involved in the process and are able to negotiate their interests. A key factor in this is the negotiation framework. Depending on the nature of a conflict, a framework may be legalized and transparent or nonlegalized and opaque. This article argues that the frameworks chosen by governments can make a significant difference in whether a peace agreement is durable.
For example, the Colombian government legislated the identification of negotiating parties and issues at stake in its negotiations; shared all partial agreements with the public; allowed the participation of third-party mediators and nonbinding civil society actors; and created a structure for resolving disagreements. The Turkish government, on the other hand, did not share any information about the negotiations with the public or allow any third-party involvement, and allowed the negotiations to be disrupted by spoilers.
The differences between the negotiation frameworks of the two cases studied here illustrate the importance of considering the nature of a conflict when designing a negotiation strategy. In the future, state supporters of negotiations could meet to discuss the establishment of an institutionalized coordination platform for the entire process. This would allow them to identify common interests and build a common agenda for the discussions. They could also establish thematic working groups that prepare the substantive discussion under each agenda item. These groups can include experts from the fields of law, business, and international politics as well as local civil society groups.
About the Author
