Peace talks are the process of negotiating a lasting settlement to an armed conflict. While not all negotiated agreements contribute to sustainable peace, many do. The success of a negotiation process depends on several factors, including the ability of warring parties to ratify an agreement (Darby 2001; Findley 2013). One key factor that shapes whether negotiations produce stable and durable peace is how they are structured. In this article, I examine how the framework for peace negotiations—including how discussions are structured, how participants are chosen, and how the process is facilitated—may influence whether an armed conflict is resolved.
In the case of the Israel–Palestine conflict, high-level talks led by EU foreign policy chief Josep Borrell have sought to rekindle idealism around the two-state solution. Yet the conflict remains deeply entrenched, with a range of fundamental forces pushing against reconciliation.
Leaders must weigh the cost and benefits of entering negotiations. They also consider whether they will be perceived as weak if they negotiate with their enemy and how the enemy might respond to this signal. Leaders are more likely to engage in peace talks if they believe that it will help them achieve their strategic goals, which may include gaining territory or resources.
In the pre-negotiation phase, government officials must decide how to structure their negotiations, which can shape their confidence and stability in the process. Negotiators must also decide how to involve civil society groups, which can add to a sense of legitimacy or credibility. This is important because if a negotiation’s technical details are not well understood by all stakeholders, it will be harder to sustain.
About the Author
