Peace Talks is an initiative that showcases the inspirational stories of people making a difference in the field of peacebuilding and conflict resolution. It was co-founded in 2013 in Switzerland by the United Nations Office at Geneva, the Geneva Peacebuilding Platform and Interpeace with support from the Swiss Government.
Whether or not a conflict comes to an end is often determined by how well the peace talks are managed. Despite common challenges such as information asymmetries and commitment problems, the management of peace negotiations can make all the difference. This article explores one critical factor – the negotiation framework.
Negotiation frames determine how the negotiations are conducted, which parties are involved, and how decisions are made. They also set the stage for drafting later framework and comprehensive agreements. In this article, I show that a legalized, transparent and inclusive negotiation framework is more likely to promote the conclusion of a substantive peace agreement than a nonlegalized, opaque, exclusionary one.
The frameworks for peace talks are not magic bullets that can turn around unfavorable structural and contextual conditions. For example, Colombia and Turkey faced similar impediments to success: insurgents doubted the government’s commitment to a comprehensive peace; public criticism and sporadic spoiler attacks undermined the negotiations; and economic crises, political scandals, and violence across borders were expected to derail the process.
Nevertheless, the frameworks set in place in both countries enabled the negotiations to overcome some of these obstacles and reach a preliminary framework agreement that paved the way for a full agreement. The key was that the frameworks provided sufficient incentives for both the government and the FARC to negotiate in good faith.