Peace talks are a vital part of conflict resolution. During this phase, stakeholders explore their interests, determine the feasibility of compromises, and establish relationships. However, not all negotiation processes end in agreements and peace processes are often complicated by insurgent or external challenges.
In this article, we examine the causes of variation in peace process outcomes and how the context and structural conditions surrounding negotiations influence their success. We also highlight the importance of gender-responsiveness in these negotiations. This means that every member of the mediation team should make quantifiable, time-sensitive commitments to ensure women’s direct and meaningful participation in specific phases of the process, to include women’s perspectives and gender-responsive provisions in all meetings, consultations and agreements, and to train technical experts on their responsibilities in this regard.
While information asymmetries and commitment problems are common impediments to successful negotiations, they do not explain why some negotiation processes are more successful than others. Instead, structural factors and the context in which the negotiation takes place have a greater impact.
For example, in Colombia and Turkey the political leadership’s previous commitments to fighting insurgents lowered expectations that they would be forced to make concessions during peace talks. In addition, in both cases the peace talks were held in the midst of regional crises. These events exposed the risks of a peace agreement and made it difficult for leaders to demonstrate the necessary political capital needed to push the peace process forward (Villaveces-Nino, 2003). Finally, in both countries there was a threat that armed spoilers could undermine the negotiation process. These threats were largely from disgruntled military and ultranationalist actors, as well as Gulen supporters.