Peace talks are often regarded as an ideal way to de-escalate conflict and prevent violence. However, their success is highly variable and often contested. One common explanation for the variation in peace processes’ outcomes is that structural conditions or contextual factors affect their effectiveness. The structural explanation emphasizes belligerents’ preferences for peace and low expectations of immediate victory, their willingness to concede, and the cost of continuing violence. The contextual explanation stresses the impact of broader political and economic interests on the success of negotiations (Bapat 2005; Gleditsch and Cunningham 2011).
Regardless of the reason, there are clear conditions that help to make peace processes more effective than others. The most important is to have well-established pre-negotiation agreements that structure how the peace process will be managed and set out procedural issues such as schedules, agendas, participants and location. This will ensure that the process remains on track and enables the parties to manage the process over time.
It is also important to have legal guarantees, transparency and inclusion in the negotiation frameworks. This can help to alleviate information asymmetries and spoiler problems, set boundaries that protect the process from exogenous shocks and sporadic acts of violence, and increase the number of actors involved in conflict management.
Finally, addressing the “pathological hatred” of the enemy is crucial. Passionate feelings are a key motivation for many people to engage in war, and they can be exploited by violent actors in order to enhance their bargaining power or scuttle the negotiations altogether.