Suchergebnisse

This article reports on trends in organized violence and peace agreements collected by the Uppsala Conflict Data Program (UCDP). The number of fatalities in organized violence decreased for the fourth consecutive year, to reach the lowest level since 2012. In 2018, UCDP recorded almost 76,000 deaths: a decrease of 20% compared to 2017, and 43% compared to the latest peak in 2014. State-based armed conflict drives this downward trend in organized violence, with Syria accounting for much of the change. The number of civilians killed in one-sided violence also dropped in 2018, reaching its lowest level since 2012. In contrast, non-state conflict remained on a high level. The general decline in fatalities from organized violence does not correspond with the trend in the number of active conflicts. In fact, the world has seen a new peak in the number of conflicts after 2014, matched only by the number of conflicts in the early 1990s. In 1991, the peak in the number of armed conflicts corresponded with a similar peak in the number of signed peace agreements. This was followed by a decrease in the number of conflicts in the late 1990s and early 2000s. However, the most recent rise in armed conflicts has not been matched by a similar rise in the number of peace agreements. Two circumstances that characterize the recent rise in conflicts have also been found to make conflicts harder to solve: explicit religious claims and high levels of internationalization.

Peace agreements offer rule-based approaches, which distinguish from some variable peace processes and are manifested as establishing a legal peace. This legal peace is provided in the following forms:1) Peace agreements evaluate internal and external interactions for the legitimacy of government through distorting government and supporting human rights; a different composition of public and private (non-government) signatories;2) Peace agreements are common treaties riding over national (interior) and international legal issues;3) Different forms of legal commitments; peace agreements embraces both valid organizational regulations and contracts or pseudo- commitment contracts;4) Various third party agencies; peace agreements rely upon common law coalition government and contain multiple oppositions, common law and political mechanisms and their implementation.These various ways simultaneously reflect settlement ways of peace agreements. If legal issues are ignored and peace agreements are properly considered, they may be argued as a temporary international constitution. Peace agreements provide a powerful plan for governing; however, they are often minor and temporary requiring developed.

The last fifteen years have seen a proliferation of peace agreements. Some 50 percent of civil wars have terminated in peace agreements since 1990, more than in the previous two centuries combined, when only one in five resulted in negotiated settlement. Numerically, these settlements amount to over three hundred peace agreements in some forty jurisdictions. International standards have even begun to regulate peace agreements. United Nations guidelines, guidelines and recommendations of the secretary-general, and Security Council resolutions have all normatively addressed peace agreements: both the processes by which they are negotiated and their substance, particularly with relation to accountability for past human rights abuses.

Zsfassung in engl. Sprache

AbstractHow do UN peacekeeping missions enforce peace agreements, and what effect do higher rates of enforcement have on agreement implementation and conflict termination? Peace agreement enforcement forms a central component of peacekeeping effectiveness, yet missions are often mandated to enforce a minority of agreement provisions, and they vary across both time and space in the ways in which they do so. I identify the three dimensions along which enforcement operates—the proportion and type of provisions that missions are mandated to enforce, alongside their mandated level of involvement in their implementation—and theorize about their positive effects on agreement implementation and conflict termination. Analyzing the Peacekeeping Enforcement Dataset, an original data set of the enforcement patterns of all UN peacekeeping missions (1989–2015), I find that each dimension of enforcement has, at various time points, a distinct impact on agreement implementation and preventing conflict recidivism.

This article seeks to understand the proliferation of local and sub-national peace agreements negotiated and signed in recent years. While such agreements are not a new phenomenon, local negotiations in violent conflict seem to be becoming increasingly better documented and formalized. This development may be caused by the comparably easy availability of electronic means of documentation and communication, even in remote areas. Local peace processes and resultant agreements have also gained more attention from national, regional, and international actors, in part due to their increased visibility. Interest in local agreements is also driven by the changing dynamics of conflict and peace. Structural shifts at the international have often resulted in a decreasing likelihood of comprehensive peace processes at the national level. The model of the traditional 'peace process' at the national level assumes the existence of a state actor who is internationally recognized, and one (or more) armed opposition groups. Often, however, conflicts are more complex. Some conflicts may be understood as contests about the control of the central state and others evolve from a complex interrelation between the national level and a variety of localized conflict settings that are largely based on context-dependent fault lines. In other cases, local agreements seem to play an important role across diverse conflict, in 'untangling' forms of conflict, that often operate as complex local-national-transnational-international conflict systems. This report presents the finding of two workshops focused on local peace agreements, their negotiation, the actors involved, and their impact and modes of implementation. Compared to national-level agreements, local peace agreements are considerably shorter and issue-centered. They deal with a wide variety of contextualized topics around the predominant aim of managing local patterns of armed conflict and violence. In their variety, local peace agreements represent the diversity but also the ...

Later years have seen the growth of a vibrant theoretical discussion on agonistic peace and the importance of creating space for contestation, plurality, and dissensus post-accord. However, there has been very few attempts at embedding agonistic theory in empirical analyses of peace agreements. This study attends to that lacuna by investigating how agonistic principles can be integrated and investigated in peace agreements. We suggest a threefold set of indicators for assessing the degree to which peace agreements are invested with agonistic dynamics: (1) what types of spaces for interaction are offered post-accord; (2) what forms of inclusion are stipulated; and (3) how is the peace agreement framed in terms of conflict termination and consensus/dissensus? We illustrate how the various indicators could be put into motion in concrete analyses applying them to examples from the Oslo Accords, the Belfast Agreement, and the Colombian Peace Agreement. Finally, we discuss four dilemmas and problematiques of integrating agonistic ideas in peace agreements; the issue of power, the mixing of agonistic and liberal ideals in peace agreements, the principle of 'nothing is agreed until everything is agreed' and the related double-edged potential of constructive ambiguity and finally the challenges of implementing peace agreements.

Negotiated civil war terminations differ from their interstate war counterparts in that one side must disarm and cease to exist as a fighting entity. While termination through military victory provides a relatively more enduring peace, many civil wars end with peace agreements signed after negotiations. However, research has shown that the implementation of civil war peace agreements is difficult and prone to collapse. Often these failures are followed by recurrence of the conflict. In some cases, the agreements break down before key provisions are implemented. This article adds to this topic by focusing on the role of state capacity in peace agreement success. We argue that peace agreements and state capacity are necessary but not sufficient conditions for sustainable peace. The article employs a case study approach to explore the importance of state capacity in implementing civil war peace agreements. The role of third-party interventions is also considered. The cases (United Kingdom-Northern Ireland, Indonesia-Aceh, Burundi, Mali, and Somalia) include 14 peace agreements that vary by war type (secessionist or control over government), type of agreement (comprehensive or partial), levels of state capacity (high or low), and peace success (success, partial or failure), and each experienced third-party involvement in the peace process. [Reprinted by permission of Sage Publications Ltd., copyright holder.]