Skip to Main Content
Have library access? Log in through your library
Research Report

Governance Components in Peace Agreements:: Fundamental Elements of State and Peace Building?

Marco Mezzera
Michael Pavicic
Leontine Specker
Copyright Date: May. 20, 2009
Published by: Clingendael Institute
Pages: 113
OPEN ACCESS
https://www.jstor.org/stable/resrep05466
  • Cite this Item

Table of Contents

Export Selected Citations Export to NoodleTools Export to RefWorks Export to EasyBib Export a RIS file (For EndNote, ProCite, Reference Manager, Zotero, Mendeley...) Export a Text file (For BibTex)
  1. (pp. 4-9)

    The main rationale behind the conceptualization of this study has to be found in the growing international engagement in post-conflict reconstruction and state building that has emerged during the last decade. The 2005 Paris Declaration on Aid Effectiveness¹ and the 2007 OECD/DAC Principles for Good International Engagement in Fragile States and Situations² are two of the most explicit signals of the international community’s attempt to address problems of weak governance and conflict in a coordinated way. The Netherlands Ministry of Foreign Affairs has increasingly echoed such concerns, for instance through the release of the policy letter “Our Common Concern: Investing...

  2. (pp. 10-13)

    One key consideration concerns the need to go beyond the formal structure of peace agreements when trying to assess their effectiveness in terms of guaranteeing long-term stability and peace. Often equally important, if not more so, than the formal framework, are the informal processes that have played a fundamental yet not openly recognized role leading to the agreement in the first place. Non-completely transparent negotiations, characterized by bargaining, promise making, deal striking, all often based on personal or party’s considerations and turnabouts, might be the real driving forces behind the conclusion of a peace agreement. This kind of unofficial accords...

  3. (pp. 14-30)

    The first broad conclusion that can be drawn by comparing all the five peace agreements included in this study is that, throughout the years, there is a clear increase in the level of comprehensiveness of the settlements. Below reported table 3.1 shows in fact that while the 1991 Cambodia’s Paris Peace Agreement (as the 1995 Dayton one) did not deal with 8 of the 17 key governance components selected for this analysis, both the 2000 Arusha Agreement and the 2005 Comprehensive Peace Agreement for Sudan reduced that number to just two components.

    The level of specificity of provisions27, on the...

  4. (pp. 31-33)

    As already pointed out in the previous section, it is important to look carefully at two broad characteristics of peace agreements: their level of comprehensiveness and specificity. They both have implications on the way the resulting peace process is likely to proceed. As illustrated by the case of Mozambique, the non-specificity of the security-related provisions determined a situation where the signatories saw and made use of the space left available to interpret such wide provision to their own advantage.

    Another important aspect of any international engagement with peace building processes, as the case of Cambodia shows, is that the international...

  5. (pp. 34-36)

    Design intervention strategies accurately. Substantial interventions by the international community in a post-conflict setting should be carefully planned in advance. In particular, in the case of interventions whereby important parts of state authority and sovereignty are taken over by external actors48, the following aspects should be taken into due consideration: a sound analysis and understanding of the political culture and complex power structures and dynamics in the country should precede any such intervention; mission’s personnel should be properly trained for the required tasks; deployment and operational planning should be carried out well in advance and with the necessary attention; effective...