In peace negotiations, leaders must weigh the benefits of an agreement against its costs. The best negotiators can anticipate what trade-offs are likely to be made and how these will play out over time. They can also make a strong case to their adversaries that peace is not a zero-sum game and that they will gain more through negotiation than military defeat. Finally, they can ensure that critical issues are framed in ways that are more amenable to compromise.
Despite these commonalities, variation in the success of peace talks is largely unexplained. Structural explanations emphasize belligerents’ preference for peace over war, and low expectations of immediate victory are associated with more successful talks (Villaveces-Nino 2003).
Yet, this framework is not inevitable: the choice of negotiation mechanisms may be influenced by factors such as regime type and political ideology, and by the constraints faced by negotiating actors. This is true of Colombia and Turkey, where the selection of the negotiation framework impacted the outcome (Rincon, Bautista, and Pugh 2019).
Other key features of effective peace processes include strong preparation and implementation planning. This includes identifying who holds the sway in each conflict and what their interests are; mapping the power dynamics of the negotiating table; and anticipating how critical issues will be sequenced. It also involves making space for third-party mediation and civil society participation, both of which increase the chances for durable agreements. And finally, it is important to remember that negotiations continue long after the ceremonial signing of a peace agreement. Negotiators must negotiate implementation timelines, verification teams, and a host of other technical arrangements that shape whether an agreement holds.