How mediators shape the content of peace agreements: A framework of negotiations over issues

Abstract

Ample evidence suggests that mediators increase the probability of agreements and that mediated agreements are more stable than un-mediated ones. Further research describes how agreements' content is crucial for lasting peace. However, we lack a theory explaining why conflict parties agree on specific content in the first place and how mediators influence agreement content. We propose a framework of negotiation processes and highlight how mediators shape their content. We argue that two factors define negotiation processes: the difficulty of issues on the table and the willingness and ability to compromise among the negotiating parties at the table. Existing scholarship outlines that, e.g., bargaining problems hamper compromise and proposes that mediators may increase actors' overall willingness or ability to make concessions by facilitating information flow and mitigating commitment problems. We suggest mediators have further, more nuanced means to foster meaningful agreements. We deduce three patterns of how mediators promote or deprioritize content and foster agreements on challenging issues. Our theoretical framework translates directly into a statistical model, allowing us to test the predicted patterns using data on peace agreements in intrastate conflicts between 1990 and 2012. As expected, we find that mediators successfully promote compromise on the most difficult content. Moreover, mediators appear to deprioritize less controversial topics. The analysis highlights how mediators may alter and potentially improve agreement content, even when they cannot increase belligerents' overall willingness or ability to compromise. Beyond armed conflict studies, our framework may inform research on third party influence in negotiations over specific content.

Negotiating complex issues with little fervour? Why peace processes in territorial conflicts tend to produce incomplete outcomes

“…There are two relevant dimensions in this setting: the characteristics of the issues on the table and the actors at the table (cf. Ruhe et al, 2024).…”

“…Figure 1 describes how the interaction of these two dimensions determines peace agreement content (Ruhe et al, 2024): The first dimension, the topics on the table, varies in terms of individual issues' controversiality. Some subjects are less complicated to address than others.…”

“…Recent work has also begun to apply IRT to peace agreements (cf. Williams et al, 2021;Ruhe et al, 2024).…”

“…We generalise these mechanisms and connect them to the content of peace processes throughout a conflict's lifespan, building on a new conceptual framework for peace negotiations (cf. Ruhe et al, 2024). This framework focuses on two essential dimensions of peace processes: the actors at the table and the issues on the table.…”

“…This theoretical model translates directly into a statistical estimation approach using Item Response Theory, which has been proposed as a suitable method to scale peace agreement content (cf. Williams et al, 2021;Ruhe et al, 2024). We use this approach to analyse the content of all written agreements in intrastate armed conflicts since 1990.…”