Peace talks refer to a series of interactions between state security forces and nonstate armed actors that aim at resolving an intractable conflict. They are a necessary part of conflict resolution and the path to lasting peace. Peace talks may take various forms, including ceasefires and national dialogues but also constitutional and political transition negotiations, peace treaty negotiations, and power-sharing arrangements (for example, reintegrating former enemies).
The effectiveness of peace talks is widely regarded as dependent on the capacity to alleviate information asymmetries and commitment problems, allow for a division of labor between parties, impose indivisibility and power sharing requirements, and address structural causes of conflict. However, the fact that the same structural and contextual conditions are present before and during peace negotiations leads to tremendous variation in the success of a peace process.
While the ability to resolve conflicts is primarily determined by the strength of state security forces and their willingness to endure the cost of violence, the negotiation framework has an equally important role. It determines whether a government maximizes the opportunities of achieving its short-term goals while promoting the conclusion of a long-term peace agreement.
A legalized, transparent, and inclusive negotiation framework is more likely to achieve these objectives than a nonlegalized, opaque, and exclusionary one. The article analyses the different inclusion decisions made in two contrasting case studies, Colombia’s negotiations with FARC and Turkey’s with the PKK, to show how the negotiation framework shapes a conflict’s outcome.