Peace talks are fundamental to ending armed conflict. But they’re rarely easy, and even when they do succeed, they don’t always last. Peace actors can reduce the risk of failure by recognising that negotiations are complex. They can also build a strong base of support for the peace process. They can help create a culture of respect for compromise among the parties and build mutual trust. They can promote gender-responsive negotiations and systematically invest in track 2 negotiations, which address issues like underlying grievances, historical marginalisation, economic injustices and corruption.
The first factor is the willingness of the warring sides to agree to talks. Leaders weigh the strategic costs of engagement with their enemies, and are reluctant to start negotiations unless they think they can gain more from doing so than continuing to fight. Leaders also consider how their own constituents might view their decision to engage in peace talks. If they believe that the enemy and their own populations will see their peace talks as a sign of weakness, they will continue to fight.
The second factor is how the peace talks are structured. Do they focus on procedural and structural issues, or on the root causes of the conflict? The latter are not always easy to tackle, but addressing them can make peace processes more successful. A third factor is the extent to which they avert zero-sum games. Zero-sum games mean that either the other side will win or lose, and thus are unlikely to lead to sustainable peace. In contrast, bargaining over core interests, such as security or economic benefits, makes it more likely that the outcome will be durable and long-term.