MILITARY conflicts are more likely to be resolved by taking small steps – such as partial agreements – than one giant stride, according to a new report.
Researchers at the University of Edinburgh developing a new online resource, launched today, say an average of six partial agreements are produced before a comprehensive settlement is reached.
The unique database, called PA-X, a Peace Agreement Access Tool, charts the progress of peace agreements since the end of the Cold War.
It records more than 140 peace processes, which have in turn produced over 1500 agreements aiming to resolve conflicts.
Analysis by the team, from the university’s Global Justice Academy, shows that common steps towards a significant peace settlement include talks, ceasefires and the revision of earlier agreements between opposing factions.
Researchers say the database can be used to help policy makers understand the fluctuations in peace processes, as well as recognise patterns in global conflict.
Their findings show that around 1500 of the agreements relate to conflict within states, including Bosnia, Nepal, Northern Ireland, Yemen, Syria and South Sudan.
Around 63 of them are linked to conflict between two or more countries, such as the war between Iraq and allied forces in 2003.
The tool also highlights how many conflicts – such as that in Northern Ireland – needed several stages in the peace process.
It has had a total of 33 different agreements, 11 before the Belfast/Good Friday Agreement, and 21 after it, dealing with unresolved issues. Syria has already produced at least seven ceasefire agreements of different types.
The study shows that on average peace processes include three ceasefire agreements and that these can be renegotiated or renewed, for example the Bosnian conflict, between 1992 and 1995, which saw as many as 39 ceasefires negotiated.
Even when substantial agreements are reached between opposing sides, the research suggests that these can fail. In 11 cases since the Cold War, more than one comprehensive agreement had to be signed after the first one failed or failed to include all of those who had been involved in the fighting.
These included conflicts in Bosnia, Burundi, Democratic Republic of Congo, India, Somalia and Sudan.
Researchers say that stepped agreements can reflect the complexity of the conflict, as illustrated by the Sudan and Colombia, in which it led to peace agreements being signed over periods of more than ten years.
Christine Bell, director of Edinburgh’s Global Justice Academy, said: “This resource makes accessible nearly 30 years of human ingenuity in ending conflict.
“We hope a key contribution of PA-X will be the way in which it will resource political imagination for emerging peace processes in some of the world’s most intractable conflicts.”
PA-X, a Peace Agreement Access Tool can be accessed at www.peaceagreements.org or through hashtags #peaceagreements and #pax following its launch at the British Academy. It is part of the Political Settlements Research Programme, which received a £4.4 million award from the UK Department for International Development (DFID).
Policy makers involved in international relations are welcoming the launch of the new resource.
Carey Cavanaugh, a former US Ambassador who was involved in the various peace efforts in Armenia, Azerbaijan, Cyprus, Georgia, Greece, Moldova, Tajikistan and Turkey, said: “The database is a noteworthy accomplishment, with remarkable breadth.
“It will serve as an invaluable resource for scholars, groups impacted by violent conflict seeking a greater voice in peace processes.” and individuals charged with mediating disputes.”
Why are you making commenting on The National only available to subscribers?
We know there are thousands of National readers who want to debate, argue and go back and forth in the comments section of our stories. We’ve got the most informed readers in Scotland, asking each other the big questions about the future of our country.
Unfortunately, though, these important debates are being spoiled by a vocal minority of trolls who aren’t really interested in the issues, try to derail the conversations, register under fake names, and post vile abuse.
So that’s why we’ve decided to make the ability to comment only available to our paying subscribers. That way, all the trolls who post abuse on our website will have to pay if they want to join the debate – and risk a permanent ban from the account that they subscribe with.
The conversation will go back to what it should be about – people who care passionately about the issues, but disagree constructively on what we should do about them. Let’s get that debate started!
Callum Baird, Editor of The National
Comments: Our rules
We want our comments to be a lively and valuable part of our community - a place where readers can debate and engage with the most important local issues. The ability to comment on our stories is a privilege, not a right, however, and that privilege may be withdrawn if it is abused or misused.
Please report any comments that break our rules.
Read the rules hereLast Updated:
Report this comment Cancel