A peace talks refers to a series of formal discussions held to resolve intrastate war. While the handshake moment that marks a successful agreement receives much attention, the full scope of peace processes is multifaceted and complex. Negotiators and governments face many trade-offs such as when to prioritize security reform at the expense of stability, how to balance amnesty with disarmament, demobilization, and reintegration (DDR) programs, or whether to include external actors in the negotiation process.
While the outcome of a peace process depends on a combination of factors, one of the most influential is the negotiation framework. A government that chooses a legalized, transparent, and inclusive negotiation framework is more likely to conclude an agreement than a nonlegalized, opaque, and exclusionary framework. The selection of a framework may not only maximize a government’s short-term goals, but it can also signal a positive or negative message to its adversaries and set the stage for the rest of the negotiations.
This article analyzes the different negotiation frameworks adopted by the Colombian and Turkish governments during their respective negotiations with the FARC and PKK. Despite similar initial conditions, the frameworks chosen by the two governments differed significantly. The Colombian government legislated guidelines to identify the negotiating parties, set legally binding commitments, shared information about the negotiations with the public, and enabled third-party mediation. In contrast, the Turkish government opted to grant insurgents legal immunity, excluded civil society participants, and shared information about the negotiation with only limited audiences.