Peace talks elicit a great deal of public attention, but it’s often hard to distinguish what is real from what is not. In some cases, the media portrays “peace talks” as a zero-sum game where the parties must compromise to end fighting. These expectations are unrealistic, and they can create a sense of false hope that ends in disappointment.
Peace processes can be a lot more complex than many people assume, and they involve a wide range of actors and instruments. These include a range of Track 1 negotiations, which are high-level processes with country leadership or national government, typically led by the United Nations or regional organizations through a committee or special envoys. They can also include a broad range of civil society groups and international normative frameworks, which have different implications for the conduct of peace negotiations and implementation.
Inevitably, during protracted conflicts there are transgressions against justice – including violations of human rights – that must be acknowledged and resolved. Similarly, the structure of agreements can be designed to acknowledge and address inequalities.
Often, the most difficult to tackle issues in peace talks are those related to the social-structural roots of conflict, whether between or within states, or between and among non-state actors. These can be the result of a multitude of factors, including cultural identity, religious beliefs and values, economic grievances and power dynamics. They can also arise out of political ambitions for a certain kind of state or world order.