Why It Worked: Moving from Success to Effectiveness in Conflict Resolution and Peace Negotiations Open Access

What makes a negotiated settlement ending an armed conflict “successful?” While the concept of success is critical to understanding how armed conflicts end, there is no consensus within the scholarly literature on what factors constitute success and why some peace negotiation and mediation initiatives² work and others do not (Kleiboer 1996; Bercovitch and DeRouen 2004; Bercovitch 2007; Vuković 2014; Wallensteen and Svensson 2014; Duursma and Svensson 2019). To address this issue, this concluding article of the special issue, “Why It Worked,”³ surveys debates on success in conflict resolution and peace negotiations literature to understand the gaps and biases around what the literature constitutes as “success” in protracted, asymmetrical, and ethnonational (PAE) conflicts.

Negotiations and conflict resolution literature tends to look at success in terms of stability and durability (Druckman and Wagner 2019), focusing on either factors specific to peace negotiations themselves or those related to context. However, these perspectives have not been examined comprehensively. This article makes the case for a new approach to studying “success” in conflict resolution: moving from the concept of success toward effectiveness and “what worked,” embracing complexity, nuance, and theoretical eclecticism (Katzenstein and Sil 2008).

To achieve this, the article highlights literature on conflict resolution; summarizes key findings from the articles in the special issue; introduces a novel way to view PAE conflicts that is integrated, incremental, systemic, and bi-directional, built upon the foundation of this issue’s research articles; and showcases an integrated conceptual visualization that illustrates key elements in peace negotiations aimed at resolving PAE conflicts: The Propeller. This visualization offers a novel way of analyzing the individual, yet integrated movements that are necessary to propel a peace process forward collectively. It contributes to literature on peace negotiations by providing a concrete way to visualize the concept of effectiveness over success.

Exploring “Why It Worked” within the scholarly fields of conflict resolution and peace negotiations relates to the existing literature on success and failure—or as some have framed it—finding the elusive “Golden Formula” of peacemaking (Kleiboer 1996; Bercovitch 2007; Cho and Landau 2023). Conflict resolution scholars looked at both the contextual and process variables that affected the outcomes of peace negotiations in the 1990s and 2000s (Bercovitch et al. 1991; Bercovitch and DeRouen 2004; Bercovitch 2007). Although many articles and entire edited volumes are dedicated to the topic, a lack of consensus remains due to the heterogeneity of peace negotiations as well as the tendency for empirical studies to treat success and failure as dependent variables (Vuković 2014). Many of these attempts to look at factors and frameworks for evaluating success in mediated peace negotiations look at the characteristics of the conflict itself, such as the conflict’s “ripeness” (Zartman 2000) or its intensity and nature (Costalli 2014; Ruhe 2021). These conflict characteristics may also include different elements of peacemaking architecture that include the conflicting parties, the mediator, the international context, and the process (Greig and Diehl 2012; Duursma 2014; Hellmüller and Salaymeh 2023), or “heuristic” models of mediation as power brokering, political problem-solving, and reestablishing social relationships (Heemsbergen 2011).

Additionally, several studies (Beardsley 2011; Greig and Diehl 2012; Wallensteen and Svensson 2014) contribute to the understanding of success in conflict resolution mechanisms (such as peace negotiations and mediation) by looking at “degrees” of success rather than binary outcomes. Such studies focus on the mechanisms through which degrees of success can be achieved: getting parties to the table, reaching an agreement, and making the agreement endure or “stick” over time (Vuković 2014). In this vein, Duursma and Svensson (2019) describe success in peace negotiations as outcome-based, offering four outcomes used to measure the success of mediation: acceptance of mediation by belligerent parties, conflict termination, the signing of a negotiated settlement, and the absence of conflict recurrence. The sheer breadth of factors, outcomes, and process approaches and typologies in understanding the concept of success in conflict resolution reveals the lack of consensus on the metrics upon which success is measured and evaluated. This is due to the highly subjective complexity of PAE conflicts as well as the lack of agreement about what constitutes success and what does not (Hellmüller 2023).

The stakes are high in understanding what success in conflict resolution is and what it is not. There is a normative aspect attached to the concept of success in peace negotiations. While the goals and objectives of different peace processes may vary, the right to life and the imperative of ending violence underpin all processes (Hellmüller et al. 2015). However, attempts to find a generic “Golden Formula” have led to a trend of professionalization in conflict resolution “best practice” that risks depoliticizing contextual politics for more technical approaches (Cho and Landau 2023). Therefore, while research tends to distinguish and orient analysis of successful outcomes of peace negotiations via factors that focus on the process itself or on the context, it might (somewhat counterintuitively) be more helpful to examine peace processes by recentering the politics (Cho and Landau 2023), no matter how complex or messy the conflict may be (Palmiano Federer and Hirblinger 2024).

To date, conflict resolution literature regarding successful and effective outcomes in conflict resolution mechanisms such as peace mediation and peace negotiations has relied on structural explanations based on the nature of the conflict and the relationship of the parties combined with process design factors. For instance, in Wallensteen and Svensson’s survey of mediation literature, they view the frequency of mediation attempts, the nature of mediation strategies, the debate on biased mediators, and the topic of coordination (or competition) among mediation actors as important topics in mediation research, but also note that there is no consensus on a single definition of success in mediation. Second, in regard to both formal and informal negotiations, some definitions focus on getting warring actors to a negotiation table in the first place; others define success as the cessation of violence or the formation of democratic governance (Wallensteen and Svensson 2014). Scholarship on Track Two negotiations (facilitated unofficial or informal dialogues) tends to focus on the transformation of parties’ goals and motivations and how the progress made in such negotiations is “transferred” into Track One (official) talks (d’Estrée and Fox 2021). Much of this transformation can be facilitated by specific strategies of third parties, from framing agenda items to creating a sense of group identity among the conflicting parties (Benziman 2016).

Other scholars focus on how interpersonal, intergroup, and relational factors, or the relationship between the third party and the parties themselves, are related to success. These include, for instance, the presence or choice of a third party and its relationship to the parties that encourage the onset of mediation and negotiations (Bercovitch et al. 1991; Bercovitch and Rubin 1992; Kydd 2010). The larger context, including environmental factors, and regional and international political actors are also considered a central component of analysis (Checkel 2013; Pring 2023). Academic and theoretical debates continue to evolve on the nature of success in peace negotiations, reflecting the complexity of the subject. Often, these debates categorize the notion of success through the lens of stability and durability (Druckman and Wagner 2019) of either the process or context of peace negotiations (Hellmüller et al. 2015; Cho and Landau 2023). Because of the complex and bifurcated nature defining success in peace negotiations, it is too complicated for a single, generic “success” recipe.

In negotiation literature, success is multifaceted. It can range from fostering an environment where rival groups can engage in a structured process (getting parties to the negotiation table) or where they have reached an agreement (“getting to yes”) (Fisher and Ury 1981). While some scholars studying success in peace processes focus on the role of “process design” (Arévalo 2024), negotiation strategies (Clayton 2013), or mediator strategies (Benziman 2016; Duursma and Svensson 2019), focusing on an “endogenous” perspective (Cho and Landau 2023), other scholars emphasize contextual factors, including the conflict’s characteristics, strengths of involved parties, and the prevailing political climate. As one example, Clayton’s study on the strength of rebel movements finds that the stronger the movements are relative to the strength of the governments they are fighting, the more likely they are to negotiate peace agreements successfully, and that mediation is more likely to be successful when there is a third party (Clayton 2013). The intractable nature of PAE conflicts is complicated further by the internationalization of civil wars; and success, according to scholars, is extremely elusive and requires multidimensional mediation mandates that integrate relevant external actors in negotiation processes (Kane 2022).

Second, civil war literature offers theoretical contributions to our understanding of how groups get to the table and reach an agreement (as an indicator of success). Walter’s influential article on barriers to civil war settlements points to the presence of third parties to guarantee or secure the protection of belligerents to overcome a key issue of “credible guarantees” (Walter 1997). Ghosn offers a state-centric cost-benefit analysis of how contextual factors such as internal political disputes, the level of cost of the conflict (intensity), and the relationship between parties (level of allyship between parties) influence states’ decisions to negotiate (onset) and the outcome of negotiations. When costs are high, states are more likely to come to the table (Ghosn 2010). Similarly, other studies find that the level of ethnic divisions within a state influences the likelihood of mediation onset and its prospects for success (Keels and Greig 2019).

Success is also conceptualized through the lens of durability, in terms of how long negotiated settlements can “last”; long-term peace is considered to have been reached when conflicts do not relapse into violence; such analysis considers processes of justice and inclusion. Just as getting to the table does not guarantee a peace agreement, reaching a stable agreement does not guarantee a durable peace, as 43 percent of conflicts settled through negotiation relapsed into violence within five years (Albin and Druckman 2012). While some scholars attach a temporal metric of stability (no relapse into violence 2 to 5 years after a peace agreement) and durability (5 to 8+ years) (Canal et al. 2024), the metrics for understanding success as durability are also elusive and complex, especially in the context of political settlements made via power-sharing arrangements (Hartzell and Hoddie 2003) or via bargains that renegotiate the allocation of power and resources between elites (Cheng et al. 2018).

However, several scholars focus on the connection of durable peace to questions of justice (Bakiner 2019)—both procedural (the process from which agreements result) and distributive (allocation of benefits and burdens)—as an understudied factor of the durability of peace agreements in PAE conflicts (Druckman and Wagner 2019). For instance, citing the case of Colombia, scholars write about the need to balance transitional justice issues, coexistence between the conflicting actors, integration of former combatants, and the rights of the conflict’s victims, all while conflict is ongoing in other parts of the country with different groups (Canal et al. 2024). In another study of 15 civil war settlements between the 1980s and 1990s, procedural justice is indirectly connected with durability (Albin and Druckman 2012).

Scholarship on the durability of peace agreement implementation (Joshi et al. 2017) that is participatory and transparent (Mammone 2023) has also emerged in conflict resolution literature. Scholarship on implementation posits that lasting peace is met through normalizing relationships between previously hostile groups while addressing the root causes of civil war.

As noted, there is a wealth of diverse scholarship on success in conflict resolution, peace negotiations, and civil wars. However, much of this scholarship studies success through the lens of systemic analyses of bargaining frameworks (Walter 1997) or systematic cost-benefit analyses (Ghosn 2010). Recent studies evaluating the ontological and epistemological lenses through which conflict resolution is theorized (and consequently practiced) reveal limitations in the literature around the analysis of “success” and “failure” in research on war and political violence (Gleditsch et al. 2014; Hellmüller 2023). This approach risks depoliticizing conflict resolution efforts while overestimating the ability of mediators to end PAE conflicts (Cho and Landau 2023). Furthermore, conflict resolution scholarship looking at the relationship between knowledge production and conflict dynamics is challenged by inherent power dynamics between whose knowledge and what knowledge is valued. The bias toward an increasingly professionalized and technical approach (Hagmann and Goetschel 2009) risks further marginalizing the voices and perspectives of those experiencing conflict through an overemphasis on the process and the mediator rather than the conflicting parties (Nathan 2023) as well as reducing the inherent complexity in PAE settings (Bächtold 2021).

Furthermore, the emerging and lively debate on the role of norms in mediation (Hellmüller et al. 2020)—such as inclusivity, gender equality, and transitional justice (Hirblinger and Landau 2020; Palmiano Federer 2024)—is also directly related to the concepts of success and durability. Scholars are increasingly studying the importance of civil society participation and inclusion (Paffenholz 2014; Bakiner 2019; Nilsson and Svensson 2023) in the design and implementation of peace agreements. There is a growing number of empirical studies linking the participation of nonarmed actors, such as people who identify as women, to the durability of agreements (Krause et al. 2018).

Therefore, there is a need to redefine the notion of success to micro-dynamics of processes that work and bridge the endogenous and exogenous—looking at processes from an integrated lens. There is also a need to move away from “generalized” notions of success (Duursma and Svensson 2019) toward effectiveness, which is the degree to which an initiative achieves a desired result. For instance, Duursma and Svensson argue that the mediation metrics are outcome-focused and over-generalized and propose studying success through measuring benchmark outcomes against the mandates, goals, and agendas of mediators. In this article, we build upon the shift of Duursma and Svensson (2019) away from “outcomes” to “benchmarks,” not just as a way to look at the diverse and shifting goals of mediators but attempts to settle PAE conflicts writ large. Shifting the discourse around “success” toward effectiveness also prevents binary discussions of success and failure, focusing on “what worked,” why, and how.

The articles in this special issue contribute empirically based theoretical models that offer new ways of understanding “Why It Worked,” moving away from outcome-based success toward a benchmarked understanding of effectiveness. Each article focuses on different elements or factors that contribute to why PAE conflicts were “resolved” through a peace agreement. Brought together, these factors include actors, process, and issues and form the basis of “The Propeller.” “The Propeller” model serves as an analytical tool to understand “Why It Worked” in terms of effectiveness and a practical framework to identify ways to propel peace processes in a manner that is (1) integrated and systemic and (2) incremental and bi-directional. It emphasizes and builds on literature and practice that views processes as relative and honors and accounts for the complexity inherit in PAE conflicts. (See MAS MPP ETH 2024.)

The visualization below (Figure 1) invokes the aesthetic and logic of a propeller. The three core elements of PAE conflicts—actors involved, issues at stake, and the process aimed at resolving the conflict—make up the “core” of the propeller. The “wings” of the propeller—power and relationships, religion and identity, land and resources, and structure and design—generate motion on the core, either encouraging forward progress or discouraging and thwarting it. All of these elements must be considered in connection and understood as systematically interconnected with each other.

The Propeller showcases how a conflict resolution process is systemic and integrated. A propeller is the critical forward-motion apparatus of a larger machine, like a boat. Similarly, each element of the conflict core and the wings is an integrated part of a larger system; a propeller does not operate correctly without the harmonization of all parts. If one wing is broken, the propeller may be less effective, or may stall completely. The propeller also demonstrates how a conflict resolution process is incremental and bi-directional. Forward motion generated by a propeller—or by the elements in a conflict resolution process—occurs through small, continuous motion, and does not happen instantaneously. A propeller can move both forward and backward. Similarly, a conflict resolution process can progress incrementally forward; it can also be circular, repeat previous actions, slow down, stop, or go backward.

In the visualization, the wings (power and relationships, religion and identity, land and resources, and structure and design) generate motion on the core elements of a conflict (issues, process, actors). Each wing can contribute to thrusting a conflict resolution process forward or backward, stopping it, or stalling it. However, because they are integrated and systemic, they do not operate in isolation; they impact each other and generate momentum together. Further, shifting from a focus on success to effectiveness suggests we depart from asking if the boat moved (success) and instead ask what factors propelled the boat or held it back (effectiveness). This frame opens up new ways of analyzing the individual yet interconnected movements and actions that may, collectively, propel a peace process forward.

Thinking about effectiveness requires a systems thinking approach. While existing literature on success looks at several different factors, it focuses on two outcomes—durability and stability (Druckman and Wagner 2019)—through various factors that are focused on the process itself or the context. The articles in this special issue apply a systemic approach that requires looking at diverse elements of peace processes at the same time, on both a micro and macro level (within each article and across articles). The article by Svensson and Söderberg Kovacs offers an analytical model of conflict resolution based on conflict theory, suggesting that three basic dimensions of conflict—the conflict issues at stake, the violent conflict behavior, and the attitudes of the parties—each must be transformed or managed to establish a sustainable peace effectively. Their empirical analysis finds that peace processes that “worked” saw intra-party transformation due to leadership changes and policy shifts, the gradual building of trust between the parties, and the maintenance of political unity during regime changes. However, all peace agreements are not followed by sustainable peace. In the cases where the negotiations did not result in a peace agreement or where the peace deal was not sustained, some of the three elements had not been properly addressed. Therefore, the study by Svensson and Söderberg Kovacs suggests that attention needs to be paid to all three dimensions in order to transform a situation of conflict into one of sustainable peace.

The article by Korostelina et al. argues that despite a diverse field of research on conflict resolution that studies different factors that contribute to the success of the peace process and the sustainability of agreements, the role of identity and religion in these processes is understudied. The authors’ BRIDGE model offers a comprehensive way to understand how factors and processes of identity and religion address and transform relations between groups. In the same vein, the article from Ali et al. discusses the advantages of integrating the role of land and natural resources as a factor for robust peace agreements. The authors draw on the growing literature on environmental peacebuilding to develop a theoretical model of how land and natural resources (e.g., minerals, water, forests, and agricultural products) contribute to the framing of conflicts and how they might be resolved. Finally, Bell and Aslam’s article examines how bargaining and leadership strategies contribute to the peaceful settlement of PAE conflicts through the use of conflict system analysis—specifically, “nested negotiation network” analysis—which examines sets of relationships between parties within a larger conflict system. Understanding the specific dynamics of networks and subnetworks of relationships within a larger system has provided important insights into the ways in which conflict parties are able to exercise power and leadership to influence the direction of peace negotiations toward settlement. These articles make the case for a new paradigm for studying “success,” one that incorporates conceptual and theoretical eclecticism (Katzenstein and Sil 2008) and looks at different factors of peace processes beyond a process and context dichotomy.

The articles in the special issue also suggest that moving away from outcome-based notions of success requires understanding how peace processes are nonlinear, multi-directional, and adaptive (de Coning 2022). The article by Jones et al. promotes an understanding of bi-directionality in peace processes, highlighting the interplay between official Track One negotiations and informal Track Two initiatives. The authors’ model of Track Two moves beyond the hierarchy of triangular models of Track Two and views both Track One and Track Three as important destinations for transfer (formal negotiations and agreements as well as civil society inclusion/public support for the process). Second, in a related way, as many conflict resolution processes are presented in a temporally linear manner, the authors’ typology and tool strive to capture circularity, understanding that each part can occur in different stages, repeat itself, or start and stop again after long periods of time, reflecting the disorderly reality of conflict contexts. Third, their typology and tool illustrate modularity by showing the contributing factors such as the role that third parties play, or contextual factors like changes in administration or breakdowns in negotiations, which play different roles at different stages of the process. Söderberg Kovacs and Svensson’s article points to how analyzing temporal aspects, such as momentum and sequencing, reveals the nonlinear nature of how peace processes are initiated and maintained. They argue that addressing all three dimensions of the conflict triangle model is important to effective peace settlements, but not all three dimensions are equally important at all stages of peace processes.

Reframing success as effectiveness through an integrated and incremental manner provides greater insights that inform why some processes resulted in peace agreements and others did not. Here, we draw from the empirical analysis of the articles in this special issue to illustrate how the different components in the “wings” of the propeller progress or propel conflicts toward peace.⁴ This section examines how the three core elements of the “propeller” model of peace negotiation effectiveness—actors, issues, and process—relate to the propeller “wings” discussed above, and builds on the principle that we cannot study one element without the other. We will delve into the four wings, providing specific examples and insights from the articles in this issue; all references are to these articles.

The articles in this special issue highlight the importance of understanding power, relationships (between conflict parties and between parties and their constituents), and leadership among relevant actors from a systemic perspective. Shifting relationships between neighboring countries can provide the contextual change needed to open space for a peace process in a civil war linked to regional conflict dynamics. Regional and global political rivalries often manifest themselves in the support of different sides in civil wars. This embeddedness of internal conflicts within larger international relationships helps to explain why such conflicts can be particularly intractable and difficult to resolve, as the parties receive support from external actors who are not always attuned to the local needs of the populations. This also relates to the impact of leadership changes within the conflicting parties (e.g., government and armed groups). Leadership change on the government side has been an important structural precondition for several empirical cases discussed in this issue. Governments that go to war against armed opposition groups often have great difficulty in reversing their policies. The decision to initiate political negotiations therefore frequently requires a power shift in domestic politics. It is easier for new parties or new leaders to de-link the government from previous commitments and carry out important policy shifts. Leadership changes in rebel groups are generally less frequent than changes in government. However, the leadership plays a key role in the prospect of non-state armed groups opting for a negotiated settlement to resolve the conflict.

The presence and impact of a third party is also a key factor in understanding the nature of effective peace negotiations. A third party is not a condition for peace settlements. A peace process can make progress even without a third party, but the absence of a third party generally requires that other factors inducive to the progress of peace talks are present. Oftentimes, it is less the third parties themselves but the added value they contribute to the process that explains their positive effects. This includes international recognition (particularly important for non-state armed actors), third-party security guarantees to monitor and punish those that do not adhere to agreements, and stronger political ties with the mediating country, which can be an important aspect when the mediator is an influential country. When several third parties are active in a negotiation process, the creation of coherent third-party strategies is important. When third parties are unified, their ability to mount pressure on the primary parties will also increase significantly. Larger groups that include countries with relationships to each of the sides in a conflict can, when acting in a coherent manner, be a powerful constellation to convince the parties to resolve their conflict. When there is no formal third-party mediator, external actors can still be critical to the process, primarily by bringing important resources to the process, exerting leverage, offering economic support, and garnering international attention.

Regarding the inclusive participation of nonarmed actors, the analyses in this issue point toward meaningful inclusion as a key factor in the effectiveness of peace negotiations. There are two different kinds of exclusion from formal peace negotiations. Mitigated exclusion is defined as exclusion from formal peace talks mitigated by positive, informal ties between at least one formally included party and the excluded party. Unmitigated exclusion is defined as the congruence of a party’s exclusion from formal talks and its marginalization in informal negotiations because of a lack of positive, informal ties with any of the parties at the table. Looking only at “who sits at the table” and drawing conclusions about whose interests will or will not be met by the final deal misses an important underlying dynamic. If a formally excluded party’s interests are represented indirectly by a formally included ally or partner—for example, the interests of excluded Indigenous groups or civil society are represented through political factions or guerrilla groups—a dense positive relationship network de facto compensates for a certain degree of formal exclusion and may facilitate the resolution of the conflict. This does not suggest that marginalized groups—or conflict parties more generally—should not care about securing a seat at the table. It also does not mean that actors do not need to worry if they are not included in formal talks. This observation suggests that there is no perfect congruence between “included/excluded” and “influential/not influential.” Instead, the parties’ ability to leverage their network of relationships to influence even those negotiations in which they are not directly involved is an overlooked source of power.

Overall, understanding actors from a relational, integrated, and systemic perspective yields a comprehensive take on what propels processes forward and what sustains agreements. For instance, dialogues during the early stages of a Track Two process focus, among other things, on relationship building. Relationships can then become a critical factor that moves the process forward. From the perspective of “nested negotiation networks,” we see that prior to the resolution of conflicts, low-intensity relationships outnumber high-intensity relationships in most such networks. Competition and working associations are much more common than outright hostilities and long-standing, historically positive ties. Processes are more likely to lead to fruitful results in the absence of direct hostility (adversarial relations) between the key negotiating stakeholders. On the other hand, long-standing alliances are not a prerequisite for successful negotiations, as long as key actors are willing to work with each other. Decision-makers’ changing perspectives and evolving social norms of presentation contribute to breakthroughs. These changes, in turn, create further opportunities for parties to connect on a human level, where they learn about the other, moving the process forward on a foundation of respect, trust, and friendship. This can be propelled by changing social norms of presentation of the other and engagement with the other party, including recognizing problematic interactions between parties and increasing intergroup awareness through activities such as learning the other group’s language, cross-ethnic festivals, and collaborative learning.

Using insights from the integrative model of effectiveness allows us to think about negotiations within a peace process as incorporating both structure and design. Negotiations often have to be structured in a phased manner, allowing for partial agreements, with smaller scopes to be negotiated and agreed upon, but at the same time contingent on the reaching of an overall settlement. An important element of process design has to do with the management of time, to create a balance between patience, urgency, and momentum. Peace processes that have been successful in reaching comprehensive peace deals have allowed sufficient time for deliberations and inclusive processes but also put time pressure on the parties to create a sense of urgency. Even in the absence of a third party, the parties themselves can structure the negotiation process in such a way that deadlines are built into the process.

Structurally, looking at land as a contested resource could influence the process design. In certain cases, physically relocating away from the contested resource can help with advancing the process. Peace negotiations can also engender key structural elements, such as the creation of multiple commissions representing different sectors. Democratic transition is critical for creating the space where divergent interest groups can come together and deliberate shared and divergent views. Equally important is looking at the role of design in peace negotiations. Third parties, such as mediators, play a central role in designing peace negotiations. The empirical analyses of the articles in this special issue show that mediators played key design roles. Some of these roles are bridging structural holes in negotiation networks and connecting clusters of actors; and earning the parties’ trust, and using this trusting relationship to create better preconditions for dialogue. Moreover, mediators can play a key design role by leveraging their broker positions to establish new lines of communication and act as a source of reliable information exchange between the parties. This can alleviate the lack of transparency and mistrust, potentially resulting in a breakthrough—bringing important resources to the process in terms of good offices, economic support, international attention, and monitoring and compliance (including providing technology relating to land and resources).

In terms of mediation, mediators do not need to be unbiased to play a constructive role. In fact, the ties that external mediating countries have to one side in a conflict can be leveraged to play an important role in bringing the process forward. Mediators do not always need to be official (e.g., the United Nations). While UN mediation has contributed to the brokering of peace agreements, Track Two dialogues, often facilitated by informal actors, have been crucial in bringing the parties together while building a functional level of trust. Resistance to international intervention renders formal third-party intervention in the form of UN mediation or state-led mediation inappropriate. However, dialogue facilitation by individuals or NGOs is often accepted by warring parties, since they have a lower profile compared to foreign governments seeking to establish similar lines of talks without the risk of political blowback. In some cases, Track Two facilitators conducted shuttle dialogue and created a trusting environment in which the parties gradually felt safe enough to open themselves up to the third party and each other. Third parties also contributed to breakthrough moments when such progress was not possible by conventional diplomatic means.

Understanding how peace negotiations are bi-directional also provides more insights. While biased facilitators can play a role in moving processes forward, the parties’ perception of a biased facilitator may hinder negotiations. The impact of bias depends on various factors and the specific context of the negotiations. Much of the existing literature on success in peacemaking focuses on Track One formal processes. A more integrative lens offers insights into the relationships between Track Two and Track One. For instance, when Track One can’t advance on issues that are found politically complicated or unacceptable to negotiate officially, the Track 1.5 level can focus on issues related to reducing violence. However, some take the view that interventions like these can negatively affect the prospects for official negotiations.

Understanding the nature of political issues from a qualitative lens is key to understanding that success is relative, especially as it pertains to core issues that may not be addressed or “resolved” with the signing of a peace agreement. The articles in this issue make the case that addressing issues related to religion, identity, land, and resources is intimately linked to the notion of “sustainable” peace.

Insights from the empirical analyses offered in the articles suggest that promoting shared values such as human rights, socioeconomic development, and common faith—interpreted as deep commitments to spiritual beliefs and sacred values independent of specific religions—is essential for sustainable and successful peace processes. Values of justice and human rights serve as the foundation for national dialogue, leading to peace negotiations. While socioeconomic development as a shared goal can create initial space for peace processes, it does not lead to lasting peace if identity dynamics, including boundaries, threats, traumas, and trust, are not addressed. Thus, prioritizing human rights and justice over economic development ensures equality and inclusion of disadvantaged groups, addressing their traumas.

Shared religious values of acknowledgment, confession, commitment to repentance, and forgiveness create a common space for reconciliation, forming a foundation for peace processes. Understanding the issue of self-determination in conjunction with processes and actors yields important insights. In working to establish autonomy for regions and groups, the threats to both minority and majority populations must be considered. Effective peace processes depend on finding acceptable solutions for integration, autonomy, and self-determination. While autonomy can be positively viewed by minorities, reducing threats from the government, it can be seen as threatening by the majority. Therefore, it is important to reassure the majority that regional separation will not be pursued.

Effective peace settlements in territorial conflicts that provide authentic self-determination through rigorous regional or local autonomy institutions, with economic and political clout to manage local grievances, are more likely to contribute to sustainable peace. Autonomy arrangements can be particularly useful in resolving contentious issues of a religious nature. When establishing regional and group autonomy, certain preconditions are necessary to help establish peaceful outcomes. In some cases, peace settlements provided autonomy, but the new local structures and institutions created were not strong enough for genuine self-determination.

Successful peace agreements craft institutional frameworks for broad-based political representation and influence and facilitate the sharing of political power among civil war combatants. In contrast, peace agreements that fail to establish sustainable peace often lack institutional arrangements, or such arrangements are weak or not fully implemented. Political access gives marginalized groups a new sense of influence over their political destiny, motivating a shift away from violence in post-conflict societies.

On issues of identity and religion, many cases suggest that peace processes are more sustainable if parties create a common identity within each nation and promote civic over ethnic national identities. Embracing parochial ethnic concepts or ignoring common identity is linked to failed processes. Developing a common identity requires an inclusive civic meaning of national identity, rather than ethnic or religious criteria for citizenship, a component of which could be a multicultural concept promoting mutual coexistence of all ethnic and religious groups.

The inclusion of religious leaders and organizations in negotiations often leads to successful peace processes by mobilizing broader support. For instance, in Northern Ireland, religious leaders played a crucial role in facilitating dialogue between conflicting parties, leading to the Good Friday Agreement. Similarly, in South Africa, religious figures were instrumental in the anti-apartheid movement and subsequent peace negotiations.

The BRIDGE Model of Identity-Based Peace Processes emphasizes the need for bonding, reassuring, involving, and equalizing strategies to address and transform relations between different groups. These strategies aim to reduce stereotypes, biases, and prejudices, ensuring the inclusion of diverse actors and addressing core issues of social identity dynamics. For example, bonding strategies promote shared values and common identity, while reassuring strategies support freedom of expression, self-determination, and autonomy. Involving strategies emphasize the inclusion of multiple actors and parties, crucial for transforming peace processes from two-party negotiations to comprehensive agreements.

Where conflicts have led to peace agreements, policies addressing the economic development of the region and supporting the cultural rights of minorities contribute to peace processes. Furthermore, research shows that in order to prevent conflicts from recurring, it is essential to address trauma through historic commissions, Truth and Reconciliation Commissions (TRCs), or other initiatives that empower marginalized groups. Peace processes often fail because they have not incorporated systemic engagement with the past.

Environmental peacebuilding has demonstrated that land and natural resources can significantly influence the framing and resolution of conflicts. For instance, the Evian Accords (France-Algeria) addressed economic security needs and development, creating a foundation for lasting peace. Similarly, in South Sudan, the presence of crucial trading partners for oil before and after the peace accord highlighted the importance of economic development in maintaining peace.

The Peace and Natural Resource Nexus (PNRN) model suggests that incremental actions through trust-building measures are most effective in these cases. For example, in Angola, natural resources provided separate streams of funding for each party. The international community worked to deplete the local capacity to wage warfare by drying up diamonds as a source of funding. This effort, combined with economic development opportunities, contributed to Angola’s remarkable development and prosperity following the peace accord.

The PNRN model explains how the initiation, development, endurance, expansion, and final resolution of a conflict related to land and resources are influenced by the type of interaction between parties and their decision-making processes, including creating competitive or cooperative dynamics. Peace processes benefit from developing new ways of thinking that build relationships, recognize grievances, and create social spaces for resolving future conflicts nonviolently.

Land and natural resources are central issues in peace accords, whether related to distributive justice, self-governance for an ethnic group, or ethnic and religious identity. However, demands by the less powerful party were typically met only to a limited extent, while difficult issues such as land redistribution were often left to the post-accord political process. The design of the peace process can be influenced by the contested nature of land as a resource. In certain cases, physically relocating away from the contested resource can help advance the process.

Land and natural resources can act as propellers toward peace or barriers to it. For instance, the need for personal security for civilians, businesses, international trading partners, and mining enterprises is often a major reason to make peace. Select case studies reveal that opportunities to use water resources frequently lead otherwise hostile parties to develop water-sharing treaties. Women and other marginalized groups often have a special relationship with the land, and their inclusion at high levels in certain peace processes reflects this importance.

Access to raw materials by foreign governments and security for international business ventures can serve as triggers to incentivize peacebuilding processes. The international community may work to end conflicts to benefit from these resources. Conversely, land, water, and natural resources can also be weaponized. Land can become a weapon of war when attacks make life insecure for civilians. Water and resources can be used to punish, pressure, or influence opponents. Revenues from legal and illegal trade in minerals, agricultural products, and timber often provide funding for conflicts.

This article argues for moving away from binary understandings of outcome-based success versus failure and toward effectiveness in peace negotiations, incorporating complexity, nuance, and theoretical eclecticism. By integrating the theoretical models and empirical insights from the articles in this special issue, we present a conceptual tool called the Propeller of Effective Peace Negotiations. The Propeller illustrates how effective peace negotiations aimed at resolving PAE conflicts are integrated, incremental, systemic, mutually reinforcing, context-dependent, relative, and adaptive.

We conclude with reflections about what the resolution of conflict and peace may mean, beyond the signing of a peace agreement. Some peace agreements are not implemented as planned, which may not necessarily be a problem for peace if the parties remain committed to the overall peace deal. However, implemented agreements are more likely to lead to sustained peace.

Drawing on the articles in this special issue, we suggest that establishing sustainable peace requires:

• (1)

  including explicit provisions for the transformation of armed groups into political parties;

• (2)

  creating cross-cutting identities that emphasize similarities and ties between groups based on religious beliefs, faith-based principles, regional community initiatives, and intergroup dialogue;

• (3)

  assuring guarantees for minorities, including cultural protection, freedom of religion, and political influence; and

• (4)

  redefining the meaning of intergroup divisions through challenging existing definitions of such divisions and acknowledging their effects.

Allowing a broader and integrative view of success also enables ethnic and regional groups to have more agency in determining what constitutes peace as they seek to move through and beyond conflict. While the term “local ownership” (Allen 2021) over peace negotiations and their outcomes has become a buzzword (Hellmüller 2019), it is important to allow societies affected by PAE conflicts to define for themselves what successful and sustainable peace might mean, through a variety of theoretical, conceptual, and empirical perspectives. While we concede that it may not be possible to do away completely with the concept of “success” writ large—as benchmark-based understandings of effectiveness must lead somewhere—we think that there is no defined endpoint or “settlement” of success in peace negotiations, or agreement on what constitutes sustainable peace (Bell and Pospisil 2017; Jarstad et al. 2019). Perhaps, sustainable peace exists in a state of perpetuity (Paffenholz 2021) that is universal in nature (Azarmandi 2024). The case studies and research presented in this special issue showcase the importance of moving from views of success in conflict resolution to effectiveness from different lenses. Measurable and distinct key considerations can help practitioners and those conducting process analysis and design to propel conflict resolution forward. This article contributes to the literature on peace negotiations by providing a novel way to visualize the concept of effectiveness over success, both theoretically and empirically.