This concluding article of the special issue “Why It Worked” surveys the literature on success in conflict resolution to understand the gaps and biases around what constitutes “success” in protracted, asymmetrical, and ethnonational (PAE) conflicts. Drawing from the articles in the special issue, it makes the case for moving from outcome-based approaches of success toward effectiveness. It suggests four integrated factors to understand the nature of effectiveness in peace negotiations. These factors affect the issues, actors, and process of peace negotiations interactively: (1) structural factors and process design, (2) power and relations, (3) religion and identity, and (4) land and resources. The article contributes a novel way to analyze effectiveness in PAE conflicts through a conceptual visualization that illustrates key elements in peace negotiations aimed at resolving PAE conflicts: the Propeller. The Propeller concept is built upon the empirical research discussed in the articles in this special issue. 1

Negotiation practitioners today struggle to manage complex political, economic, and cultural disputes that often involve an array of intertwined issues, parties, process choices, and consequences – both intended and unintended. To prepare next‐generation negotiators for these multifaceted challenges, negotiation instructors must keep pace with the rapidly evolving complexity of today’s world. In this article, we introduce systemic multiconstituency exercises (SMCEs), a new educational tool for capturing this emerging reality and helping to close the experiential learning gap between the simulated and the non‐simulated environment. We discuss our pedagogical rationale for developing The Transition , a seventy‐two‐party SMCE inspired by the complex conflicts in Afghanistan and Central Asia and then describe our experiences conducting multiple iterations of this simulation at Harvard University. We argue that SMCEs, in which stakeholders are embedded in clusters of overlapping networks, differ from conventional multiparty exercises because of their immersive character, emergent properties, and dynamic architecture. This design allows for the creation of crucial negotiation complexity challenges within a simulated exercise context, most importantly what we call “cognitive maelstroms,” nested negotiation networks, and cascading decision effects. Because of these features, SMCEs are uniquely suited for training participants in the art of network thinking in complex negotiations. Properly designed and executed, systemic multiconstituency exercises are next‐generation teaching, training, and research platforms that carefully integrate negotiation, leadership, and decision‐making challenges.

The presenters on this panel discussed several important additional requirements for the successful implementation of a two‐state solution that involves significant relocation of settlers. These requirements include balancing rights among different groups, minimizing the impact of “spoilers,” and providing political compensation to settlers. Presenters also highlighted the relevance of elements of classic negotiation theory to this issue, including thinking creatively about substance and paying appropriate attention to process.