The Main Characteristics of Peace Processes

According to Saunders (1999:19), the peace
process should involve all levels of body politics
because of its multi-level structure. In this regard,
the more comprehensive definition of the peace
process is “the series of actions that lead up to
the resolution of conflict and the negotiation
and signing of a peace accord, as well as the series
of actions that implement and consolidate the
agreement afterward” (Brewer, 2015: 648)

The political peace process refers
to the peace settlements negotiated by political
representatives and third parties. This includes
political management, such as negotiations and
the establishment of a peace agreement. On the other hand, the social
peace process refers to the reconciliation phase of
the peace process. It involves social transformation,
which goes beyond the political peace process
and conflict transformation

Saunders (1999:26) identifies actors in five
arenas who may contribute to the peace process:
1. Official actors: Governments and
international organizations using official
diplomatic methods for conflict resolution.
2. Quasi-official actors: Actors working
outside of the government, but have a close
relationship with it.
3. Public actors: Citizens outside of government.
They don’t have to use official methods but
can provide a bridge between officials and
civil society.
4. Civil society actors: Civil society from
different areas that work closely to bring
divided societies together.
5. Actors from outside of the conflict:
They show the intervention capacity of
the national, regional, and international
context.

First, peace processes focus on stopping the
manifest side of the conflict, which often
causes them to fail to address the actual causes
of conflict. Second, peace processes can lack a number
of voices necessary for providing adequate
political representation. Third is the domination of international
actors in the construction stage. If third
parties over-engage in the process, the
interests of local communities are often
ignored and go unheard

One of the fragile and
challenging phases is the pre-negotiation. It is
fragile because conflicting parties mostly start peace
talks while violence continues. During this phase,
they risk their reputation and public support. It is
challenging because the confidence needed to start
dialogue is often broken during armed conflict. 

Developed by William I. Zartman, the ripeness theory is one of the most prominent explanations in
conflict studies to understand conditions for a peace settlement. According to Zartman (2001), parties
resolve conflicts only when they are ready to do so. This is the ‘ripe moment’ favorable to negotiations. According to the theory, this moment is “when conflicting parties find themselves locked in a conflict from which they can not escalate to victory” (Zartman, 2000: 229).

readiness theory offers two
psychological variables that lead parties to sit down
at the negotiation table: motivation and optimism.
These two variables have different sources. While
situations of the parties produce a motivation
to escape the conflict, optimism has its origin in
the events that occur after conflicting parties feel
motivated.

Pruitt (2005b: 256) emphasizes the contributive
role of the third parties as a mediator in optimism
for four reasons:
• Third parties are better than conflicting
parties at inspiring the motivation to escape
the conflict.
• Third parties can reveal to each party the
other’s motivation.
• Third parties can encourage and coordinate
the circular reassurance process, i.e. the
conciliatory gestures and signals of motivation
to improve optimism on both sides.
• Third parties can offer an alternative
solution by understanding needs and
preferences that cannot be realized

A negotiation is an interaction in which people
try to meet their needs or accomplish their goals by
reaching an agreement with others who are trying
to get their own needs met” (Mayer, 2000: 142).

“Back-channel communication is secret
communication between the leadership of
opposing groups (including organizations and
nations) that is designed to foster settlement of
a conflict between them”.
“Front-channel communication, which (though
usually not witnessed by the public) is publicly
known to occur” (Pruitt, 2008: 37)

Bercovich and Lutmar (2012: 234) point out four advantages of negotiation in conflict resolution. One
of the main advantages of negotiation is for conflicting parties to sign an agreement to stop the conflict
that conforms to their interests. They may decide the issues, location, and time of the talks. The second
advantage is that this period is less costly. When they choose the talks, they only need to come together in
a safe location. Third, negotiation provides and establishes a proper step for the next phases. In this way,
it makes the next steps more predictable for parties. Lastly, the negotiation gives legitimacy to the process
and provides a basis for future actions

Communication plays a significant role in reframing the negotiation process. According to Mayer
(2000:121), good communication, direct and indirect, verbal and nonverbal, symbolic and concrete,
interactive and one-way, helps conflicting parties establish an active dialogue. Although negotiators can learn
and improve communication skills during negotiations, it is not easy to create effective communication. In
this sense, Mayer listed the principles of successful communication:
• To listen to what other sides are saying,
• To learn new information from communication,
• To focus their attention on communication

*To join communication and create an interactive conversation,
• To be aware that communication is a part of persuading, evaluating, or problem-solving,
• To tolerate other people when they have difficulty communicating,
• To be genuine and natural.

In their seminal book, Getting to
Yes, Fisher and Ury identify three criteria to evaluate a negotiation method. First, if possible, any negotiation
strategy should produce an agreement that points out the interests of both sides and offers a fair solution to
the dispute. Second, the negotiation process should
be effective. Third, negotiation strategy should
help opposing parties improve their relations. If
it does not, the relationship should not be worse
than before

It has four essential points:
• People: “Separate the people from the problem.” Negotiating parties should separate the people
from the problem. People should see each other as people working to solve the same problem.
• Interests: “Focus on interests, not positions.” Position limits to reach the benefit of negotiation. In
this regard, participants should focus on interests while ignoring positions.
• Options: “Generate a variety of possibilities before deciding what to do.” It is challenging to create
new ideas and solutions under pressure. Focusing on a single solution prevents the emergence of
alternative thought. Parties should look for mutually alternative solutions before an agreement.
• Criteria: “Insist the result be based on some objective standard.” In the traditional method, while
one side accepts compromise, the other may get everything it wants. However, it is possible to
create a fair agreement for each party. In this sense, law, experts, and custom will help to develop
objective criteria

The third phase of the peace process is signing
the peace agreement. A peace agreement is defined
by Bell and Badanjak (2019: 453) as a signed
formal document by conflicting parties to stop a
conflict after negotiations. 

Each type of agreement has different purposes and formulates various implementation processes for
lasting peace. Still, it is challenging to separate these agreements from each other, which serve similar
purposes and involve identical provisions. In this section, we adapt Christian Bell’s categorization of peace
agreements to clarify their functions and roles:

• Pre-negotiation agreements
• Framework agreements
• Implementation agreements

Wallensteen (2002:149)
defines five criteria to manage security issues:
• Demilitarisation and a unified army
• Giving guarantees for leaders
• International involvement, such as
peacekeeping forces
• Power-sharing
• Amnesty to leaders, officers, and soldiers

The Treaty of Versailles is an important example
of how peace agreements do not guarantee the
establishment of peace or the avoidance of new
conflict war. The Treaty of Versailles, the most
known peace treaty, was signed by a defeated
Germany and the Allied Powers at the end of the
First World War. Indeed, the Allies declared their
victory by formulating reparation terms and harsh
conditions to punish Germany and benefit France. 

Scholars defined the main components which
affect the success or failure of the peace agreement.
The following reasons may cause the collapse of
peace agreements :

• Failure to establish a human rights
mechanism,
• Political spoilers,
• To benefit militarily from changing
conditions,
• Failure of military confidence-building
measures,
• Reducing the pressure of third parties to
implement the settlement,
• A high number of soldiers,
• More than two warring parties,
• Absence of a peace agreement signed by all
warring parties,
• A failed state,
• The presence of disposable naturalresources,
• The presence of hostile neighboring states
or networks,
• Demands for secession

This section presents the peace processes
between the Moro National Liberation Front
(MNLF) and the Moro Islamic Liberation Front
(MILF) as representatives of the Moro people
with the government of the Philippines. The peace
process can be separated into two periods: the first
starts between the government and Moro National
Liberation Front (1976-1990s) while the second
was conducted between the government and the
Moro Islamic Liberation Front (1997-present).