New avenues in peace implementation research: actors, geolocation, and time

ABSTRACT

Comparative peace processes research shows how the success of peace agreement implementation contributes to durable quality peace in societies emerging out of violent conflict. Less widely discussed in this peace implementation research are three core components: the various actors involved in the peace implementation, the location of implementation activities, and the temporal dimensions involved in the implementation process. While peace process actors receive some attention within the top-down and bottom-up and inclusion and exclusion debates in peacebuilding research, discussions are sparse on the geolocation of peace implementation and implementation timing. By showing how these three components – peace process actors, geolocation, and time – interact with each other, this article makes the case for these three components to build a holistic understanding of and diverse perspectives on the peace implementation process. Information specific to actors, geolocation, and time involving the peace implementation process helps generate and address new research puzzles and thus advance our understanding of the peace implementation process while providing new insights for policymakers and peacebuilding practitioners.

KEYWORDS:

• Peace implementation process
• actors
• geolocation
• time

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Notes

¹ Boutros Boutros-Ghali, ‘An Agenda for Peace: Preventive Diplomacy, Peacemaking and Peace-Keeping’, International Relations 11, no. 3 (1992): 201–18.

² Joakim Kreutz, ‘How and When Armed Conflicts End: Introducing the UCDP Conflict Termination Dataset’, Journal of Peace Research 47, no. 2 (2010): 243–50.

³ Madhav Joshi and Jason Michael Quinn, ‘Implementing the Peace: The Aggregate Implementation of Comprehensive Peace Agreements and Peace Duration after Intrastate Armed Conflict’, British Journal of Political Science 47, no. 4 (2017): 869–92.

⁴ Roy Licklider, ‘The Consequences of Negotiated Settlements in Civil Wars, 1945–1993’, American Political Science Review 89, no. 3 (1995): 681–90; Barbara F. Walter, ‘The Critical Barrier to Civil War Settlement’, International Organization 51, no. 3 (1997): 335–64; Michael W. Doyle and Nicholas Sambanis, ‘International Peacebuilding: A Theoretical and Quantitative Analysis’, American Political Science Review 94, no. 4 (2000): 779–801; and J. Michael Quinn, T. David Mason, and Mehmet Gurses, ‘Sustaining the Peace: Determinants of Civil War Recurrence’, International Interactions 33, no. 2 (2007): 167–93.

⁵ Joshi and Quinn, ‘Implementing the Peace.’

⁶ Andrew P. Williams and Berhanu Mengistu, ‘An Exploration of the Limitations of Bureaucratic Organizations in Implementing Contemporary Peacebuilding’, Cooperation and Conflict 50, no. 1 (2015): 3–28.

⁷ Thania Paffenholz and Christoph Spurk, Civil Society, Civic Engagement, and Peacebuilding, Report 36, 2006; Desirée, Nilsson, ‘Anchoring the peace: Civil society actors in peace accords and durable peace’, International Interactions 38, no. 2 (2012): 243–266; and Roberto Belloni, ‘Civil society and peacebuilding in Bosnia and Herzegovina’, Journal of peace Research 38, no. 2 (2001): 163–180.

⁸ The peace implementation process is inherently complex as earlier peace agreements often fail, but parties subsequently negotiate new ones building on past agreements as in the Bangsamoro peace process in the Philippines. Some groups within the rebel movement abandon the agreement, as was the case of breakaway factions of FARC in Colombia in 2019 suggests. In other instances, like Burundi, the National Council for the Defence of Democracy – Forces for the Defence of Democracy (CNDD-FDD) joined the implementation process at a later phase. The successful implementation process can pull in groups outside the process, and a failing implementation process can push out some signatories.

⁹ Ghali, ‘Agenda for Peace’; Marieke Kleiboer, ‘Ripeness of Conflict: A Fruitful Notion?’, Journal of Peace Research 31, no. 1 (1994): 109–16; and Michael Pugh, ‘Contemporary Security Policy Peacebuilding as Developmentalism: Concepts from Disaster Research’, Contemporary Security Policy 16, no. 3 (2007): 320–46.

¹⁰ Marie Allansson, Erik Melander, and Lotta Themnér, ‘Organized Violence, 1989–2016’, Journal of Peace Research 54, no. 4 (2017): 574–87; and United Nations Peacemaker, ‘Peace Agreements Database Search’, 2017 <https://peacemaker.un.org/document-search> (accessed December 2, 2020).

¹¹ In Appendix, a figure showing UCDP conflict data and peace agreement data from PA-X Peace Agreement Database is presented. The data is available from, political settlement data (Christine Bell and Sanja Badanjak, ‘Introducing PA-X: A New Peace Agreement Database and Dataset’, Journal of Peace Research 56, no. 3 (2019): 452–66); Uppsala Peace Agreement Data (Stina Högbladh, ‘Peace Agreements 1975–2011-Updating the UCDP Peace Agreement Dataset’, in States in Armed Conflict 2011. Department of Peace and Conflict Research Report 99, ed. Therese Pettersson and Lotta Themner (Uppsala: Uppsala University, 2011), 39–56.); and UN Mediation Unit’s United Nations Peacemaker databse. The number of peace agreements identified in Uppsala Peace Agreement data is significantly low compared to PA-X. Further PX-X data is available only since 1990. The primary source of the variation in the number of peace agreements relates to the operational definition of the peace agreement.

¹² Magnus Lundgren and Isak Svensson, ‘The Surprising Decline of International Mediation in Armed Conflicts’, Research and Politics 7, no. 2 (2020).

¹³ Eric Keels and Krista Wiegand, ‘Mutually Assured Distrust: Ideology and Commitment Problems in Civil Wars’, Journal of Conflict Resolution 64, no. 10 (2020): 2022–48.

¹⁴ Kreutz, ‘How and When Armed Conflicts End.’ The most frequent termination type in Kreutz’s data is low activity, which means that the conflict did not reach the 25 battle deaths in a given year. Between 1990 and 2005, Kreutz’s data shows that 29 intrastate conflicts were terminated in ceasefire agreement.

¹⁵ Anup Phayal, T. David Mason, and Mehmet Gurses, ‘Who Wins, Who Loses, Who Negotiates Peace in Civil Wars: Does Regime Type Matter?’ Journal of Global Security Studies 4, no. 4 (2019): 482–498; Virginia Page Fortna, ‘Do Terrorists Win? Rebels’ Use of Terrorism and Civil War Outcomes’, International Organization 69, no. 3 (2015): 519–556; Govinda Clayton, ‘Relative Rebel Strength and the Onset and Outcome of Civil War Mediation’, Journal of Peace Research 50, no. 5 (2013): 609–22; Lesley-Ann Daniels, ‘How and When Amnesty during Conflict Affects Conflict Termination’, Journal of Conflict Resolution 64, no. 9 (2020): 1612–37; Keels and Wiegand; Roy Licklider, Stopping the Killing: How Civil Wars End (NYU Press, 1993); I. William Zartman, Elusive Peace: Negotiating an End to Civil Wars (Brookings Institution Press, 1995); James D. Fearon, ‘Rationalist Explanations for War’, International Organization 49, no. 3 (1995): 379–414; and Robert Powell, ‘War as a Commitment Problem’, International Organization 60, no. 1 (2006): 169–203.

¹⁶ Lindsay Reid, ‘Peace Agreements and Women’s Political Rights Following Civil War’, Journal of Peace Research 2021; Joshi and Quinn, Implementing the Peace; Jacob Kathman and Michelle Benson, ‘Cut Short? United Nations Peacekeeping and Civil War Duration to Negotiated Settlements’, Journal of Conflict Resolution 63, no. 7 (2019): 1601–29; Corinne Bara, ‘Legacies of Violence: Conflict-Specific Capital and the Postconflict Diffusion of Civil War’, Journal of Conflict Resolution 62, no. 9 (2018): 1991–2016; and Cyanne E Loyle and Benjamin J Appel, ‘Conflict Recurrence and Postconflict Justice: Addressing Motivations and Opportunities for Sustainable Peace’, International Studies Quarterly 61, no. 3 (2017): 690–703.

¹⁷ See, Phayal et al., ‘Who wins, who loses, who negotiates peace in civil wars;’ Fortna, ‘Do terrorists win?’

¹⁸ Ibid. Combining a ceasefire agreement with final or comprehensive peace agreement termination categories could be problematic for studies examining the durability of peace as ceasefire agreement is mostly negotiated early in the negotiation process and tend to fail at a higher rate. In some cases, a ceasefire agreement termination type may not remain the same should the conflict parties continue to negotiate. For example, the UCDP conflict termination data codes the Bougainville conflict in Papua New Guinea as terminated in a ceasefire agreement in 1996, whereas the conflict parties reached a final or comprehensive agreement in 2001.

¹⁹ Caroline A. Hartzell, ‘Explaining the Stability of Negotiated Settlements to Intrastate Wars’, Journal of Conflict Resolution 43, no. 1 (1999): 3–22; and Caroline Hartzell, Matthew Hoddie, and Donald Rothchild, ‘Stabilizing the Peace after Civil War: An Investigation of Some Key Variables’, International Organization 55, no. 1 (2001): 183–208.

²⁰ Robert Muggah and Chris O’Donnell, ‘Next Generation Disarmament, Demobilization and Reintegration’, Stability 4, no. 1 (2015); Stina Torjesen and S. Neil MacFarlane, ‘R before D: The Case of Post Conflict Reintegration in Tajikistan1’, Conflict, Security & Development 7, no. 2 (2007): 311–32; and Albrecht Schnabel and Hans-Georg Ehrhart, eds., Security Sector Reform and Post-Conflict Peacebuilding (Tokyo: United Nations University Press, 2005).

²¹ Geoff Dancy, ‘Deals with the Devil? Conflict Amnesties, Civil War, and Sustainable Peace’, International Organization 72, no. 2 (2018): 387–421; Yasmin Sooka, ‘Dealing with the Past and Transitional Justice: Building Peace through Accountability’, International Review of the Red Cross 88, no. 862 (2006): 311–25; Chandra Lekha Sriram, ‘Beyond Transitional Justice: Peace, Governance, and Rule of Law’, International Studies Review 19, no. 1 (2017): 53–69; and Daniels, How and When Amnesty during Conflict Affects Conflict Termination.

²² Ramzi Badran, ‘Intrastate Peace Agreements and the Durability of Peace’, Conflict Management and Peace Science 31, no. 2 (2014): 193–217; and Madhav Joshi and J. Michael Quinn, ‘Is the Sum Greater than the Parts? The Terms of Civil War Peace Agreements and the Commitment Problem Revisited’, Negotiation Journal 31, no. 1 (2015): 7–30.

²³ Joshi and Quinn, ‘Is the Sum Greater than the Parts?’

²⁴ Ibid.

²⁵ Ibid.

²⁶ Matthew Hoddie and Caroline Hartzell, ‘Civil War Settlements and the Implementation of Military Power-Sharing Arrangements’, Journal of Peace Research 40, no. 3 (2003): 303–20.

²⁷ Anna K. Jarstad and Desiree Nilsson, ‘From Words to Deeds: The Implementation of Power-Sharing Pacts in Peace Accords’, Conflict Management and Peace Science 25, no. 3 (2008): 206–23.

²⁸ Madhav Joshi and John Darby, ‘Introducing the Peace Accords Matrix (PAM): A Database of Comprehensive Peace Agreements and Their Implementation, 1989–2007’, Peacebuilding 1, no. 2 (2013): 256–74.

²⁹ Joshi and Darby, ‘Introducing the Peace Accords Matrix (PAM);’ Joshi and Quinn, ‘Implementing the Peace.’

³⁰ PA-X database disaggregates individual agreements into 225 possible categories of provisions offering unique insights into the nature of the state and governance patterns, the conflict, issues related inclusion, human rights, justice sector reform, environmental issues, and many other categories by identifying rhetorical mentions of these issues to more robust commitments. See, Bell and Badanjak, ‘Introducing PA-X’, 458. These robust commitments significantly overlap with PAM provisions, which are institutional reforms, policy initiatives or programs that can be tracked for their implementation.

³¹ Joshi and Darby, ‘Introducing the Peace Accords Matrix (PAM).’

³² Ibid.; Joshi and Quinn, ‘Implementing the Peace.’

³³ This figure is generated using the CPA implementation data from Peace Accords Matrix; Joshi and Darby, ‘Introducing the Peace Accords Matrix (PAM);’ Joshi and Quinn, ‘Implementing the Peace.’

³⁴ Roger Mac Ginty, Madhav Joshi, and SungYong Lee, ‘Liberal Peace Implementation and the Durability of Post-War Peace’, International Peacekeeping 26, no. 4 (2019): 457–86.

³⁵ Sung Yong Lee, Roger Mac Ginty, and Madhav Joshi, ‘Social Peace vs. Security Peace’, Global Governance 22, no. 4 (2016): 491–512.

³⁶ Madhav Joshi, SungYong Lee, and Roger Mac Ginty, ‘Built-in Safeguards and the Implementation of Civil War Peace Accords’, International Interactions 43, no. 6 (2017): 994–1018.

³⁷ Wakako Maekawa, Barış Arı, and Theodora Ismene Gizelis, ‘UN Involvement and Civil War Peace Agreement Implementation’, Public Choice 178, no. 3–4 (2019): 397–416.

³⁸ Various sources such as Uppsala Conflict Data Program provide disaggregated data on actors, target, locations, and date. See, Kristian Skrede Gleditsch, Nils W Metternich, and Andrea Ruggeri, ‘Data and Progress in Peace and Conflict Research’, Journal of Peace Research 51, no. 2 (2014): 301–14; and Allansson, Melander, and Themnér, Armed Conflict Location and Event Data Program Clionadh Raleigh and others, ‘Introducing ACLED: An Armed Conflict Location and Event Dataset’, Journal of Peace Research 47, no. 5 (2010): 651–60.

³⁹ David Byrne and Gill Callaghan, Complexity Theory and the Social Sciences: The State of the Art (London: Routledge, 2013); Cedric De Coning, ‘From peacebuilding to sustaining peace: Implications of complexity for resilience and sustainability.’ Resilience 4, no. 3 (2016): 166–181; and Williams and Mengistu, ‘An exploration of the limitations of bureaucratic organizations in implementing contemporary peacebuilding.’

⁴⁰ Joshi and Darby, ‘Introducing the Peace Accords Matrix (PAM);’ Joshi and Quinn, ‘Implementing the Peace.’

⁴¹ Landon E. Hancock, ‘The Northern Irish Peace Process: From Top to Bottom’, International Studies Review 10, no. 2 (2008): 203–38; John Paul Lederach, Building Peace: Sustainable Reconciliation in Divided Societies, Pestuge.Iliauni.Edu.Ge (Washington, D C: United State Institute of Peace, 1997); Timothy Donais, ‘Empowerment or Imposition? Dilemmas of Local Ownership in Post-Conflict Peacebuilding Processes’, Peace & Change 34, no. 1 (2009): 3–26; Roger Mac Ginty, ‘Hybrid Peace: The Interaction Between Top-Down and Bottom-Up Peace’, Security Dialogue 41, no. 4 (2010): 391–412; Roger Mac Ginty and Oliver P Richmond, ‘The Local Turn in Peace Building: A Critical Agenda for Peace’, Third World Quarterly 34, no. 5 (2013): 763–83; Stefanie Kappler, ‘The Dynamic Local: Delocalisation and (Re-)Localisation in the Search for Peacebuilding Identity’, Third World Quarterly 36, no. 5 (2015): 875–89; and Annika Björkdahl and Kristine Höglund, ‘Precarious Peacebuilding: Friction in Global–Local Encounters’, Peacebuilding 1, no. 3 (2013): 289–99.

⁴² Séverine Autesserre, ‘International Peacebuilding and Local Success: Assumptions and Effectiveness’, International Studies Review 19, no. 1 (2017): 114–32.

⁴³ Barbara F. Walter, Lise Morje Howard, and V. Page Fortna, ‘The Extraordinary Relationship between Peacekeeping and Peace’, British Journal of Political Science 51, no. 4 (2021): 1705–22.

⁴⁴ See, point 6.4.2 International support section of the 2016 peace agreement, Final Agreement for Ending the Conflict and Building a Stable and Lasting Peace. https://colombia.unmissions.org/sites/default/files/s-2017-272_e.pdf.

⁴⁵ Joshi and Quinn, ‘Implementing the Peace.’

⁴⁶ Desirée Nilsson, ‘Partial Peace: Rebel Groups inside and Outside of Civil War Settlements’, Journal of Peace Research 45, no. 4 (2008): 479–95; John Darby, Violence and Reconstruction (University of Notre Dame Press, 2006); Paffenholz and Spurk, Civil Society, Civic Engagement, and Peacebuilding; Nilsson, ‘Anchoring the peace’; Belloni, ‘Civil society and peacebuilding in Bosnia and Herzegovina’; and Williams and Mengistu, ‘An exploration of the limitations of bureaucratic organizations in implementing contemporary peacebuilding.’

⁴⁷ Juan Fernando Tellez, ‘Peace Agreement Design and Public Support for Peace: Evidence from Colombia’, Journal of Peace Research 56, no. 6 (2019): 827–44.

⁴⁸ FIP, Recomendaciones Para Saldar Una Deuda Histórica En Colombia (Bogotá: Fundación Ideas para la Paz (FIP), 2017) <www.ideaspaz.org> (accessed November 17, 2020), 10, footnote 5.

⁴⁹ Annal Tandukar and others, The Effectiveness of Local Peace Committees in Nepal: A Study from Bardiya District (Working Paper 40) (Kathmandu, 2016) <www.securelivelihoods.org> (accessed November 17, 2020).

⁵⁰ Tandukar and others, The Effectiveness of Local Peace Committees in Nepal, 10.

⁵¹ Oliver P. Richmond and others, ‘Power or Peace? Restoration or Emancipation through Peace Processes’, Peacebuilding 9, no. 3 (2021): 243–57; Johanna Söderström, Malin Åkebo, and Anna K. Jarstad, ‘Friends, Fellows, and Foes: A New Framework for Studying Relational Peace’, International Studies Review 23, no. 3 (2021): 484–508; and Björkdahl and Höglund.

⁵² Richard Jones, ‘What Happened in El Salvador?’, in Understanding Quality Peace: Peacebuilding after Civil War, ed. Madhav Joshi and Peter Wallensteen (New York: Routledge, 2018).

⁵³ Doyle and Sambanis, ‘International Peacebuilding: A Theoretical and Quantitative Analysis’; Michaela Mattes and Burcu Savun, ‘Fostering Peace After Civil War: Commitment Problems and Agreement Design’, International Studies Quarterly 53 (2009): 737–59; Maekawa, Arı, and Gizelis; Desirée Nilsson, ‘Anchoring the Peace: Civil Society Actors in Peace Accords and Durable Peace’, International Interactions 38, no. 2 (2012): 243–66; Jana Krause, Werner Krause, and Piia Bränfors, ‘Women’s Participation in Peace Negotiations and the Durability of Peace’, International Interactions 44, no. 6 (2018): 985–1016.

⁵⁴ Lederach, Building Peace; Donais, ‘Empowerment or Imposition?; Mac Ginty and Richmond, ‘The Local Turn in Peace Building; Hanna Leonardsson and Gustav Rudd, ‘The “local Turn” in Peacebuilding: A Literature Review of Effective and Emancipatory Local Peacebuilding’, Third World Quarterly 36, no. 5 (2015): 825–39; and Roger Mac Ginty, ‘Where Is the Local? Critical Localism and Peacebuilding’, Third World Quarterly 36, no. 5 (2015): 840–56.

⁵⁵ Mac Ginty, ‘Where Is the Local? Critical Localism and Peacebuilding.’

⁵⁶ Mac Ginty, ‘Where Is the Local? Critical Localism and Peacebuilding’; Leonardsson and Rudd, ‘The “local Turn” in Peacebuilding’. Johanna Söderström, Malin Åkebo, and Anna K. Jarstad. ‘Friends, fellows, and foes: A new framework for studying relational peace’, International Studies Review 23, no. 3 (2021): 484–508.

⁵⁷ Morgan Brigg and Nicole George, ‘Emplacing the Spatial Turn in Peace and Conflict Studies’, Cooperation and Conflict 55, no. 4 (2020): 409–20, 410; also see, Mac Ginty, ‘Where Is the Local? Critical Localism and Peacebuilding’.

⁵⁸ Lia Kent, ‘Local Memory Practices in East Timor: Disrupting Transitional Justice Narratives’, International Journal of Transitional Justice 5, no. 3 (2011): 434–55.

⁵⁹ Halvard Buhaug and Jan Ketil Rød. ‘Local determinants of African civil wars, 1970–2001.’ Political geography 25, no. 3 (2006): 315–335.

⁶⁰ Joshi and Darby, Introducing the Peace Accords Matrix (PAM); and Högbladh, ‘Peace Agreements 1975–2011.’

⁶¹ Marina E. Henke, ‘Great Powers and UN Force Generation: A Case Study of UNAMID’, International Peacekeeping 23, no. 3 (2016): 468–92.

⁶² Séverine Autesserre, ‘Going Micro: Emerging and Future Peacekeeping Research’, International Peacekeeping 21, no. 4 (2014): 492–500; and Hanne Fjelde, Lisa Hultman, and Desirée Nilsson, ‘Protection Through Presence: UN Peacekeeping and the Costs of Targeting Civilians’, International Organization 73, no. 1 (2019): 103–31.

⁶³ Peace Accords Matrix Barometer Initiative, Towards Implementation of Women’s Rights in the Colombian Final Peace Accord: Progress, Opportunities and Challenges (Notre Dame, 2020) <https://peaceaccords.nd.edu/wp-content/uploads/2020/11/Towards-Implementation-of-Womens-Rights-in-the-Colombian-Final-Peace-Accord-2.pdf>(accessed November 25, 2020).

⁶⁴ Tandukar and others, The Effectiveness of Local Peace Committees in Nepal, 10.

⁶⁵ Ibid., 5.

⁶⁶ Roland Paris, At War’s End: Building Peace after Civil Conflict, At War’s End: Building Peace after Civil Conflict (New York: Cambridge University Press, 2004); and Madhav Joshi, Sung Yong Lee, and Roger Mac Ginty, ‘Just How Liberal Is the Liberal Peace?’, International Peacekeeping 21, no. 3 (2014): 364–89.

⁶⁷ Sara Hellmüller, ‘A Story of Mutual Adaptation? The Interaction between Local and International Peacebuilding Actors in Ituri’, Peacebuilding 2, no. 2 (2014): 188–201; Charles T. Call and Susan E. Cook, ‘On Democratization and Peacebuilding’, Global Governance 9, no. 2 (2003): 233–46; and Charles T. Call and Elizabeth M. Cousens, ‘Ending Wars and Building Peace: International Responses to War-Torn Societies’, International Studies Perspectives 9, no. 1 (2008): 1–21.

⁶⁸ See, Mark Exworthy and Stephen Peckham, ‘Access, Choice and Travel: Implications for Health Policy’, Social Policy and Administration 40, no. 3 (2006): 267–87.

⁶⁹ Michael Lund, Preventing Violent Conflicts: A Strategy for Preventive Diplomacy (Washington, D.C: United States Institute of Peace, 1996).

⁷⁰ Necla Tschirgi, Peacebuilding as the Link between Security and Development: Is the Window of Opportunity Closing? (New York, 2003).

⁷¹ Paffenholz and Spurk, Civil Society, Civic Engagement, and Peacebuilding.

⁷² Pugh, ‘Contemporary Security Policy Peacebuilding as Developmentalism,’ 323–324.

⁷³ Doyle and Sambanis, ‘International Peacebuilding’; and Hartzell, ‘Explaining the Stability of Negotiated Settlements to Intrastate Wars.’

⁷⁴ Stephen John Stedman, Donald Rothchild, and Elizabeth Cousens, Ending Civil Wars: The Implementation of Peace Agreements (Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner Publishers, 2003); and Dawn Brancati and Jack L Snyder, ‘Time to Kill: The Impact of Election Timing on Postconflict Stability’, Journal of Conflict Resolution 57, no. 5 (2013): 822–53.

⁷⁵ Krishna Kumar, eds., Postconflict Elections, Democratisation, and International Assistance (Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner, 1998).

⁷⁶ Ibid; Paris, ‘At War’s End.’

⁷⁷ see, Joshi and Darby, ‘Introducing the Peace Accords Matrix (PAM).’

⁷⁸ B. Bigombe, P. Collier, and N. Sambanis, ‘Policies for Building Post-Conflict Peace’, in Journal of African Economies (Oxford Academic, 2000), ix, 323–48; and Call and Cousens, ‘Ending Wars and Building Peace.’

⁷⁹ Nilsson, ‘Anchoring the Peace: Civil Society Actors in Peace Accords and Durable Peace’; Krause, Krause, and Bränfors, ‘Women’s Participation in Peace Negotiations and the Durability of Peace’; and Elizabeth Brannon and Rebecca Best, ‘Here for the Right Reasons: The Selection of Women as Peace Delegates’, International Studies Review 24, no. 1 (2022).

⁸⁰ Maekawa, Arı, and Gizelis, ‘UN Involvement and Civil War Peace Agreement Implementation’; Michael W. Doyle and Nicholas Sambanis, Making War and Building Peace: United Nations Peace Operations (Princeton, NJ, 2006); Michaela Mattes and Burcu Savun, ‘Information, Agreement Design, and the Durability of Civil War Settlements’, American Journal of Political Science 54 no. 2 (2010): 511–24; and Walter, Howard, and Fortna, ‘The Extraordinary Relationship between Peacekeeping and Peace.’

⁸¹ For everyday peace indicators, see Pamina Firchow and Roger Mac Ginty, ‘Measuring Peace: Comparability, Commensurability, and Complementarity Using Bottom-up Indicators’, International Studies Review 19, no. 1 (2017): 6–27; and R Mac Ginty, Everyday Peace: How So-Called Ordinary People Can Disrupt Violent Conflict (New York: Oxford University Press, 2021).

Additional information

Notes on contributors

Madhav Joshi

Madhav Joshi is a research professor and associate director of the Peace Accords Matrix at the Kroc Institute for International Peace Studies, part of the Keough School of Global Affairs at the University of Notre Dame. He is a faculty fellow at the Pulte Institute for Global Development and Liu Institute for Asia and Asian Studies. He specializes in civil war peace negotiation processes and the design and implementation of peace agreements. He holds a Ph.D. in political science.