International Institutions and Comprehensive Peace Agreements

• In Event: Conflict Prevention and Peacebuilding

Abstract

Recent research points out that comprehensive peace agreements (CPAs) are particularly promising pathway for helping countries transition away from civil wars and toward stable peace. Especially when implemented to a large extent, CPAs lead to longer periods of peace, lower recurrence of conflict, and other positive economic and social outcomes. But what explains the implementation rate of CPAs? CPA implementation requires stakeholders in government and civil society to commit to reform, to make concessions, and to trust that former opponents will not exploit power shifts during the implementation phase. This paper argues that external actors are key for overcoming commitment problems during the process of CPA implementation. We highlight that a specific type of third parties, highly structured international organizations (HSIGOs), can play a unique role in incentivizing conflict parties to implement CPAs even in the face of severe commitment problems. Detailed data on the features and implementation of all CPAs between 1989 and 2015 provides a rigorous test of this argument. Preliminary results suggest that a stronger presence of HSIGOs in post-civil war countries is associated with notably higher implementation rates, even in the presence of other strong predictors of CPA implementation. The paper emphasizes the importance of material incentives from third parties not only in conflict resolution and mediation, but post-agreement implementation efforts as well.

Authors

• Johannes Karreth, Ursinus College

• Jaroslav Tir, University of Colorado Boulder