The goal of peace talks is to bring a conflict to a peaceful end. However, peace agreements often fail to reduce violence (Call 2012). In light of this failure, the study of the process and its mechanisms has come under increased scrutiny. In particular, the role of negotiation frameworks-the legal codification and publicity of peace negotiations as well as their scope for inclusivity-has been recognized as a crucial decision point. A government that sets the framework is aware that abandoning negotiations is expensive and therefore considers its short-term interests when deciding whether to opt for a legally binding, transparent, inclusive negotiation framework or a nonlegalized, opaque, exclusionary one.
In this article, I examine the onset of two recent peace processes in Colombia and Turkey to identify what factors determine the success or failure of a framework. Based on a combination of factual information and analysis of speeches and press interviews, I analyze the content of decisions, relevant actors’ positive and negative signals to their adversaries, and key developments explaining the success or failure of each process.
As part of the process, I suggest that states and civil society actors establish an institutionalised coordination platform for the entire negotiation process. This could be in the form of contact groups, Groups of Friends supporting the mediator(s), or a diplomatic coordination mechanism such as those that have served as guarantors during previous peace processes. In addition, states should ensure that women are not merely observers but an integral part of the peace negotiations and any power sharing arrangements.