The Peace Treaty Initiative is a major global undertaking to help develop an international law of peace negotiation. Filling a critical gap in the existing laws of war – which mainly regulate how to fight – the Peace Treaty Initiative aims to facilitate global consideration of a purpose-built multilateral treaty to help incentivise warring parties to choose the pathway of negotiation, in order to prevent armed conflicts in the first place and to end them once underway. Follow the Peace Treaty Initiative on Instagram at @PeaceTreatyInitiative
Scroll down for more
The initiative builds on three years of legal research, diplomatic and expert interviews, and meetings hosted by IFIT and its global partners. This culminated in an initial “indicative text” of the proposed treaty, which was meant to offer a practical starting point for a deliberately inclusive global consultation process launched in April 2021.
During this process, UN member states, as well as leading multilateral organisations, universities, faith-based entities, negotiators, law firms, think tanks and NGOs from around the world had the opportunity to comment on the indicative text through their participation in more than 100 high-level regional and thematic consultation events. The input from the events led to the development of the Draft Articlesfor the Convention on Conflict Prevention and Resolution, which will be the subject of the next phase of the global consultation process.
What does international law currently say about peace negotiations?
Almost nothing. Article 33(1) of the UN Charter provides that “The parties to any dispute, the continuance of which is likely to endanger the maintenance of international peace and security, shall, first of all, seek a solution by negotiation, enquiry, mediation, conciliation, arbitration, judicial settlement, resort to regional agencies or arrangements, or other peaceful means of their own choice.” However, there is no body of international law that offers legal incentives or an organised framework to make the choice of peace negotiation more attractive at the start, more flexible and organised in the middle, and more stable at the end.
Can this legal gap be filled with voluntary principles and guidelines?
Voluntary principles and guidelines can be helpful for practitioners, but a legal gap can only be filled – and legal incentives and guarantees can only be created – through a legal instrument.
Why would states want to sign a treaty on peace negotiations?
Conflicts are exerting a heavy toll on states and their citizens, who would welcome a treaty making it easier to end wars. That said, the eventual content of the treaty will determine the level of state interest. States sign up to multilateral treaties when the benefits of doing so are greater than the burdens.
Is there a draft of what the treaty would look like?
Yes. The Draft Articles for the Convention on Conflict Prevention and Resolution are currently the subject of the second phase of the global consultation process (see below).
Could the treaty lead to a situation in which negotiation is imposed on an unwilling state?
No. While the existence of the treaty would increase the attractiveness and stability of peace negotiations, a state party would retain control over which situations it wants to have handled under the treaty.
Could the treaty risk reducing the flexibility or confidentiality that negotiating parties require?
No. One of the central aims of the proposed treaty is to increase the flexibility and control that negotiating parties have over the process – while simultaneously making available to them new support mechanisms and a clear system for the validation of their key choices.
Would the proposed treaty restrict what can be agreed between the negotiating parties?
No. The parties would control all the decisions. At the same time, the treaty could offer substantive benefits that are unavailable today. For example, as reflected in the Draft Articles, a “presumption of conformity” with international law could be conferred upon agreements that reflect certain minimum criteria. This would increase international respect for the agreement.
Would the treaty alter or improve the legal status of non-state armed groups?
No. The Draft Articles make it more attractive for non-state armed groups to make the choice to negotiate, but excludes any change in their legal status by virtue of that choice.
Does the treaty restrict the use of force by states?
No. The Draft Articles envisage that the existing international legal rights and obligations of states over the timing and manner of the use of force would remain unchanged.
Can I see the Draft Articles for the “Convention on Conflict Prevention and Resolution?”
Yes. You can access them here. The Draft Articles will continue to be developed in response to consultations and will be discussed at future regional and thematic workshops and events organised in partnership with leading multilateral, academic, legal and nonprofit institutions across the globe.
Who supports this initiative?
IFIT is facilitating the global consultation process and is supported by a high-level Expert Advisory Group. More generally, the initiative is supported by IFIT’s donor partners and global experts, including members of the Law and Peace Practice Group. Partnerships with prestigious institutions around the globe have also been vital. Currently a purpose-built strategic alliance is being created in order to bring the treaty to fruition.
How can I or my institution get involved?
You can sign up for our treaty newsletter and follow our Instagram account @peacetreatyinitiative, where upcoming consultation events are announced. In addition, if your institution would like to propose an active form of engagement or support, you can send a one-paragraph proposal to [email protected].
To carry out our global work, we operate a unique business model involving 300+ experts affiliated as members of one of the following IFIT structures: 1) global staff, including fellows and interns; 2) in-country brain trusts; 3) thematic practice groups; 4) International Advisory Council; 5) Board of Directors; or 6) advisory bodies linked to our global initiatives such as the Peace Treaty Initiative, the Initiative on Apex Court Appointments, and the Global Initiative on Polarization.
The Peace Treaty Initiative’s Expert Advisory Group brings together a mix of highly regarded global leaders, negotiators, jurists, and scholars. Its function is to advise on the larger substantive and strategic dimensions of the initiative. All members of the Expert Advisory Group serve in their personal capacity.
IFIT’s Law and Peace Practice Group is also actively involved. Comprised of sixteen respected global experts, the Group provides creative and realistic analysis and advice on the challenges of balancing justice and peace in contexts of negotiated transition out of armed conflict or authoritarian rule.
On this annual Armistice Day, many countries will rightly stop to recall the horrors and heroism of World War I: a war that ended with a 36-day armistice signed between Germany and the Allies in 1918. But what we too seldom recall on this occasion is the importance of the international law that emerged from both World War I and II.
It is, in fact, a paradox of politics that the last century’s great wars also produced great law – and global institutions to match, such as the United Nations. Among other things, we saw the mass expansion of international humanitarian law (ie, the laws of war), the emergence of human rights, and the creation of international criminal law, to name just a few milestones.
But international law remains a patchwork, built piecemeal as and when existing law falls behind the times. And such a moment has arrived – and in the most surprising of areas. While we have international law to regulate the conduct of internal armed conflicts, we lack corresponding law to incentivise states to choose the path of negotiation in order to prevent such conflicts in the first place as well as end them peacefully once underway.
Though less common today, the case is the same for inter-state conflicts as it is for non-international armed conflicts. There are general principles, but there isn’t a body of law that could be described as a “law of peace negotiation”.
As a global community, we can do better – and we have the opportunity to do so now that this legal gap has been detected.
Wars rarely end with total victors. Time and again, conflict parties find themselves sitting around a table to talk their way out of the abyss – just as they did on the 11th of November 1918. But just as often, the window of opportunity for making peace is missed. That is because negotiation with a sworn enemy is always a fraught political decision. Governments enter into it hesitatingly, knowing the choice is filled with costs and risks.
For those that do, there is no organised framework of law to turn to, whether for questions of process design or substantive accords. And for the areas of international law that do impinge on a negotiation’s prospect for settlement, they are more likely to suffocate than facilitate its realisation. This is so despite the fact that the structure of a negotiation requires mutual and painful concessions – and thus the greatest legal clarity and flexibility possible.
And even if, against the odds, the parties succeed in reaching a deal, there aren’t any clear standards or available mechanisms to validate its conformity with international law. It’s all a legal crapshoot.
This situation of excess uncertainty serves no one. The law should be an aid and not a hindrance for a subject as consequential as peace making vis-à-vis civil wars.
Will states buy this argument? They will – if the as-yet-unborn international law of peace negotiation is conceived as a help and not a barrier to their interests, offering more benefits than burdens, and with a global rather than Western perspective.
We are already in an era of new and growing kinds of armed conflict: climate wars, cyber wars, and more. New armed groups keep springing up and morphing in ways that endanger civilians in every region of the world. The fighting no longer occurs on a clearly marked battlefield with clear separation between combatants and civilians.
As such, we need to be ready to face the new realities of armed conflict with the most proven tool that history has provided: the tool of negotiation. It deserves all the protection and incentives that the law can offer.
Just imagine how much needless suffering and destruction could be prevented if international law made peace negotiation more attractive at the start, more flexible and organised in the middle, and more stable at the end. This Armistice Day is as suitable a day as any for that process of imagination to begin.
Donate
Please help us to make our world a better, safer place, by pledging your support to IFIT and this transformative global effort.
What does international law currently say about peace negotiations?
Almost nothing. Article 33(1) of the UN Charter provides that “The parties to any dispute, the continuance of which is likely to endanger the maintenance of international peace and security, shall, first of all, seek a solution by negotiation, enquiry, mediation, conciliation, arbitration, judicial settlement, resort to regional agencies or arrangements, or other peaceful means of their own choice.” However, there is no body of international law that offers legal incentives or an organised framework to make the choice of peace negotiation more attractive at the start, more flexible and organised in the middle, and more stable at the end.
Can this legal gap be filled with voluntary principles and guidelines?
Voluntary principles and guidelines can be helpful for practitioners, but a legal gap can only be filled – and legal incentives and guarantees can only be created – through a legal instrument.
Why would states want to sign a treaty on peace negotiations?
Conflicts are exacting a heavy toll on states and their citizens, who would welcome a treaty making it easier to end wars. That said, the eventual content of the treaty will determine the level of state interest. States sign up to multilateral treaties when the benefits of doing so are greater than the burdens.
Is there a draft of what the treaty would look like?
Yes. It is an indicative text and subject to the feedback arising through the upcoming global consultation process (see below).
Could the treaty lead to a situation in which negotiation is imposed on an unwilling state?
No. While the existence of the treaty would increase the attractiveness and stability of peace negotiations, a state party would retain control over which situations it wants to have handled under the treaty.
Could the treaty risk reducing the flexibility or confidentiality that negotiating parties require?
No. One of the central aims of the proposed treaty is to increase the flexibility and control that negotiating parties have over the process – while simultaneously making available to them new support mechanisms and a new system for the validation of their key choices.
Would the proposed treaty restrict what can be agreed between the negotiating parties?
No. The parties would control all the decisions. At the same time, the treaty could offer substantive benefits that are unavailable today. For example, as reflected in the indicative text, a “presumption of conformity” with international law could be conferred upon an agreement that reflects certain minimum criteria. This would increase international respect for the agreement.
Would the treaty alter or improve the legal status of non-state armed groups?
No. The indicative text makes it more attractive for non-state armed groups to make the choice to negotiate, but excludes any change in their legal status by virtue of that choice.
Does the treaty restrict the use of force by states?
No. The indicative text envisages that the existing international legal rights and obligations of states over the timing and manner of the use of force would remain unchanged.
Can I see the indicative text of the proposed treaty?
The text – which will continue to be developed in response to consultations – will be initially shared in a series of high-level regional and thematic workshops that will commence in mid 2021 in partnership with leading multilateral, academic, and nonprofit institutions across the globe.
Who supports this initiative?
IFIT is facilitating the global consultation process and is supported by a high-level Expert Advisory Group. More generally, the initiative is supported by IFIT’s donor partners and global experts, including members of the Law and Peace Practice Group. Over time, a purpose-built strategic alliance will be created in order to bring the treaty to fruition.
How can I or my institution get involved?
You can sign up for our treaty newsletter, where upcoming consultation events will be listed. In addition, if your institution would like to propose an active form of engagement or support, you can send a one-paragraph proposal to [email protected].
Donate
Please help us to make our world a better, safer place, by pledging your support to IFIT and this transformative global effort.
In the fall of 2019, IFIT launched the Mexican Peacebuilding Support Group: an independent platform of multidisciplinary Mexican thought leaders seeking to bring about the conditions for a national-level peacebuilding policy that can be implemented through an incremental bottom-up approach.
By being a catalyst for difficult but necessary conversations about violence in the country and by seeking to build bridges that reduce polarisation and divisive narratives across diverse sectors of society, the group aims to contribute significantly toward the vision and reality of a peaceful Mexico.
Esta publicación plantea la necesidad de una discusión realista basada en evidencia para entender el verdadero lugar y potencialidad de la negociación con el crimen organizado en México, analizando sus restricciones, riesgos, desafíos y oportunidades. El punto de partida es que la herramienta de la negociación no reemplaza a otros mecanismos y herramientas para hacer frente al crimen organizado, sino que los complementa. Igualmente, que la negociación necesita un soporte institucional, social y político adecuado para llevarse a cabo con efectividad y legitimidad. Y, finalmente, que la negociación debe ser un catalizador del fortalecimiento institucional en materia de seguridad y justicia, y no una vía para su debilitamiento.
Este documento reúne las reflexiones que surgieron en materia de violencia y el rol de las fuerzas de seguridad en México, durante los diálogos organizados por el Instituto para las Transiciones Integrales (IFIT) con militares retirados, miembros del Grupo de Apoyo para la Construcción de Paz y expertos del Centro de Estudios sobre Seguridad, Inteligencia y Gobernanza (CESIG) del ITAM, con el propósito de construir insumos cualificados provenientes de una conversación abierta y franca que contribuyeran a nutrir el diagnóstico sobre la situación que afronta México y a encontrar posibles rutas de solución, proponiendo a la opinión pública nuevas premisas para la conversación.'
Esta publicación documenta diez experiencias implementadas a nivel local en México que atendieron distintas problemáticas que muestran posibles caminos para la construcción de paz en México. Este esfuerzo por organizar los elementos, el contexto y los actores que convergieron en las distintas experiencias; es un ejercicio por reconocer aquello en lo cual se ha avanzado, las lecciones que puede arrojar y aquellos aspectos que pueden ser importantes para su sostenibilidad y réplica en otros lugares de México.
Colombia is the most recent and ambitious example of an effort to peacefully end armed conflict through negotiation. The rigorous format of the process, the incorporation of local and international lessons learned, and the transformative aspirations of the final accord reached between the government and the FARC rebels have turned the country into a laboratory and global reference in terms of peace process design, transitional justice, disarmament, rural development, and more.
IFIT has accompanied the peace process firsthand almost since its inception.
In 2012, IFIT organised an influential amicus brief, successfully intervening before the Constitutional Court on the question of the future political participation of FARC combatants. Later, through its executive director, IFIT played a unique first-hand role inside the peace talks, working in Havana as the international expert advisor to the Colombian government delegation during the 18 months of the negotiation of victims’ issues with the FARC rebel group, which culminated in a transitional justice accord in December 2015.
As the peace talks came to a close, IFIT went a step further. In an effort to ensure that the firsthand knowledge acquired during the negotiations would remain organised and available during the implementation phase, IFIT created the Brain Trust for the Colombian Transition: a unique platform of 16 expert advisors who played key roles during the Havana talks. Since its creation, the Brain Trust has become a major voice of de-polarizing dialogue and a trusted resource for policy analysis and advice on issues related to the peace accord and its implementation. By its mere existence, it helps avoid the typical dispersion of institutional memory and knowledge when a negotiation ends and a peacebuilding phase begins.
In 2020, IFIT innovated further by creating a sub-national Territorial Trust of peace implementation actors who can complement and collaborate with the national Brain Trust. The Territorial Trust comprises 13 recognised local leaders from regions prioritised for peace deal implementation and where the conflict has been constantly present for decades. Its addition to IFIT’s peacebuilding work in Colombia allows for a unique combination of top-down and bottom-up approaches, linking very diverse regions of Colombia with each other, and connecting local decision makers with national ones.
Our Brain Trusts in Colombia
National Brain Trust
IFIT’s Brain Trust for the Colombian Transition (“Fondo de Capital Humano para la Transición Colombiana”) aims to ensure that the wealth of knowledge acquired during the Colombian peace talks remains available, organised and actively engaged during the transition out of conflict. Comprised of fifteen multidisciplinary Colombian experts and advisers who played a direct and major role in the negotiations in Havana, the Brain Trust helps avoid the typical dispersion of institutional memory and knowledge when a negotiation ends and a peacebuilding phase begins. Working alone and in conjunction with IFIT’s Territorial Trust, it actively identifies areas of minimal consensus on peacebuilding across all major sectors in order to generate an environment of trust that can lead to a stable and lasting peace in Colombia. The Brain Trust also provides independent expert analysis about the Colombian experience to other countries attempting to achieve transitions out of armed conflict.
Territorial Brain Trust
In 2020, IFIT established the Territorial Trust: a group of 13 recognised peace implementation leaders from the regions most affected by the Colombian armed conflict. This bottom-up brain trust informs and advises key decision-makers at the local level (as local policymakers often do not have the expertise to incorporate peacebuilding provisions in their local development plans) and national level (as national policymakers usually lack the context-based knowledge necessary to correctly design the measures that would best serve peace implementation). The Territorial Trust also empowers the group’s own members, raising their profile at the national level and facilitating networking and access to expert knowledge that would otherwise be difficult to access.
In 2016, IFIT launched the Venezuela Expert Group (GEV): an independent and multidisciplinary platform of 16 Venezuelan leaders seeking to advance dialogue and a peaceful solution to the country’s varied crises. The group meets continuously to analyse the prospects for a negotiated solution and to develop and disseminate policy proposals that take into account relevant international experiences and the specificities of the Venezuelan context. In carrying out these activities, IFIT and the Venezuela Expert Group speak with actors on all sides.
The work of the GEV is informed by analysis stemming from the members’ local activities, and complemented by the technical knowledge and support of IFIT’s global network of high-level experts, allowing for the transfer of key know-how from other contexts. The GEV’s ideas are then transmitted to key local and international stakeholders through non-papers, strategic outreach and policy events that help to diversify the narrative landscape as regards the value of negotiation as a pathway out of the crisis. The fact that the GEV’s members come from widely different sectors and are based in Venezuela rather than abroad gives extra salience to the group’s convenings, analyses and proposals.
Esta publicación analiza los desafíos que enfrenta el sector privado en Venezuela en la actualidad tras los cambios ocurridos dentro de la economía en los últimos años. El documento examina el estado actual del marco institucional y político y también identifica las tendencias macro a nivel global que afectan cualquier escenario de evolución para la actividad económica privada. Esta mirada novedosa apunta a contribuir a dar elementos sobre el papel que pueden jugar distintos sectores económicos en Venezuela como parte de una visión de la reinstitucionalización más amplia.
Este documento examina la importancia del estado de derecho como parte de una solución negociada a la crisis actual de Venezuela. Es un capítulo actualizado del libro completo publicado por el Grupo Experto para Venezuela de IFIT sobre los elementos de una transición incluyente.
Un ejercicio de escenarios posibles, a partir de las premisas económicas y políticas más importantes y del papel que pueden jugar los grandes recursos petroleros y de gas natural en coordinación con un plan de estabilización para la recuperación y desarrollo económico de Venezuela.
Una actualización que da cuenta de cómo se pasó de un escenario de duras protestas en Venezuela, los factores que contribuyeron a su disminución como la represión, la persecución a dirigentes y partidos políticos, el incremento de las cifras de presos políticos y los efectos de la crisis sobre la población. Asimismo, la manera como todo esto ha mantenido a la ciudadanía concentrada en su supervivencia, desalentando la participación política.
Un análisis sobre la situación de los partidos políticos en Venezuela, la estructura de su sistema político, la prolongación de un proceso de profundización autoritaria y la crisis de legitimidad venezolana. Así mismo, el efecto de todo esto sobre los partidos, las escisiones y las nuevas alianzas; finalizando con recomendaciones para el restablecimiento de un mínimo de pluralismo que permita relaciones de confianza entre adversarios existenciales.
Un análisis que aborda la simultaneidad de tres procesos que ha experimentado Venezuela desde el 2019: las sanciones impuestas por los Estados Unidos y sus efectos; el ajuste macroeconómico que ha tenido lugar en los últimos años en un precario marco institucional; y el proceso de acercamiento y de negociaciones desde un análisis de economía política.
Un resumen de las lecciones aprendidas en experiencias previas históricas de acuerdos comprehensivos, en el marco de situaciones recientes de tensión derivadas de la crisis política, democrática y humanitaria de Venezuela, buscando también identificar los actores y sus intereses.
Laura Acevedo is the Administrative and Financial Assistant at the Institute for Integrated Transitions (IFIT), based in Bogotá.
Prior to joining IFIT, Laura worked in the Andean Region section of the Ford Foundation, supporting the programs and operations team. Here, she was responsible for organising events, trips, and meetings; coordinating agendas; and executing operational tasks. Previously, she worked at the British Council as a Project Coordinator, where she was in charge of carrying out budget execution, following activity schedules, preparing reports, coordinating events, and updating document databases.
Laura has a degree in hotel management from Politécnico Internacional.
Mariana Casij Peña is an Associate at the Institute for Integrated Transitions (IFIT) and manages the Law and Peace Practice Group and the Peace Treaty Initiative. She has led IFIT’s research on negotiating with violent criminal groups, supported the countering violent extremism project, and advised key stakeholders on transitional justice issues in contexts such as El Salvador, Nigeria, Ethiopia, the Gambia, and Libya. Additionally, for the past six years, she has overseen IFIT’s transitional justice work in Colombia.
Prior to joining IFIT, Mariana worked with the Presidential Advisor for Human Rights in Colombia and served as a legal adviser for the Victims Unit during the negotiations between the Colombian Government and the FARC, as well as during the subsequent implementation phase. She also worked for the Victims Unit on national cases of collective reparations and as a consultant for the Transitional Justice Directorate of the Colombian Ministry of Justice.
Mariana also previously taught at the Universidad Javeriana in Bogotá, Colombia, in areas of memory, transitional justice, and human rights.
She holds a BA in Law from the Universidad Javeriana and a Master’s degree in Human Rights and Democratisation from the European Inter-University Centre for Human Rights and Democratisation.
Her focus areas include transitional justice, amnesties, accountability, reparations and reconciliation.
María del Pilar Barbosa is an Associate at the Institute for Integrated Transitions based in the Bogotá office.
Before joining IFIT, María del Pilar was the coordinator of the non-repetition section of the Colombian Commission for the Clarification of Truth, Coexistence, and Non-repetition. Previously, she was the Deputy Director of Participation of the Territorial Renewal Agency (ART) from where she led the methodological design and implementation of the participatory process of the Development Programmes with a Territorial-Based Focus (PDET).
She was also part of the Office of the High Commissioner for Peace as a Thematic Advisor for the peace talks with the FARC. In that role, she supported the elaboration of technical inputs for the delegates of the national government. María del Pilar was also part of the team responsible for the zones and points of transition and normalisation. This team worked on the process of disarmament and transition to civilian life for ex-combatants (ZVTN and PTN).
María del Pilar is an economist from La Salle University, a specialist in government and public policy, and has a master’s degree in development studies from the Universidad de Los Andes.
