The Peace Treaty Initiative

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 political and 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 prevent and end wars. That said, the final 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. A final set of Draft Articles for the Convention for the Support, Protection and Acceleration of Conflict Prevention and Resolution is ready.

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 political and 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 exclude 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 for the Support, Protection and Acceleration of Conflict Prevention and Resolution?”

• Yes. You can request them from IFIT.

Who supports this initiative?

• IFIT facilitated a years-long global consultation process involving UN member states; multilateral organisations; negotiators, mediators and ex-combatants; and leading universities, law firms, think tanks and NGOs from around the world. The support and involvement of hundreds of key actors has been indispensable.

How can I or my institution stay up to date?

• You can follow IFIT on LinkedIn or other social media.