While issues remain under-researched, peace agreement success has been linked primarily to the proper treatment of the parties’ security-related concerns. This study explores why some peace agreements succeed while others fail by using an issue-based approach arguing that issues are an expression of underlying grievances, which have caused the rebel groups to engage in armed conflict. Therefore, peace agreements that do not address the issues, which reflect grievances, will fail. I tested the hypothesis and the proposed theoretical relationship through the structured focused comparison of three peace agreements: The Lomé Peace Agreement, the Accra Peace Agreement and the Final Agreement National Government – Popular Liberation Army. The method employed in this study comprised first, determining the salience the rebel groups assigned to their issues -for which it was necessary to create a measure for issue salience- and second, examining the peace agreement’s provisions to determine if the rebel group’s issues were addressed. The results show that peace agreements that included the salient issues of the groups failed; however, peace agreements that did not include them, succeeded. Hence, the findings suggest that the inclusion of the rebel group’s issues in the peace agreement cannot account for the agreement’s success or failure.
Identifer | oai:union.ndltd.org:UPSALLA1/oai:DiVA.org:uu-413294 |
Date | January 2020 |
Creators | Estrada Corpeño, Tania Melissa |
Publisher | Uppsala universitet, Institutionen för freds- och konfliktforskning |
Source Sets | DiVA Archive at Upsalla University |
Language | English |
Detected Language | English |
Type | Student thesis, info:eu-repo/semantics/bachelorThesis, text |
Format | application/pdf |
Rights | info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess |
Page generated in 0.0019 seconds