Peace talks are a central part of the process of bringing parties to intractable conflicts to a negotiated settlement. They are a forum for exploring ways to end a conflict, and can include a broad range of issues that need to be addressed, including grievances, power sharing, and addressing structural causes of violence. The fact that many negotiated peace agreements do not lead to lasting peace has led to a substantial research effort to analyze what contributes to the success or failure of these processes.
A key determinant is the negotiation framework. Several research streams have developed: constructivist approaches focus on the perception of “ripeness” and how this factor influences timing decisions; rationalist approaches consider how the adversaries’ information asymmetry and commitment problems are addressed, as well as the capacity of the negotiating parties to share power and address the root causes of their conflict.
Preparation is another critical element: Negotiators need to know their core interests in order not to cave to pressure or compromise on points they cannot defend; they should also identify their best alternative to a negotiated agreement (BATNA). This helps negotiators stay focused and reframe difficult debates.
Cultural factors shape the tone, content, and style of negotiations, whether in Japan or Sweden. The way the negotiators speak, their body language, and how they engage with each other shapes their confidence levels, how much risk they are willing to take, and even whether they can be productive. Scholars have developed models, like Hofstede’s dimensions of culture, to explain these differences.