| Srl | Item |
| 1 |
ID:
123696
|
|
|
|
|
| Publication |
2013.
|
| Summary/Abstract |
AbstractThe purpose of this article is to question some basic assumptions regarding reconciliation after wars and mass atrocities. Indeed, how can numerous policy-makers, practitioners, and scholars contend that reconciliation is necessary while it is often distrusted and rejected by victims? Are there not cases where calls for reconciliation would prove to be fruitless and even detrimental for peace and/or democracy? To answer these questions, it is worth looking at the interactions between reconciliation and negotiation. Beyond a theoretical interest, this question has a direct impact for practitioners; a better understanding of the issue is actually a sine qua non condition for more efficient interventions. In terms of methodology, this study refers to various examples as illustrative cases (Afghanistan, Rwanda, South-Africa, and the Franco-German case). Its objective is not to capture the complexity of each case study but to determine to what extent reconciliation can be considered as negotiable.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 2 |
ID:
166784
|
|
|
|
|
| Summary/Abstract |
This article examines the correlation between the implementation of liberal peace provisions in peace accords and the duration of peace by drawing on data from the Peace Accords Matrix that comprises 34 comprehensive peace agreements signed in the post-Cold War period. Our key findings confirm that the duration of peace is improved when the liberal aspects of peace included in peace accords are implemented. In addition, the article examines peace duration in relation to UN peacekeeper deployment and mechanisms for peace accord verification – in an attempt to establish factors that enhance the duration of peace. Peacekeeping is found to have a positive impact, while verification mechanisms do not. The findings highlight the need to unpack and scrutinize more thoroughly the complex roles of liberal peacemaking.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|