Peace talks are a key tool to resolving conflict. Yet, despite the fact that history is full of attempts to negotiate peace agreements during conflicts, it is very difficult to reach such an agreement. The first stumbling block relates to the fundamental differences between stakeholders. For example, the Israeli government wants total control of the territories it occupies, while the Palestinian National Authority aims to end the occupation and establish a Palestinian state with the 1967 borders.
The second stumbling block is related to the political environment in which the negotiations take place. It may be that international crises or the structure of the government or the internal politics of the negotiating parties undermine the talks. It is also possible that the presence of powerful spoilers in the negotiation environment prevents the achievement of a workable peace agreement.
Despite these challenges, it is possible to find examples of successful peace processes. Darby and MacGinty argue that a successful peace process must contain five essential criteria: the willingness of warring parties to negotiate in good faith; the inclusion of all stakeholders; addressing the root causes of conflict; and the avoidance of the use of force.
While regime type and the existence of international crises have some impact on the outcome of peace negotiations, this article shows that the selection of a negotiation framework is an influential causal factor. For instance, the Colombian and Turkish peace processes started with similar initial conditions, but the choice of negotiation frameworks differed significantly. The Colombian negotiation framework legislated guidelines to identify the negotiating parties, published all partial agreements and their disagreements throughout the process, and enabled nonbinding civil society participation. In contrast, the Turkish negotiation framework kept the content of the talks secret from the public and excluded civil society participants.