Â鶹ÒùÔº

Partial peace deals may facilitate comprehensive accords, offering roadmap for policymakers

Over the past two decades, conflicts in more than 40 countries, including El Salvador, Northern Ireland, Senegal and the Philippines, have ended in comprehensive peace agreements. But these broader accords don't happen all at once.

Partial peace agreements—deals signed along the way that address issues ranging from ceasefires to constitutional reforms and human rights—could provide a blueprint for peacebuilding policymakers and practitioners, new research from the University of Notre Dame suggests.

The study, published in the , draws on a newly expanded from the University's Peace Accords Matrix—a trusted resource for global peace practitioners seeking actionable evidence. Researchers examined 51 provisions from 42 comprehensive peace agreements and 236 partial peace agreements.

"Thanks to this newly expanded dataset, we uncovered findings that can inform the work of negotiators in various global contexts," said lead author Madhav Joshi, research professor and associate director of the Peace Accords Matrix, which is housed within the Kroc Institute for International Peace Studies, part of Notre Dame's Keough School of Global Affairs. "These insights are possible because of the impactful research that takes place at the Peace Accords Matrix."

Partial peace agreements offer multiple strategic advantages, Joshi said. They can help negotiating parties consolidate incremental progress; serve as metrics for stakeholders and the international community; allow parties to test specific measures before fully committing to them; and signal a larger commitment to the peace process.

The new study provided a deeper look into how these agreements work, Joshi said. Researchers found the following:

• A greater number of partial agreements is associated with higher implementation of comprehensive agreements.
• Generally speaking, it is a better strategy to pursue more partial agreements, even if this lengthens negotiations.
• Longer negotiations that do not produce partial agreements are never better than short negotiations.

"These findings suggest that partial peace agreements play an important role in building trust and strengthening relationships between negotiators to help peace processes succeed," Joshi said.

The study also helped identify additional avenues for future research, Joshi said, which might explore why parties in some processes (but not others) pursue further partial agreements. Further studies could explain why some partial agreements are implemented immediately while others are not, and why only some partial accords reaffirm previous agreements.

"Ultimately, this study is an example of our evidence-to-action approach," Joshi said. "Our research can guide the work of policymakers and practitioners on the ground who work to end conflicts and save lives. Putting this evidence in their hands is critical to designing effective policies that will yield a tangible impact, helping societies escape the destructive cycles of violence and war."

Joshi co-authored the report with Matthew Hauenstein, assistant research professor at Notre Dame's Lucy Family Institute for Data & Society and Jason Quinn, research associate professor and a principal researcher for the Peace Accords Matrix data project.