Abstract
AbstractLater years have seen the growth of a vibrant theoretical discussion on agonistic peace and the importance of creating space for contestation, plurality, and dissensus post-accord. However, there has been very few attempts at embedding agonistic theory in empirical analyses of peace agreements. This study attends to that lacuna by investigating how agonistic principles can be integrated and investigated in peace agreements. We suggest a threefold set of indicators for assessing the degree to which peace agreements are invested with agonistic dynamics: (1) what types of spaces for interaction are offered post-accord; (2) what forms of inclusion are stipulated; and (3) how is the peace agreement framed in terms of conflict termination and consensus/dissensus? We illustrate how the various indicators could be put into motion in concrete analyses applying them to examples from the Oslo Accords, the Belfast Agreement, and the Colombian Peace Agreement. Finally, we discuss four dilemmas and problematiques of integrating agonistic ideas in peace agreements; the issue of power, the mixing of agonistic and liberal ideals in peace agreements, the principle of ‘nothing is agreed until everything is agreed’ and the related double-edged potential of constructive ambiguity and finally the challenges of implementing peace agreements.
Highlights
The literature on conflict resolution has traditionally been characterised by a liberal logic of finding rational, win-win solutions to conflict that meet the needs of all parties and transcend incompatibilities.1 While it is often stressed that conflicts are neither good nor bad, but potentially both constructive and destructive depending on how they are handled, efforts to deal with conflict in constructive ways rarely leave space for passions, conflict, and contestation.2 Oftentimes the remedy to conflicts has been sought in the creation of peace agreements and postconflict strategies striving for consensus and univocal agreements on understandings of the past
We suggest a threefold set of indicators for assessing the degree to which peace agreements are invested with agonistic dynamics: (1) what types of spaces for interaction are offered post-accord; (2) what forms of inclusion are stipulated; and (3) how is the peace agreement framed in terms of conflict termination and consensus/dissensus? We illustrate how the various indicators could be put into motion in concrete analyses applying them to examples from the Oslo Accords, the Belfast Agreement, and the Colombian Peace Agreement
While the present analysis focuses on how to inscribe agonism into peace agreements, it is relevant to consider that ‘agonism itself unfolds within a larger political dynamic that informs the very terms of its encounter.’27 questions arise of who has the power to structure the peace negotiations and who gets to determine if and how agonistic principles are written into peace agreements
Summary
The literature on conflict resolution has traditionally been characterised by a liberal logic of finding rational, win-win solutions to conflict that meet the needs of all parties and transcend incompatibilities. While it is often stressed that conflicts are neither good nor bad, but potentially both constructive and destructive depending on how they are handled, efforts to deal with conflict in constructive ways rarely leave space for passions, conflict, and contestation. Oftentimes the remedy to conflicts has been sought in the creation of peace agreements and postconflict strategies striving for consensus and univocal agreements on understandings of the past. Since consensual peace is impossible in this line of thought, and undesirable, it is suggested that transitional justice and peace agreements neither can nor should be initiated to end conflict Instead, these arrangements should strive for the subsuming of antagonistic violent enemy relations into respect among adversaries, yet always keeping nonviolent conflict, plurality, and dissensus at the core of that relationship. To illustrate how agonistic principles are to be understood and applied in practice, we bring in examples from three peace agreements: the Oslo Agreements, the Belfast Agreement and the Colombian Peace Agreement, which function as testing grounds for the indicators These three cases have been chosen because they display quite different degrees of agonism and serve as useful illustrative vignettes when developing analytical tools for the analysis of agonism in peace agreements. We discuss dilemmas and problematiques of integrating agonistic principles in peace agreements and outline the study’s conclusions
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Free) 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a call
