The peacebuilding-development nexus has progressively captivated scholars and practitioners who have thoroughly questioned their correlation and causality. Sudan’s persistent unrest and development efforts embodied an ideal testing ground for the theorists of the nexus, whose driving paradigms evolved parallel to the unfolding of the conflicts and the progressive affirmation of the peacebuilding-development nexus in international narratives. This article reviews development endeavors in sustaining peacebuilding in Sudan by exploring the Juba Peace Agreement (JPA) vis-à-vis the economic reforms advanced by the transitional government of Sudan and the ever-growing international development assistance. The article argues that economic reforms and revitalization represent a fil-rouge throughout the JPA. By asserting that addressing inequalities, marginality, and injustice constitutes the litmus test of the agreement’s efficacy in terms of peacebuilding, it will be appraised whether this inclusive approach has been adopted in national development policies and what has been its effectiveness in sustaining the pathway for peace and democratization.

The signing of the Juba Peace Agreement in 2020 presents a unique opportunity to address longstanding security challenges affecting the civilian population in Darfur. The provisions on permanent ceasefire and final security arrangements set ambitious goals of implementing a comprehensive disarmament, demobilization, and reintegration program, facilitating security sector reform, and promoting peace and security in Darfur. However, although the complicated and protracted endeavor of signing the Juba Peace Agreement marked an important step toward peace and democratic transition in Sudan, its implementation may prove to be even more challenging if the key stakeholders fail to adhere to the agreement and continue to promote their, often conflicting, political agendas. This briefing paper examines the final security arrangements of the Juba Peace Agreement, analyzes challenges and opportunities, and offers options and recommendations for tangible and sustainable implementation of the JPA provisions on security in Darfur.

Justice was one of the three pillars that formed the slogan—“Freedom, Peace, Justice”—of the 2019 Sudanese revolution that ushered in the current transition process. It is central to peacebuilding. The Juba Peace Agreement (JPA) affirms that “accountability, reconciliation, and justice are critical for ensuring durable peace and security in Sudan.” This is further expounded in the National Agreement and the Darfur, Eastern, and Two Areas tracks of the JPA. However, skepticism about its ambition and implementation is as strong as its prospects for peace and reconciliation. Previous peace agreements, including the Comprehensive Peace Agreement (2005), the Darfur Peace Agreement (2006), and the Doha Document for Peace in Darfur (2011), had engaged with justice issues without success, as evidenced by conflict intractability and abuse. Drawing from primary and secondary sources, this article critically analyzes the human rights and justice provisions of the JPA, their implementation mechanisms, and policy pathways for their effectiveness. It argues that although the JPA casts an ambitiously comprehensive and innovative vision of transformative justice, the attendant implementation mechanisms invoke a more retributive outlook that is likely to jeopardize the peace process.

The 2020 Juba Peace Agreement (JPA) is a complex instrument, consisting of a general agreement dealing with national issues and six additional agreements negotiated in parallel “tracks,” separately addressing the multiple regional conflicts that have beset Sudan in recent decades. The purpose of the article is to provide a legal analysis of the JPA and to assess its implications for both peacebuilding in Darfur and the democratization of Sudan. After situating the agreement in the context of Sudan’s comprehensive peace process, the article presents the structure of the document, sheds light on its legal nature, and introduces the core issues addressed therein. It then focuses on the Darfur Agreement, considering the importance of the Darfur conflict to both the recent history of Sudan and the success of the peace process. Based on this analysis, the article assesses the main achievements and potential challenges to an effective implementation of the JPA.

Apart from national contestations, there has been some form of third-party involvement in the conflict and peace process in Sudan. Actors in the immediate region and internationally played the role of mediators in the peace efforts in Sudan. The international community played a role in negotiating the Comprehensive Peace Agreement in Sudan and other agreements. The Sudan government and armed groups are key actors in conflict and peace but there was hardly any negotiated peace that was reached without the involvement of regional and international actors. IGAD, the AU, and the UN were among key actors in the Juba Peace Agreement. Through the analysis of existing material, this contribution looks critically at the roles played by different actors in the process and how regional and international actors brought the interlocutors around the table. A key argument in the article is that mediators succeed in having parties sign agreements but play no significant role beyond that.

In any peace agreement, be it provisional or final, the rules devoted to the mechanism for overseeing, monitoring, and promoting its implementation are essential for guaranteeing a smooth transition to peaceful relations between the former opposing parties. This article focuses on the monitoring and implementation mechanisms foreseen by the 2020 Juba Peace Agreement (JPA). It examines the composition and the mandates of these mechanisms and critically analyzes the relevant rules of procedure codified in the various tracks of the JPA and the way they interact. The article depicts the complexity of the JPA and highlights the importance of consistent and coherent support from the international community.

A major strength of the historic Juba Peace Agreement (JPA) lies in its specific provisions relating to the displacement crisis in Sudan, particularly its commitment to tackling both its root causes and consequences. Nevertheless, even before the JPA was signed, there were questions from various stakeholders, including displaced persons, protesting their exclusion from the negotiations. This article examines the peace deal’s provisions relating to displaced persons, looking at the prospects, expected outcomes, gaps and challenges, and focusing on Darfur, a region with a long history of conflict-induced displacement. Examining the JPA within the framework of the new wars and new humanitarianism, it argues that for the agreement to achieve its stated goals, the issue of displacement must remain front and center throughout the implementation phase. Notably, the comprehensive character of the JPA, coupled with the multifaceted and “glocalized” nature of the crisis in Sudan, presents an ideal context for the Sudanese state and its international partners to work collaboratively to operationalize the much-vaunted security-humanitarian-development nexus approach, through which the plight of displaced persons can be effectively addressed.

This article evaluates women’s representation in the 2019–20 peace negotiations and the extent to which their interests are reflected in the Juba Peace Agreement. With East Sudan as a case study, this article explores women peacebuilders’ experiences at and around the peace table in Juba. Building on interviews conducted in 2021, this article argues that women’s inroads to the peace negotiations were tokenistic. Women’s substantive representation was hampered by the structure of the peace talks, which were divided into different geographical tracks. In a patriarchal context such as the East, this track model did not provide a de facto political space for women to exercise meaningful influence. As cultural norms in this region domesticate women, the women from the East did not enter the talks with a political track record and they were isolated from important support networks. Added to that, the article suggests further that tokenistic inclusion may even lead to backlash effects as female negotiators have to bear the responsibility for a peace agreement that resulted in tribally charged conflict.

The 2019 Sudanese revolution, which ushered in the ongoing transitional process, was driven by deep-seated governance deficits and unrelenting popular demands for meaningful democratic change and socioeconomic development. In general, elections are crucial for sustaining peace and stability in post-conflict/revolution settings. As such, political transitions regularly culminate in the holding of elections to address crises of institutional legitimacy. Thus, peace agreements often include provisions related to democratic electoral processes. This article examines the safeguards for electoral democracy enshrined in the Juba Peace Agreement (JPA). It offers an overview of the electoral landscape prior to the JPA, critically analyzes the provisions related to the question of elections set out in the JPA, and assesses the prospects for peaceful and participatory elections from the prism of the current pre-electoral context.

This briefing paper investigates both the role of the 2019 Constitutional Charter for the Transitional Period in facilitating the peace process and the impact of the 2020 Juba Peace Agreement on the drafting of a new (permanent) constitution and on the new balance of power in Sudan. In so doing, it puts the Sudanese peace process into the context of Sudan’s constitutional reforms and transition to democracy.