Introducing PA-X: A new peace agreement database and dataset
| DOI | 10.1177/0022343318819123 |
| Published date | 01 May 2019 |
| Author | Sanja Badanjak,Christine Bell |
| Date | 01 May 2019 |
| Subject Matter | Special Data Features |
Special Data Feature
Introducing PA-X: A new peace agreement
database and dataset
Christine Bell
School of Law, University of Edinburgh
Sanja Badanjak
School of Law, University of Edinburgh
Abstract
This article introduces PA-X, a peace agreement database designed to improve understanding of negotiated pathways
out of conflict. PA-X enables scholars, mediators, conflict parties and civil society actors to systematically compare
how peace and transition processes formalize negotiated commitments in an attempt to move towards peace. PA-X
provides an archive and comprehensive census of peace agreements using a broad definition to capture agreements at
all phases of peace processes in both intrastate and interstate conflict, from 1990 to 2016. These comprise ceasefire,
pre-negotiation, substantive (partial and comprehensive), and implementation agreements, disaggregated by coun-
try/entity, region, conflict type, agreement type and stage of agreement totalling over 1,500 agreements in more than
140 peace and transition processes. PA-X provides the full text of agreements, and qualitative and quantitative coding
of 225 categories relating to politics, law, security, development and implementation. Data can be aggregated or
merged with conflict datasets, effectively providing many datasets within one database. PA-X supports new com-
parative research on peace agreements, but also on peace processes – enabling tracing of how actors and issues change
over time – to inform understandings of conflict termination. We illustrate PA-X applications by showing that an
intricate peace process history correlates with reduced likelihood of conflict recurrence, and that cumulative
provisions addressing elections see the quality of subsequent post-conflict elections improve.
Keywords
conflict, database, dataset, peace agreements, peace process
Introduction
Since the end of the Cold War, negotiated ends to con-
flict have been a key modality for addressing violent
conflict (Doyle & Sambanis, 2000; Fortna, 2004;
Kreutz, 2010). While informal commitments to peace
are important, formal legalized public agreements help
resolve the inability of warring sides to credibly commit
(Hartzell & Hoddie, 2003; Walter, 1997, 2002). An
agreement’s use of legalized language, its legal status,
public availability and formality, can increase the reputa-
tional risks associated with breach; precision of drafting
can bring clarity, making breach easier to identify and
address; and provision for third-party monitoring can
provide external enforcement (Abbott, Keohane &
Moravcsik, 2000; Bell, 2006). For these reasons, research
is burgeoning on how peace agreements address conflict
issues (Ansorg, Haass & Strasheim, 2016; Binningsbø &
Rustad, 2012; Matanock, 2017; Joshi, Melander &
Quinn, 2017; Martin, 2013; Mattes & Savun, 2009;
Ottman & Vu
¨llers, 2015).
However, the field has lacked a comprehensive dataset
for investigating peace agreements on their own terms as
tools for mediating ends to diverse types of conflict (de
Waal, 2017). We have had no systematic global data on
when and how peace and transition processes produce
Corresponding author:
christine.bell@ed.ac.uk
Journal of Peace Research
2019, Vol. 56(3) 452–466
ªThe Author(s) 2019
Article reuse guidelines:
sagepub.com/journals-permissions
DOI: 10.1177/0022343318819123
journals.sagepub.com/home/jpr
To continue reading
Request your trial