Negotiating justice: Ceasefires, peace agreements, and post-conflict justice
| Date | 01 May 2020 |
| Published date | 01 May 2020 |
| DOI | 10.1177/0022343319879485 |
| Author | Joseph M Cox |
| Subject Matter | Regular Articles |
Negotiating justice: Ceasefires, peace
agreements, and post-conflict justice
Joseph M Cox
School of Government & Public Policy, University of Arizona
Abstract
Post-conflict justice is an integral component in maintaining stability and building peace in the aftermath of civil
conflict. Despite its instrumental function, scholars routinely find that policymakers’ choice of justice is shaped by
the structural conditions of the post-conflict environment, with outright victories leading to retributive forms of
justice and negotiated outcomes yielding restorative forms of justice. However, existing literature conflates ceasefires
and peace agreements into a single phenomenon, thereby overlooking the independent effects of each outcome.
Leveraging the dual sovereignty framework, this article argues the conflation of negotiated outcomes is problematic
because peace agreements and ceasefires generate different post-conflict environments. Relative to ceasefires, peace
agreements lead to a reduction in the degree of dual sovereignty because they resolve a conflict’s incompatibility,
thereby encouraging efforts to move society beyond war through restorative forms of justice. Due to the persistent
threat of recurrent war generated by high levels of dual sovereignty, policymakers following ceasefires will be inclined
to pursue retributive forms of justice that may target political opponents or potential defectors to bolster organiza-
tional strength. Statistical analyses confirm the underlying expectation that ceasefires and peace agreements yield
different post-conflict justice outcomes. Peace agreements, relative to ceasefires, are more likely to be followed by the
implementation of amnesties and reparations, whereas ceasefires exhibit a greater probability of yielding purges in the
post-conflict environment.
Keywords
civil war, conflict management/resolution, negotiated agreements, post-conflict justice, post-conflict reconstruction,
transitional justice
On 4 October 1992, the warring factions of Renamo and
Frelimo signed the Rome General Peace Accords, bring-
ing an end to a decades-long war in Mozambique that
resulted in the deaths of approximately 145,000 comba-
tants and nearly one million civilians (Domingues,
2011). Rather than seek accountability for individuals
responsible for wartime abuses, Mozambique’s leaders
sought to implement restorative justice measures, offer-
ing property reparations to refugees and internally dis-
placed persons while concurrently offering amnesties to
the war’s participants (Cobban, 2007; Binningsbø et al.,
2012). A reversal of this dynamic played out in Azerbai-
jan in 1994 when the state paused hostilities with the
Republic of Nagorno-Karabakh through a ceasefire
agreement (Wagner & Druckman, 2017). Although the
conflict ended through a negotiated settlement, neither
side implemented programs for reparations or amnesties;
rather, Azerbaijan’s government pursued charges of trea-
son against a former defense minister and military com-
mander for the surrender of territory during the conflict
(Cornell, 2011; De Waal, 2013). Similarly, the post-
conflict periods following the civil wars in Nepal and
Moldova, conflicts that ended with ceasefires in 1964
and 1992, respectively, were succeeded by trials rather
than efforts at restorative justice (Binningsbø et al.,
2012).
In these cases, the post-conflict governments faced a
crucial question concerning the means by which the state
Corresponding author:
josephmcox7@email.arizona.edu
Journal of Peace Research
2020, Vol. 57(3) 466–481
ªThe Author(s) 2019
Article reuse guidelines:
sagepub.com/journals-permissions
DOI: 10.1177/0022343319879485
journals.sagepub.com/home/jpr
and society would deal with wartime atrocities. Although
each conflict ended in a negotiated outcome, the post-
conflict justice outcomes diverge considerably across
conflicts. These cases raise important questions concern-
ing our understanding of post-conflict justice implemen-
tation. If the conflicts ended through negotiations
between the warring actors, why did the resultant gov-
ernments implement different post-conflict justice stra-
tegies? Why do some decisionmakers in post-conflict
states pursue accountability through retributive forms
of justice, while other policymakers seek programs cen-
tered around restorative justice mechanisms?
A recurring answer in the literature stems from the
recognition that the end of a conflict shapes what is
possible in the post-conflict environment (Flores &
Nooruddin, 2009; DeTommaso, Schulz & Lem,
2017). Recent research on the effect of conflict termina-
tion and post-conflict justice shows how military vic-
tories and negotiated outcomes may impact the
implementation of different forms of justice (Binningsbø
et al., 2012; Reiter, Olsen & Payne, 2013; DeTommaso,
Schulz & Lem, 2017; Kim & Hong, 2019). Within this
literature, multiple studies identify negotiated outcomes
as mechanisms leading to the implementation of restora-
tive forms of justice via truth commissions, amnesties,
and reparations over trials, exiles, or purges (Binningsbø
et al., 2012; DeTommaso, Schulz & Lem, 2017; Kim &
Hong, 2019). However, in identifying this relationship,
all of these studies treat ceasefires and peace agreements
as a single phenomenon, thereby overlooking the dispa-
rate effects of different types of negotiated instruments.
Departing from this conflation of concepts, I argue
that ceasefires and peace agreements create two distinct
types of post-conflict environments that impose different
constraints and offer divergent incentives to policy-
makers who are deciding whether to implement post-
conflict justice. Using the dual sovereignty framework
as a guide, I expect that post-conflict environments
marked with low levels of dual sovereignty provide pol-
icymakers with greater discretion and incentives to pur-
sue restorative justice mechanisms as compared to
periods of high dual sovereignty, which encourage the
implementation of retributive justice measures in an
effort to consolidate power in the event of renewed con-
flict. By resolving the critical incompatibilities, I argue
peace agreements are more likely than ceasefires to
reduce levels of dual sovereignty, ameliorating the will-
ingness and capacity of rebel groups to engage in further
conflict. Thus, I expect to observe restorative forms of
justice being adopted following peace agreements. Con-
versely, in the wake of ceasefires, policymakers intent on
maximizing power given the persistent threat of future
conflict will be more inclined to implement retributive
justice mechanisms. Leveraging data from the Post-
Conflict Justice dataset (Binningsbø et al., 2012), I find
modest support for ceasefires being more likely to lead to
the implementation of purges, indicating an aversion of
restoration in the face of potential recurrent conflict.
Conversely, the empirical analysis provides robust evi-
dence revealing that peace agreements are far more likely
than ceasefires to give way to the implementation of
amnesties and reparations in the post-conflict period.
This article contributes to the literature’s knowledge
of post-conflict justice and peacebuilding in three ways.
First, it calls into question the treatment of all negotiated
outcomes as being equivalent in the context of under-
standing post-conflict justice implementation. Second,
my theory shows how different post-conflict environ-
ments can incentivize the use of certain justice mechan-
isms to consolidate power when the risk of conflict
recurrence is high. Lastly, post-conflict justice has been
shown to exert positive effects on a number of different
outcomes, including peacebuilding (Cobban, 2007;
Druckman & Albin, 2011; Albin & Druckman, 2012;
Wagner & Druckman, 2017; Druckman & Wagner,
2019), economic development (Appel & Loyle, 2012),
democratization (Wiebelhaus-Brahm, 2010; Olsen,
Payne & Reiter, 2010), and human rights (Sikkink,
2011; Stewart & Wiebelhaus-Brahm, 2017). Given the
importance of post-conflict justice in these different
areas, a circumspect understanding of the forms these
justice regimes are likely to take, given the way in which
a conflict ends, can aid scholars and policymakers alike in
achieving a more sustainable peace.
Seeking justice in the post-conflict
environment
The literature on post-conflict justice often separates
individual forms of justice into two overarching con-
cepts: retributive justice and restorative justice (Clark,
2008; Lambourne, 2009; Olsen, Payne & Reiter,
2010; Kurze, Lamont & Robins, 2015; Loyle & Daven-
port, 2016; DeTommaso, Schulz & Lem, 2017). Gen-
erally, retributive justice frameworks seek to hold
individuals accountable for the perpetration of wartime
atrocities through an adversarial, formal legal process,
although the literature does include purges and exiles
within this category of justice processes (Lambourne,
2009; DeTommaso, Schulz & Lem, 2017). Restorative
justice mechanisms seek to unveil the truth behind war-
time atrocities in order to help society overcome the
Cox 467
To continue reading
Request your trial