Normative Limits of Peace Negotiations: Questions, Guidance and Prospects
| Author | Martin Wählisch |
| DOI | http://doi.org/10.1111/1758-5899.12325 |
| Date | 01 May 2016 |
| Published date | 01 May 2016 |
Normative Limits of Peace Negotiations:
Questions, Guidance and Prospects
Martin W€
ahlisch
American University of Beirut/United Nations
Abstract
This article considers the issue of normative limits of peace negotiations as set in the existing international guidance for peace
mediators. Tensions between the aim for peace, justice and the protection of human rights in the crafting of conflict settle-
ments have been of increasing concern. Over the past decade the United Nations (UN) has been at the forefront of informing
and guiding mediators on the normative limits of peace agreements negotiated under UN auspices. This article provides an
overview of UN guidance addressing normative aspects and explores how these can impact on the negotiation process. It
then proposes questions for further reflection on this growing trend. Ultimately the article argues that understanding the role
of normative factors, especially legal parameters such as international human rights law and minority rights, can help to
strengthen the legitimacy and credibility of peace processes and their outcomes.
Policy Implications
•Governments, international organisations and non-state actors cannot ignore that normative limits are a critical factor in
peace negotiations.
•Peacemakers need to make conflict parties aware of normative boundaries.
•The UN and regional organizations should jointly initiate a Repertory of Practice of Peacemaking distilling and developing
normative directions for peace negotiations.
•However, there is a risk of over-regulation; some leeway is required to allow for creative solutions in peace negotiations.
1. Towards rules of engagement for
peacemakers?
In warfare, rules of engagement and military instructions set
out the conditions for the legitimate use of force and
explain legal limits for commanders on the battleground.
Armies maintain directives and doctrines that instruct their
troops about how armed conflict should be conducted and
how military operations can successfully enforce peace.
1
On
the other side, parties to a conflict often enter the negotia-
tion room empty handed without normative guidelines
when they try to broker an end to hostilities. Even in cases
where legal advisers are asked to glimpse over drafts of
peace agreements and frameworks for new constitutions,
political compromises tend to dominate solutions.
This article looks at the normative limits of peace negotia-
tions and existing international guidance for peace media-
tors. Tensions between the aim for peace, justice and the
protection of human rights in the crafting of conflict settle-
ments have been of increasing concern since the end of the
Cold War and the subsequent inflation of peace agreements
(Nystuen, 2005; Wallensteen and Sollenberg, 1997). The
measuring of normative ‘red lines’has recently gained
growing attention beyond the transitional justice perspec-
tive and its emphasis on constraints for unconditional
amnesties (Aroussia and Vandeginstea, 2013). Over the last
decade, the United Nations (UN) Secretariat has been at the
forefront of informing and guiding peace mediators man-
dated by the Secretary-General about the normative obsta-
cles and legal limits for peace agreements. This article
argues that understanding the role of normative factors,
especially legal parameters such as international human
rights law and minority rights, can indeed help to
strengthen the legitimacy and credibility of peace processes.
International practice shows that internal guidance for
peace mediators, resolutions of international organizations,
court decisions and other sources have created orientation
points that delimit the margin for conflict settlements. Some
scholars have called this sum of specific rules for peace pro-
cesses ‘lex pacificatoria’, the law of peacemakers (Bell, 2008),
but whether those normative directions already constitute a
stable body of principles can be contested. This article refers
to ‘normative limits’in a broad sense to emphasise that
possible boundaries can go even beyond law, including
moral obligations and informal codes of conduct. It includes
‘hard’international law standards that clearly have legal
status, and ‘soft’instruments such as guidance notes that
create normative contexts but are not legal obligations. In
practice, guidance notes often refer to principles and obliga-
tions of international law, such as international human
rights law or minority rights, while they themselves remain
internal instructions.
Global Policy (2016) 7:2 doi: 10.1111/1758-5899.12325 ©2016 University of Durham and John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
Global Policy Volume 7 . Issue 2 . May 2016 261
Special Section Article
To continue reading
Request your trial