Introduction
Many civil wars end with a peace agreement through which conflicting partners negotiate a settlement. At a
minimum, these agreements try to find solutions for laying down arms and offer a rough blueprint for the
future. Too often, however, State security remains the dominant focus, and accompanying transitional
mechanisms promoting reconciliation are viewed as secondary or apolitical concerns.
Common and persistent challenges to consolidating peace include low-level buy-in and political will among
signatories and key stakeholders, limited institutional capacity for holistic or long-term transformation, and a
lack of meaningful consequences for non-compliance. In our analysis, peace processes in areas of persistent
conflict also involves change at the level of social meanings, identities and relationships in ways that are
profound and inevitable but cannot be specifically described, controlled, or predicted. Most peace plans fail to
anticipate the depth or complexity of challenges, instead focusing on elite leadership concluding “once and for
all” agreements. The relative absence of mechanisms for ensuring that ongoing change can be supported - and
the absence of attention to devising vehicles, tools, instruments, mechanisms or plans to manage their
potentially significant effects - represents a major implicit risk, even to the limited peace after political
agreement.
Post-conflict scenarios are often characterized by the existence of ‘violent peace’ and ‘areas of violent peace.’
In some cases, the structure of peacemaking includes formerly violent veto-holders who subvert and resist
peacebuilding strategies. Additionally, instead of continuing their attempt to take over state power, other
actors, such as former guerillas or paramilitaries, often turn attention to filling power gaps in delimited
communities, creating parallel power systems in micro-territories (neighborhoods, suburban areas). The
failure of peace agreements to address critical causal factors in conflict, the culture of violence promoted
during conflict, the availability of weapons, the existence of illegal economies, the low level of effectiveness of
the police and other criminal justice institutions continually feed these dynamics.
With varying degrees of success numerous people, groups, and parties at different levels are committed to
peacebuilding and reconciliation, despite these difficulties and obstacles. Because of the potential impact on
the lives of entire societies, we are convinced that analyzing the factors that may hinder or promote
reconciliation for communities and societies is of the utmost and urgent importance.
Partners
The project brings together academic experts from several international institutions and universities
including Bradford University (UK), Brunel University (UK), Georgetown University (USA), Guernica 37
Group, The Ohio State University (USA), OSCE Academy (Kyrgyzstan), Philipps-University Marburg, Pontificia
Universidad Javeriana (Colombia), Queen’s University (Northern Ireland), Ulster University (Northern
Ireland), University of Basque Country (Spain), University of Deusto (Spain), University of Leuven (Belgium),
University College Stockholm, and Utrecht University (the Netherlands).
Purpose of Research
Our working assumption is that successful reconciliation efforts prevent the recurrence of violence and
contribute to building more secure, peaceful, and cohesive societies. Social and institutional change, however,
is rarely linear, and it can take decades. The efficacy of reconciliation efforts is multi-causal, influenced by a
myriad of actors, initiatives, and changing political eras. To better understand the interplay between these
dynamics, we have chosen the case studies of Northern Ireland, Colombia, and Basque Country. In each
context, enough time has passed since the peace process and peace agreement implementation to map and
analyze if, and in what ways, reconciliation has been successful. We will focus on two inter-connected axes of
reconciliation - vertical and horizontal processes – to analyze whether the (re)building of mutually respectful
relationships, reparations of harms, and the re-negotiation of a new, shared social, institutional, and political
reality is taking/has taken place.
Using a case study and comparative method, we will consider:
- The influence of international actors, frameworks, and law
- State-led processes (vertical)Local processes (horizontal)
- The interplay between international, national, and local processes
Core objectives of the study are to:
- Explore the beliefs and assumptions of different stakeholders about how reconciliation takes place, what
is required to achieve it, and if it has been achieved. - Identify factors that have hindered or promoted reconciliation efforts.
- Analyze the impact of synergies and interplay between different formal and informal reconciliation
interventions. - Seek explanations for the similarities and differences which we observe between the case studies.
Methodology
To identify similarities and differences in reconciliation processes, outcomes, and the factors that explain
them, this project will follow a Qualitative Comparative Analysis approach. Prior to the comparative, each case
study will be conducted independently and led by a country expert. Although the same questions will be
interrogated in each setting, the researcher or research team may choose from any number of methods
compatible to this approach including participant observation, archival research, in-depth or semi-structured
interviews, FGDs, survey analysis, discourse analysis, ‘outcome mapping’ and “Most Significant Change.” If
deemed appropriate, a mixed-method analysis can also be applied, especially if the instruments required are
available.
The specific and consistent research questions that will be asked across each case study during the peace and transitional process are:
- What were the conceptualizations, agendas, interests, and expectations for reconciliation from international,
national, and local stakeholders? - What institutions and mechanisms were formalized to support reconciliation efforts?
- Which informal mechanisms emerged to support reconciliation efforts?
- How and in what ways did international, national, and local actors/institutions influence each other and
impact reconciliation? - As a result, which reconciliation efforts have been successful, which efforts have not been, and why?
We believe the project is novel and can advance new knowledge because of the way it works at the
intersections of horizontal and vertical reconciliation efforts over an extended temporal context spanning two
decades of changing political eras. Further, the project employs a careful, nuanced comparative case study
analysis that balances specificity and universality to draw out more and less useful approaches to
reconciliation in conflict-affected settings. We recognize that peace processes are experimental; they pursue
reconciliation to differing degrees and in different ways. Because they are so highly contextual, there is
wariness in overgeneralizing their applicability elsewhere. Yet laying these case studies side by side and
comparing them systematically may help us identify responses or issues within reconciliation processes that
have been consistently constructive or problematic. It also offers opportunity to interpret the implications of
similarities/differences across case studies to guide future peace agreement, transitional justice, and
reconciliation efforts.