International Third Parties and the Implementation of Comprehensive Peace Agreements After Civil War

• Author: Johannes Karreth,Jason Quinn,Madhav Joshi,Jaroslav Tir
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.1177/00220027221113273
• Published date: 01 February 2023
• Date: 01 February 2023
• Subject Matter: Articles

Article

Journal of Conf‌lict Resolution

2023, Vol. 67(2-3) 494–521

© The Author(s) 2022

Article reuse guidelines:

sagepub.com/journals-permissions

DOI: 10.1177/00220027221113273

journals.sagepub.com/home/jcr

International Third Parties

and the Implementation of

Comprehensive Peace

Agreements After Civil War

Johannes Karreth

1

, Jason Quinn

2

, Madhav Joshi

2

, and

Jaroslav Tir

3



Abstract

Comprehensive peace agreements (CPAs) are the most impactful negotiated settle-

ments ending civil wars, but their implementation varies across post-conf‌lict countries

and over time. To explain varying implementation, this study identif‌ies central chal-

lenges in CPA implementation and suggests that international third parties are uniquely

positioned to overcome them. (1) IGOs with high economic leverage, and (2) prior

foreign aid both set incentives that reduce domestic barriers to implementation.

Quantitative evidence on the implementation of CPAs from 1989-2015 supports this

argument. Both post-conf‌lict countries’participation in IGOs with high economic

leverage and higher volumes of prior foreign aid are associated with higher rates of CPA

implementation. Multiple estimation approaches, including instrumental variables,

support this f‌inding. Case evidence from the 2007 CPA in Ivory Coast tracks the

processes by which IGOs and donors help overcome stakeholder resistance and

facilitate implementation. This f‌inding encourages more concerted efforts by policy-

makers to advance CPA implementation.

1

Department of Politics and International Relations, Ursinus College, Collegeville, PA, USA

2

Kroc Institute for International Peace Studies, University of Notre Dame, Notre Dame, IN, USA

3

Department of Political Science, University of Colorado Boulder, Boulder, CO, USA

Corresponding Author:

Johannes Karreth, Department of Politics and International Relations, Ursinus College, 216 Bomberger

Hall, 601 E Main St, Collegeville, PA 19426, USA.

Email: jkarreth@ursinus.edu

Keywords

civil wars, conf‌lict resolution, foreign aid, internal armed conf‌lict, international

organization, peace agreement

When implemented, comprehensive peace agreements (CPAs) are the most impactful

negotiated settlements ending civil wars. To explain why CPA implementation varies

between and within countries (Figure 1), this study argues that international third

parties can mitigate key challenges to implementation by providing credible prospects

of resources to post-conf‌lict countries. With civil wars only deepening economic

fragility (Gates et al., 2012), states relying on comprehensive peace agreements to

move beyond violent conf‌lict face serious resource constraints in implementing peace.

Lack of resources can drive stakeholder resistance to implementation. Two types of

third-party inf‌luence can address these challenges to implementation. IGOs with high

economic leverage from institutional structures, notable economic resources, and

permanent ties to member states (such as the World Bank, IMF, regional development

banks; see Table A2) help incentivize stakeholders to implement CPA stipulations.

Second, foreign aid can establish credible incentives toward CPA implementation when

prior aid delivery sets a baseline for expectations about future aid. Timely im-

plementation of CPAs has wide-ranging consequences for a variety of political, social,

and economic outcomes within a post-conf‌lict country and its region. Successful

implementation facilitates recovery and political stability. It even affects negotiations

between governments and armed groups outside of the CPA. At a time when the United

Nations and other international actors place more emphasis than ever on supporting

peacebuilding and post-conf‌lict recovery processes (Hauenstein and Joshi, 2020),

understanding how CPAs can be implemented successfully is key for policymakers and

scholars.

We outline how CPAs compare to other peace agreement types, note common

challenges to implementation, and show that credible international third-party material

resources are uniquely positioned to persuade reluctant domestic stakeholders to follow

through on CPA obligations. Empirical analyses of CPA implementation from 1989–

2015 support this argument, followed by case evidence from implementing Ivory

Coast’s Ouagadougou Political Agreement after 2007 and a brief discussion of ob-

stacles to implementation in Rwanda after 1993.

The Importance of Comprehensive Peace Agreements

Ceasef‌ire, partial peace, and implementation agreements can all be used to attempt to

stop civil wars (Kreutz, 2010). But we focus on CPAs for three key reasons. First, the

issues underlying civil wars are highly complex, necessitating effective peace

agreements to be multidimensional. CPAs outline the multifaceted policy reforms to be

implemented in the post-conf‌lict years, such as the resolution of grievances, power and

Karreth et al. 495