Implementing the Peacemaking Covenant.
The Peacemaking Covenant is a living initiative - not a report to gather dust. Its principles need to be implemented in practice and to inform appropriate policies and programmes. The Principles for Peace follow-on mechanism will catalyse efforts to gain adherence and endorsement of the Covenant and its principles. The follow-on mechanism will also serve as a custodian of the Covenant and the partnerships around it. Its ultimate success will depend on renewed commitment, anchoring in the international system and continuous engagement to chart a path to lasting peace. The Covenant's eight principles are a broad guide to action not bound to any particular time, place or peacemaker. Their practical implementation in concrete policies and practices through the cocreation of codes of conduct or practical guidance will require careful reflection and tailoring to the specific settings in which different peacemaking actors operate. Following its launch, the Covenant will be presented in various forums to allow states and other stakeholders to pledge their support for the adoption and implementation of its principles. Efforts will promote uptake and anchoring of the Principles and the Covenant throughout the international system and regional bodies, and among key global actors. a The overall objective will be to work closely with, and draw deeply upon, policymakers' and practitioners' experiences and insights to cocreate practical guidance and/or codes of conduct to pinpoint the specific ways in which commitment to the Peacemaking Covenant can catalyse real change in peacemaking efforts. The goal is to move from what should be done to how can be achieved concretely; from rethinking principles to overcoming implementation challenges. it The launch of the Peacemaking Covenant is accompanied by the establishment of a Principles for Peace follow-on and implementation mechanism to catalyse global, regional, and local efforts to build support and buy-in, as well as to institutionalise, monitor and track the principles and the quality of peace processes. The Principles for Peace mechanism will maintain the participatory, collective and evidence-based nature of the effort behind the Covenant and will serve as the custodian and curator of the Covenant to bridge the knowledge practice gap.
The "howto" implications of the principles will vary according to the issues at stake and the actors involved in each context. The Principles for Peace follow-on mechanism will support efforts to embed the Covenant in national and/or local processes and assist in the cocreation of guidance and tools for relevant stakeholders in different constituencies and settings. The Covenant will work with those actors engaged in its practical implementation towards the longer-term objective of enhancing the accountability and sustainability of peacemaking at all levels. Monitoring and measurement of the quality of peace processes, uptake and adherence to the Covenant and its principles will include self-assessment and independent tools for different stakeholders, as well as overall assessments of peace processes and their outcomes. This will include periodic reviews and flagship reports.
The Principles for Peace initiative was conceived to fundamentally rethink the way peace processes are conceived and implemented and to establish a coherent set of principles, informal norms and guidance for how to structure, sequence and build more inclusive and sustainable peace processes. These standards and principles were to accomplish three goals: to become a mechanism to generate greater legitimacy, accountability and long-term oversight of peace processes and their subsequent implementation; to shape the incentives of national and international actors engaged in peacemaking and peacebuilding interventions; and to deliver strategic coherence to achieve sustainable peace outcomes. The task of designing a set of Principles for Peace that resonate globally, across different types of conflict and for different actors required a deep and iterative participatory approach. The principles must be shaped by complementary processes that blend extensive local inputs and lived experiences of conflict and peacemaking with cutting edge research and expert analysis. They must also be continually refined and validated so that what emerges is politically and practically feasible. Only then could the principles hope to respond to the need for a fundamental and comprehensive evolution in how all actors with a stake in peace think about and approach peacemaking processes, be they governments, local community and civil society groups, everyday citizens, armed actors, national elites, the media, private sectors actors, international agencies, or donor countries.
This article outlines the methodology behind the process, the main features of consultations and engagement with different constituencies and the key steps in the final articulation of the Peacemaking Covenant and the Principles for Peace.
The initiative was spearheaded by the International Commission on Inclusive
Peace (ICIP), whose members representa geographic balance and a diversity of
experiences. The commission provided thought leadership and led the global
consultation with the Principles for Peace secretariat process to develop new
international Principles for Peace over two years. The ICIP was explicitly and
deliberately a listening commission. Its work focused on global political
engagements that sought to give prominence to local perspectives, lived
experiences and everyday aspirations for peace. Members of the commission
were in frequent contact and convened seven times over two years to take stock
of the results of the consultations, research inputs, and findings from global
consultations. Commissioners also participated in global, regional and country
consultations, including country and regional visits in Jordan, Bosnia and
Herzegovina, Guatemala, the Philippines and Burundi to meet national
leadership, relevant policy makers and experts to discuss and validate the
principles.
The work of the ICIP was supported by an independent secretariat, hosted at the
Interpeace headquarters in Geneva. The secretariat and the ICIP were
supported by three enabling bodies. The stakeholder platform included diverse
organisations and networks spanning the conflict space to test and hone the themes emerging from the design process. A research committee was
established to support the design and production of knowledge products and
act as a critical sounding board and peer review body. An evidence consortium,
consisting of leading research organisations with expertise in specific relevant
thematic fields, further surveyed existing research on and practical experiences
with the principles. Finally, the initiative was bolstered by the support of
ministerial level steering committee with representatives from the
governments of Germany and Sweden and a representative of the host
organisation, Interpeace. The entire architecture and process were generously
supported and accompanied by the Governments of Denmark, Germany, the
Netherlands, Sweden and Switzerland and by the Robert Bosch Foundation
. 
The stakeholder platform brought together representatives of local, regional
and international organisations working in the wider peace ecosystem, research
institutes, private sector entities and other relevant networks. It accompanied
the work of the ICIP throughout by providing a sounding board in the process of
principle development. Members of the stakeholder platform had an integral
role in the global consultative process, with more than 20 member
organisations co-convening the work along different thematic tracks, carrying
out in-country consultations for the initiative, conducting in-depth contextual
and thematic studies and actively participating in workshops to provide
feedback on early drafts of the Peacemaking Covenant.2 Nearly all the work of
the initiative was carried out in collaboration with different members of the
stakeholder platform who shared the cost of the research and the consultations.
The stakeholder platform thus enabled and realised the participatory process
and was instrumental in amplifying the outreach and advocacy of the initiative.
The platform initially included 33 core members, and by November 2022 it had expanded to 43 members and 120 affiliated organisations. Members were diverse, including local and international organisations, practitioners, researchers, donor representatives, youth groups and women's groups. Beyond its work in the global participatory process, the platform met five times over the course of the initiative, providing important moments of reflection and critical review by ensuring that the emerging principles and policy proposals reflected the practical considerations and lessons learnt by practitioner organisations in different contexts.
The Principles for Peace research committee served as a sounding board and peer review body to accompany and support the work of the International Commission on Inclusive Peace and to anchor the emerging principles in evidence-based research. The research committee reviewed and validated research products and outputs and provided overall guidance to the initiative. Members of the committee also contributed by providing input papers to address gaps identified through the iterative process that provided a foundation for the commission's discussions and consultations. Research committee members were selected for their broad geographic and thematic representation, with a mix of senior and early career scholars covering diverse topics pertaining to the practical and policy aspects of peace and conflict. They represented leading academic institutions, think-tanks and research organisations engaged in studying, working with or advising on engagement with peace processes.
Evidence consortium With the support of the German Federal Foreign Office, a specialised evidence consortium was also established, consisting of research organisations with expertise in specific relevant thematic fields. They were then mandated to further survey existing research and practical experiences on the initial thematic issue areas. Their work helped create the knowledge base on peacebuilding and peacemaking experiences that could provide material for reflection and guidance to catalyse change among practitioners, governments and researchers. It aimed to bridge the gap between scholarly research and practice in the field and to ensure that the Principles for Peace and Peacemaking Covenant was rooted in a solid evidence and analysis base. Both the evidence consortium and the stakeholder platform helped create a space for conversation between researchers and practitioners to anchor the principles in research, practice and the lived experiences of people affected by conflict. In selecting partner organisations, the secretariat prioritised diverse thematic expertise in relation to the emergent themes identified through the initial consultation and desk reviews. The members of the evidence consortium, in addition to the individual scholars who collaborated with the initiative, represented cutting edge thinking in their respective thematic areas. Their involvement ensured the initiative acknowledged and valorised the positive experiences of the field, building upon already existing bodies of knowledge without "reinventing the wheel". They also played an important part in building support for and broader ownership of the principles, to contribute towards the wider aim of shifting policies and practices of peacemaking.
With this infrastructure, the initiative worked through three complementary,
multi-stakeholder and iterative approaches. These three are best considered as
"anchors", safeguarding the procedural comprehensiveness and quality of the
principles' incremental design and articulation. The three anchors were
1. Consultations with local, regional and global members of civil society (including youth and women peacebuilders, and traditional and religious peacemakers), parliamentarians, non-state armed groups, as well as with ordinary citizens directly affected by conflict, to elicit genuine societal perspectives. This work was led by members of the stakeholder platform.
2. Carrying out cutting edge research to anchor the process in evidence. This was guided by the evidence consortium and leading peace and conflict scholars, as well as the research committee comprising eminent scholars to provide expert inputs and peer review of emerging themes and principles.
3. Navigating operational dilemmas and realpolitik considerations by soliciting expertise from a stakeholder platform of more than 120 practitioner organisations in the field of peacemaking, conflict resolution and peacebuilding and drawing from the high-level political experiences of the members of the International Commission on Inclusive Peace itself.
This exercise of evidence building ensured the methodology was deliberative
and inclusive, reflecting the initiative's core belief that addressing today's
peacemaking challenges requires engagement by the broadest spectrum of
relevant actors.
The multipronged approach followed the logic of grounded theory,5 bringing
together different experiences and perspectives on how to build peace via deep
and iterative consultations with a wide and diverse network of organisations
and individuals, ranging from those at the highest political levels to everyday
citizens. As a result, the ultimate articulation of the Principles for Peace
emerged from a genuinely participatory and multi-stakeholder process.
The process followed three iterative phases (Figure 3).
These are described in
depth in the rest of this article.
The process of development of the Principles for Peace began with an thorough
evidence mapping exercise conducted by the secretariat to identify
shortcomings in the current peacebuilding ecosystem. This entailed the
systematic review of 270 articles and reports. In addition, a series of in-depth
case studies of past peacebuilding processes were conducted in early 2021, with
Inclusive Peace leading the work on a study of the Aceh peace process
Indonesia, while Trias produced case studies in the contexts of Northern Ireland
and the Sudan.
Another method used was social listening. This entailed analysing publicly
available data to gain insights into everyday online conversations around a
topic. The methodology allows for identification of resonant themes and
patterns of behaviour among key individuals and of the online structures
through which they communicate and operate. This approach gathered and
analysed more than 93 000 individuals' insights on peace processes.
Thematic lines of consultation
Multiple initial themes emerged through this exploration. At the first meeting
of the international commission in January 2021, findings from the global
consultations and an initial literature review were presented as background
material for discussion. The aim of the conversation was to identify thematic
tracks to guide the work of the Commission. This led to six initial themes for
further development that reflected the three anchors behind the design - they
were based on genuine societal perspectives, rooted in evidence and able to
navigate realpolitik considerations and operational challenges. These themes
were:
1. sustainability
2. local ownership and responsibility
3. stabilisation and security actors
4. pluralism and inclusion 5. institutionalisation, tools and monitoring
6. values and cultural integrity.
To situate these themes within current peace and conflict realities, partnerships
were formed to begin a process of co-convening.
On questions of sustainability, the initiative partnered with the United Nations Development Programme and explored the interconnections of
humanitarian action development aid and peace with the Inter-AgencyStanding Committee.
A series of consultations engaging peace activists and practitioners
working in different country contexts on the theme of local ownership
was co-designed with Peace Direct and organised through the
Platform4Dialogue. The series of three consultations brought together
more than 360 people from more than 45 countries.
On stabilisation, the Principles for Peace initiative drew upon the
consultative process of the Rethinking Stability initiative at Interpeace,
which allowed for mutually beneficial cross fertilisation between the two
initiatives.
On security actors, two partnerships served as avenues for exploration.
The Centre for the Study of Armed Groups at the Overseas Development
Institute convened a group of experts on the study of non-state armed
actors and consulted directly with members of non-state armed groups.
The Montreal Institute for Genocide and Human Rights Studies explored
the role of security actors through a series of six consultations focused on
different angles of the question including politics, spirituality, social
media and disinformation, the role of children in conflict, and the
security sector more widely.
A deeper interrogation into the meaning and concepts behind pluralism
was initiated in collaboration with the Global Center for Pluralism.
Regarding questions of institutionalisation, particularly as it relates to
maximising the prospects for success, a partnership was formed with the
Centre on Conflict,
Regarding questions of institutionalisation, particularly as it relates to
maximising the prospects for success, a partnership was formed with the
Centre on Conflict, Development & Peacebuilding at the Geneva
Graduate Institute.
In terms of tools and monitoring, an initial exploration of issues relating
to measuring peace, as well as potential strategies for monitoring, was
carried out by the Joan B. Kroc Institute for Peace and Justice at the
University of San Diego.
In addition to the thematic tracks of the commission's work, the ICIP and the
secretariat considered it important to have dedicated lines of engagement with
key constituencies and stakeholder groups. This targeted engagement enabled
the principles to build on and contribute to the ongoing work on policy agendas
such as those on Youth, Peace and Security and Women, Peace and Security. It
also ensured that the perspectives of key stakeholders who are often not
involved in shaping policies could influence the development of the Principles for Peace. This will increase the chances of uptake across the peace and security
community and beyond. Moreover, engagement with these constituencies
contributed to avoiding the "siloing" of different thematic tracks through
cross-cutting considerations.
As with the thematic work, the initiative again formed partnerships for
co-convening.
Through a two-part dialogue co-organised with Search for Common Ground,
young practitioners, activists and leaders engaged in an intergenerational
dialogue with the ICIP and shared their experiences, lessons learnt and
recommendations for future policy and standards for peace processes and
youth, peace, and security.
In addition, building on the social listening study, the initiative designed a
non-traditional track to engage a broad section of youth globally through social
media. This contributed to expanding the initiative beyond the more
institutionally oriented youth involved in the Youth, Peace and Security
Agenda. Live broadcast events on social media included direct polling and
engagement with the audience, led by commissioner Ilwad Elman, who has a
large youth social media following.
To further deepen the engagement of young people in the development of the
principles, the initiative partnered with the Kofi Annan Foundation and two
youth-led organizations, 180 Grad Wende in Germany and HIVE Pakistan, who
implemented youth-focused consultations to gather input from youths in both
rural and urban areas. The organisations deliberately mapped and targeted
marginalised young people, ensuring representation of various religions,
genders, ethnicities and socio-economic backgrounds.
Governing institutions and legislative and political bodies such as parliaments
play a crucial role in enabling lasting peace. Yet their role is often overlooked.
Perspectives of members of these institutions need to be part of reshaping
global and national approaches to peace. To that effect, the initiative partnered
with the Inter-Parliamentary Union (IPU) to engage parliaments and
parliamentarians in the development of the principles.
Meanwhile, members of the International Civil Society Action Network and the
Women's Alliance for Security Leadership (WASL) joined working group
discussions on different themes and issues to contribute their insights and
experiences as women peacebuilders. Members of WASL were also consulted
directly in the development of the principles.
Finally, together with the Network for Traditional and Religious Leaders, the
initiative organised 15 online consultations in different languages and different
regions of the world, including the Middle East and North Africa (MENA), sub-Saharan Africa, South America and Central America, and Asia.
This line of engagement took place between October 2021 and October 2022
and was particularly relevant for exploring questions relating to values and
cultural integrity due to traditional and religious actors' centrality in many
cultural practices and their position as arbiters of cultural norms.
The work of each thematic track started with a draft analytical paper on the
"state of play" and practical dilemmas relating to each theme. For the themes of
sustainability, local ownership and responsibility, and stabilisation and security
actors, the Principles for Peace secretariat drafted conversation starters, while
for the other themes, respective partner organisations took the lead, drawing on
their topical expertise. The dilemmas, challenges and tension points provided
the basis for conversation and consultation through the thematic tracks.
In addition to the thematic research, the ICIP felt it necessary to gain a better
understanding of the changing peace and conflict landscape to ensure that the
Principles for Peace would be fit for purpose. To this effect, three members of
the research committee provided an overview of the most important factors,
key trends and changes that will shape peace and conflict in the coming decades
and how these impact the development of the Principles for Peace and the work
of the commission. They represented different geographic vantage points from
Africa, the Middle East and Asia. The findings touched upon the following
topics: 1) the changing geopolitical environment and its impact on dominant
approaches to peacebuilding; 2) the changing nature of conflict; 3) how
understandings of peace have changed and the changing role of the
international community in enabling peace; 4) the climate-peace nexus, and 5)
how technology is affecting conflict dynamics and, in particular, the ways in
which digitalisation impacts conflict and peace, both positively and negatively.
Forward-looking research was also conducted on how best to maximise the
initiative's political and operational impact through the working track on
institutionalisation. To that end, the Centre on Conflict, Development and
Peacebuilding undertook a review of past policy initiatives and international
commissions. The study concluded that similar initiatives and commissions in the past have taken a long time to succeed and have required long-term
strategies and follow-through. This demonstrated that beyond a flagship
report, successful initiatives have coherent visions and theories of change for
achieving long-term impact. In addition to contextual factors (e.g. timing),
success seems to require:
1. simple and clearly articulated new concepts, principles or key
messages to challenge an existing paradigm
2. an institutional target audience (or targets) for change (global,
regional or local) in which new norms and principles could be
embedded and implemented on the ground
3. a core of powerful advocates (states and/or transnational civil society
actors) to advocate for and promote the new principles
4. a strong foundation of evidence to support the paradigm shift.
This study informed the initiative's process by providing a reference point
against which to weigh the likelihood of long-term success. So, many of the
success factors could be "baked into" the design of the iterative process. These
included maintaining a broad consultative process, rigorously using evidence
and actively building a core of powerful advocates. The study, furthermore,
reaffirmed the commission's and the secretariat's belief in the need to design
and establish a follow-up mechanism and strategic capability that could ensure
the principles are advocated for, operationalised and monitored.
From the outset, therefore, the principles were designed to be more than words
on a page. Instead, the Principles for Peace initiative sought ways to explicitly
induce and catalyse policy and programmatic change. This directly shaped the
broader consultations in the second stage ofthe process, where the key findings
regarding best practices in peacebuilding and peacemaking were articulated as
principles.
As multiple themes were explored and specific proposals started to emerge, the
secretariat and the commission sought to review and synthesise them
systematically, grouping similar ideas under emerging concepts for further
discussion and validation.
The various consultations and convenings increasingly served as a reality check
to test the practical feasibility and political relevance of the emerging concepts
and the proposals associated with them. This lent itself to continuous evaluation and evolution of the concepts. This phase entailed
managing several complementary methods to elicit feedback from a broad
range of stakeholders. This included holding iterative consultations with
women's organisations, youth groups, government representatives,
peacebuilders, human rights organisations, humanitarians, academics,
non-state armed groups, parliamentary groups, religious groups, the private
sector and multilateral organisations.
Much of the work in this phase took place through parallel working groups that
delved into the initial themes. Groups were led by a member of the international
commission and included expert representatives from research and practitioner
organisations relevant to each theme. This working group process facilitated
dialogues between actors that would otherwise not likely find the political and
operational space in which to collaborate. This included dialogues between
people affected by conflict and political actors at the highest national and
multilateral levels; and between in-country peace practitioners and senior
research scholars. This iterative back-and-forth kept the emergent concepts
inclusive and repeatedly validated, and the articulated principles that followed
both politically relevant and normatively driven.
As an illustration, the emerging concepts of hybridity and legitimacy were
discussed in relation to the theme of security actors. The Centre for the Study ofArmed Groups produced a paper focused on engaging non-state armed groups
as an essential part of violence reduction and conflict resolution. The study was
informed by an expert group convening and interviews with members of
non-state armed groups and helped the principles articulate a nuanced concept
of hybridity and legitimacy.
Parallel to this consultative process, two additional cross cutting areas of
exploration were identified at this stage. These two themes - environment and
peace and the digital space and peace - were reviewed by research committee
members and specialists. Research products confirmed that these were vital
domains for the present and future of peace but were better reflected as
cross-cutting issue areas.
In addition to its consultations, the initiative used incubation spaces oriented
towards a concrete context or point of reference that allowed for a more
detailed exploration regarding the key decisions and scenarios affecting the
peace process from various vantage points. Often, those taking part in the
conversation had been involved in decision-making affecting the peace process
in a particular context. This helped bring to the fore the assumptions,
incentives and constraints that inform the moment of decision making. The
conversations in incubation spaces were conducted under the Chatham House
rule to ensure a safe space to discuss sensitive issues.
The incubation space on stabilisation was launched in co operation with the
Rethinking Stability Initiative. More than 60 high level participants, including
representatives from foreign offices, the United Nations, the African Union and
the European Union, as well as international and national NGOs, took part in
the session examining the flaws of current approaches. Under the leadership of
General Roméo Dallaire, a member of the ICIP, a common theme emerged
around the notion of integration between actors and sectors (as opposed to
merely collaboration or co ordination). In essence, integration denoted the
importance of actors having a shared responsibility based on mutual respect,
humility, and equal partnership.
An incubation space on sustainability and long-term solutions was
co-organised with the China Foreign Affairs University as a dialogue between
Chinese scholars and the ICIP. This was part of a series of engagements with
China and the broader Asia Pacific region, focusing on alternative approaches
to peacebuilding. This included reflecting on the risks and benefits of hybrid
peacebuilding models and political orders that, at times, called into question
the existing dominant peacemaking model.
Another incubation space focused on the key decisions and moments that led to
the current conflict situations in Somalia and in Afghanistan. Two perspectives
were presented to ground the conversation - one from an insider's point of view
from the local perspective, while another presented the point of view of an
"outsider". The conversations focused on what principles or shifts could have
made a difference in these situations.
Gradually, the focus shifted from exploration to refinement. Multiple
consultations were organised, with some returning to previously consulted constituencies and others engaging new ones. For example, the Berghof
Foundation conducted an in-depth country case study on Colombia which
utilised a desk review and expert consultations including workshops, focus
group discussions and key informant interviews. The study reflected directly
on the initiative's emerging concepts and assessed their validity in relation to
the peace process in Colombia. Its findings largely resonated with the need to
view peace processes as long-term, non-linear, multi-stakeholder processes
reaching beyond the parties to the conflict.
In addition, hosted by the Shared Society and Values Foundation Sarajevo, a
delegation from the commission met with the Head of State and a cross-section
of society including youth activists, parliamentarians, women's organisations,
civil society organisations and religious leaders in Bosnia and Herzegovina in
February-March 2022. Taking place under the shadow of the war in Ukraine, the
conversations underlined the challenges to peace in the country and the
current concerns of its population. Discussions revolved around the Dayton
Agreement and its impact on the current political situations, as well as the
current geopolitical environment. The incubation space demonstrated that,
without a mechanism for revising or revisiting a power-sharing agreement, the
risk of locking in conflict drivers existed. Overall, people in Bosnia and
Herzegovina believed that the Dayton Agreement, while successful in halting
the violence, has entrenched ethnic divisions and has not allowed for a
continued process of transformation. Furthermore, the power-sharing
arrangement has seemingly legitimised corruption by institutionalising a
"division of spoils" approach to peace, resulting in a widespread lack of faith in
political processes.
Another incubation space was arranged in Berlin, prior to the fourth convening
of the ICIP in March 2022. Participants engaged with different readings of the
current peace and conflict landscape and discussed the policy shifts required to
address the current and future challenges. The workshop brought together
perspectives from scholars, policy makers, diplomats, peacebuilders, mediation
practitioners and civil society actors. Most participants were from partner and
stakeholder organisations. The insights reaffirmed the centrality of legitimacy
in peace processes and the associated legitimacy deficit in terms of who is
involved in peace processes and how, as well as what peace delivers to the people. Similarly, subsidiarity was discussed
as a potential criterion for clarifying complementary and differentiated forms
of responsibility. The case of Bosnia and Herzegovina was also discussed,
particularly as it relates to moving beyond simplistic or romanticised readings
of the "local" and the international. Conversations in Bosnia and Herzegovina
had underlined the complexity of the relationship between international
community and national actors, whereby participants simultaneously
problematised both over- and under-involvement by internationals.
Taking stock of the findings from the iterative process - including research
papers, deliberations from the working groups and incubation spaces, country
consultations and case studies - the relationship between each of the emerging
concepts and policy shifts became clearer. As this relationship was investigated,
a common appreciation of legitimacy as a central principle for peace emerged,
in terms of both its ends and the means through which it is built. This remained
a constant from this point forward. Beyond the "legitimacy deficit", the findings
indicated that peace processes often break down because of their exclusive
nature or their inability to generate a process to transform the root causes of
conflict.
As concepts were further refined, the importance of contextual approaches, of
long-term engagements and of adaptability also became central to the
emerging articulation of the principles. It became clear that delivering on the
emergent notions called for much more openness to embrace hybrid and
integrated approaches. This meant space had to be made for approaches that
acknowledge the reality of multiple and different sources of power within
given context.
a
Building on these conclusions, the secretariat and the International
Commission on Inclusive Peace turned their attention to articulating what
"shifts" were needed in the current approaches to peacemaking to overcome
these deficits.
Through think-pieces, iterative feedback sessions with the
secretariat, working group deliberations, and discussions among commission
members, four necessary shifts were articulated:
1. longer-term, dynamic, adaptive peace processes.
2. local and international actors working better together
3. peace processes that can contribute to reconfiguring state-society
relations
4. supporting more constructive interaction between social groups
To capture how these concepts fit together, the secretariat and the ICIP agreed
to articulate the findings in the form of the Peacemaking Covenant. Drafting
this covenant and opening it up for critique, revisions and improvements were
the primary tasks in phase 3. The research committee played a significant role
here. They provided time, expertise, access to networks, and peer reviews,
ensuring the analytic rigour of the outputs. The chair of the research committee
and the secretariat continuously fed the results of the global consultations and
research into updated articulations of the covenant to ensure it reflected the
iterative deliberations. The secretariat and members of the research committee
then presented progress at the fourth meeting of the International Commission
on Inclusive Peace, in March 2022.
At this stage, to understand how this feedback affected the draft principles,
members of the research committee were tasked with investigating the
conceptual underpinnings of the principles. This entailed think-pieces delving
into the debates behind the principles, seeking to clarify what was meant by
them, given that some of the terms are contested, complex or both. As in the
earlier phases, this work also maintained a pragmatic focus on how each
principle could be practically useful.
Incorporating contrasting opinions and feedback coming from the consultations was a challenging endeavour. There were compromises and trade-offs along the path of honing the Principles for Peace to reconcile multiple and differing normative standards and practical approaches espoused by participants. However, it is precisely from this process that the principles derive their strength and legitimacy: they have been inclusively designed and are anchored in evidence, meticulously validated by expert analysis, and they reflect people's diverse needs and lived experiences. They are politically feasible, pragmatic and practical and explicitly depart from the language and assumptions behind "liberal peacebuilding", embracing instead co-creation and partnership rather than top-down solutions. In so doing, they provide a unifying framework able to wed a forward-looking set of principles to improved ways for all actors to put them into practice.
Contextual testing
Following the commission's visit to Bosnia and Herzegovina, which provided
valuable insights and in depth contextual field knowledge that helped enrich
the emerging principles, the secretariat and commissioners saw the need for
demonstrating a "proof of concept" through an examination of additional
regional and country cases. Individual commissioners subsequently
participated in country visits to meet relevant experts to discuss and validate
the specifics of the principles. Country selection was based on a matrix of
countries with current or recent (within 30 years) peace processes, including
both those struggling with cyclical violence and those that had successfully
established positive peace, as well as a wide geographical representation.
Countries were also ranked on their estimated levels of state fragility (low,
moderate or high), their degree of accessibility (poor, good or passing), the
possibility to establish a local partnership to host a consultation, and the
commissioners' familiarity and experience in the context.
An incubation space was organised in Amman (Jordan) in June 2022, bringing
together the ICIP, research committee members, and political actors, diplomats,
mediators, peacebuilders, academics, and civil society from the wider MENA
region. The incubation space was co-hosted by the Swedish Dialogue Institute
for the Middle East and North Africa. The session focused on analysing flaws
and opportunities in the current practice of peacemaking and peacebuilding
from a regional perspective. As with all validation sessions, participants
engaged with the working version of the covenant to reflect on its resonance
based on their personal and professional experience. Overall, participants
agreed that the contents of the covenant resonated with their different
contexts. Participants, moreover, appreciated the opportunity to shape the
principles rather than being invited to "rubber stamp" them. It is worth noting
that while the word subsidiarity was somewhat alien to workshop participants,
the fundamental idea behind the concept - the desire to move decision making
as close as possible to those who live with its consequences - was welcomed.
Participants, however, highlighted the importance of thinking about the
transfer of responsibility closer to the people as a process that takes
considerable time and that should not be equated with a delegation of
responsibility without accountability. It was noted that one of the key
challenges in Libya is that nobody has been held responsible for failure. An
approach utilising the principle of subsidiarity could provide clarity on
responsibility and accountability throughout the process.
The second incubation space was conducted during the country visit of the
International Commission on Inclusive Peace to Guatemala in July 2022. For the
visit and incubation space, the Principles for Peace secretariat partnered with
Fundación Propaz. The delegation met with a cross section of society including
representatives of indigenous groups, the peace secretariat, members of
congress, government representatives and former and future presidential
candidates, women's groups, youth, and private sector representatives. The
discussions revolved around the peace processes in Guatemala as well as the
draft Peacemaking Covenant. Principles such as pluralism were seen as
particularly relevant considering that inequality and structural racism continue
to be deeply engrained in Guatemalan society. The need to rethink partnerships
and international engagement resonated, especially considering a sense of
abandonment by the international community following the signature of the
agreement. It was highlighted that the covenant should focus more on criminal
violence and the political economy of conflict as key obstacles to achieving
lasting and legitimate peace. Similarly, a mechanism for continued dialogue,
something akin to a "coalition of the responsible" to ensure implementation and
continued legitimacy of the process, was brought up as a notion that should be
explored further.
A similar visit took place to the Philippines in October 2022, co-organised with
the Global Partnership for the Prevention of Armed Conflict, Initiatives for
International Dialogue and the Gaston Z. Ortigas Peace Institute. The session
brought together participants from the region, including from Aceh (Indonesia),
Timor Leste and Thailand, as well as those who had been integral to the
Bangsamoro peace process in the Philippines. Participants highlighted that the
target audience of the covenant should be defined more clearly. Many argued
that they are already abiding by the principles and that their work was already
effectively guided by them. While participants argued that the covenant is an
important document that formalises and combines the different principles, they
stressed that the covenant should avoid being interpreted as dismissing the
work of local actors, many of whom feel that their work is already consistent
with what is being proposed. They stressed that the principles seem more
relevant for international actors who often do not act in accordance with the
principles. Moreover, participants suggested that the humility principle could be
strengthened by more focus on the importance of respect. While part of the
dignity principle, participants argued that respect for the work of local actors
needs to also be part of the humility principle.
A further visit was carried out to Burundi in November 2022, where the focus
was forward-looking in focusing on the potential to and anticipated challenges
of promoting the policy shifts proposed in the Peacemaking Covenant.
Meanwhile, a regional validation session, complemented by in-depth
interviews, was organised by the Berghof Foundation in October 2022, bringing
together peace activists from various Latin American countries. The co-creation aspects of the Principles for Peace and of the PeacemakingCovenant were paramount throughout the various visits, which included a
combination of in-depth consultations, incubation space discussions with
peacemakers, desk reviews and key-informant interviews. Each of these
approaches was used to validate and elaborate on the form and function of the
principles, with particular care taken to ensure that what was being designed
was relevant to different experiences of peace and conflict.
Input was also sought from specific constituencies. Sessions were held with
young people, youth organisations, women peacebuilders, gender experts,
peace mediators, security sector actors, peacebuilding organisations,
traditional and religious peacemakers, and many more, each of whom provided
feedback on draft versions of the covenant. For example, an incubation space
bringing together conflict prevention and mediation practitioners,
co-organised with the International Crisis Group, was held in Geneva in
September 2022. Participants included members of mediation organisations,
such as the Centre for Humanitarian Dialogue, the Martti Ahtisaari Peace
Foundation, the European Institute of Peace and the Berghof Foundation,
which are members of the Principles for Peace stakeholder platform, in addition
to the Dialogue Advisory Group, which includes representatives of regional and
international organisations such as the European External Action Service, the
Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe, and the Department of Political and Peacebuilding Affairs of the United Nations, as well as donor
representatives from Denmark, Germany, Sweden and the United Arab
Emirates. Two research committee members and two members of theInternational Commission on Inclusive Peace also joined the incubation space.
Participants overall viewed the covenant as a timely and forward-looking proposal for an international community which is trying to reorient itself amid amid various new challenges. Many participants noted the importance of the covenant's emphasis being placed on local actors, structures, agency, and
discourses - without romanticising them - and of its proposal to encourage
productive collaboration between international, national and local actors under
the banner of "hybrid and integrated approaches". Participants called for more
conceptual clarity. They also pointed out that the shortcomings of mediation
processes are not only a result of exclusive processes or lack of attention to
necessary long-term transformation. The increasingly complex conflict context
also partially explains limited success. Power disparities, geopolitical tensions
and the fragmentation of armed groups undermine attempts to conclude
negotiated settlements. Participants also emphasised the need to acknowledge
the continued relevance of power-sharing and elite pacts - as a necessary, but
not sufficient, condition for peace. Finally, participants wished to see more
connections and anchoring in existing norms and policy documents - to reflect
that the covenant is part of a wider evolution in policy and programme thinking
and practice.
Similar validation sessions were held with youth, together with Interpeace. In
addition, four validation sessions in different languages, targeting traditional
and religious peacemakers across different regions of the world, were organised
with the Network for Traditional and Religious Leaders.
The feedback received through the validation and consultation sessions on the one hand, and reviews of the covenant drafts on the other, were reflected in a matrix that captured different inputs and outlined the decisions taken and revisions adopted. The main categories of feedback related to: 1) delineating more clearly the document's target audience; 2) the plan for its implementation and function as an accountability tool as well as the process for developing its implications for different actors; 3) the tensions between the principles and their interrelationships; 4) explaining how the covenant is positioned vis-à-vis those who are not necessarily invested in peace, as well as wider considerations relating to questions of power and politics. In October 2022, the final principle, accountable security, was introduced. It drew together existing elements in the draft covenant and served to recognise the feedback on its own importance, which was common across various consultations. The articulation of the principle of accountable security sought to bring considerations around security and power closer to the forefront of the Peacemaking Covenant, to ensure its practical relevance for current and
pressing challenges. Finally, during the concluding rounds of feedback from the
commissioners on the draft of the covenant, it was agreed to include a section
of further reflections on the practical implications of the principles, along with
their linkages with cross-cutting and future-oriented themes including the
digital space, the environment and sustainable development. By doing so, the covenant aims to pave the way for the next phase of the Principles for Peace
initiative and to lay the ground for the uptake and implementation of the policy
shifts proposed by the Peacemaking Covenant.
Comments
Post a Comment