Search

In this article, building on the earlier research on procedural justice (PJ) and civil society inclusion, we assess the effectiveness of various civil society inclusion modalities based on their impact on durable peace (DP). A set of hypotheses concerning civil society inclusion is evaluated using the fifty-case peace agreement dataset assembled by Druckman and Wagner (2019). Their study showed that PJ was a key predictor of DP. We take their model as the base and add inclusion variables step by step using a hierarchical regression model. Results show that inclusive commissions (ICs) add significant explained variance to the prediction of DP. None of the other modalities add significant variance to the prediction. A possible explanation is that ICs ensure the continuation of civil society inclusion between the negotiation and implementation phases of a peace process. As well, they optimize breadth and depth in an inclusive negotiation process. The article concludes with discussions of next steps in the research and develops implications for policy makers. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This article argues that the scholarly study of "transfer" from track-two workshops to track-one negotiations is highly applicable to the study of transfer from other modalities of participation to track-one in inclusive peace negotiations. During the last decade, other approaches to make negotiations more inclusive have also been increasingly employed, such as national dialogue conferences, variety of consultation mechanisms, or a diverse set of peace commissions. In this paper, we aim to expand the conceptualization of transfer beyond ICR workshops and discuss how the knowledge accumulated concerning transfer in the ICR literature during the last decades can be applied to understand and evaluate transfer from other inclusion modalities used in peace negotiations today. We therefore make a distinction between the first generation of transfer (1.0) developed by the ICR workshops scholars and practitioners and the transfer process from other modalities used in inclusive negotiations (2.0). To apply the lessons learned from transfer 1.0 to 2.0, we start with an overview of the concept as developed in track-two literature. We then suggest a conceptualization of transfer 2.0, based on insights from how it has unfolded in five of the seven inclusion modalities examined in our comparative case study. We discuss the similarities and differences between transfer 1.0 and 2.0 and how transfer 2.0 can be studied, including and beyond track-two initiatives. We conclude by suggesting a number of directions for future research on transfer 2.0 that are relevant to several inclusion modalities. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]