Abstract:
The paper explores the question why peace processes succeed or fail. As a starting point for answering this puzzle, I argue that the form of an intervention is a crucial factor to explain the success or failure of a peace agreement. Thus, approaches focussing on conflict settlement are considered to be less likely to lead to an enduring peace than approaches focussing on conflict transformation. In order to enhance the plausibility of this hypothesis, I examine two cases of civil wars which were managed in different ways: (1) the civil war in Angola; (2) the civil war in El Salvador. The result of the comparative case study confirms the hypothesis: the conflict-settlement approach in Angola did not lead to an enduring peace, the conflict-transformation approach in El Salvador did.
The paper further discusses causal mechanisms which are expected to be responsible for the better performance of the conflict-transformation approach. It is held that three factors are of utmost importance for the success of a peace process. First, the consideration of essential root causes of conflict and main interests in the peace agreement, second trust amongst the conflict parties and third the engagement of the population in the peace process.