As implementation efforts often start swiftly after the signing of an accord, it is key to ensure that implementation support structures are agreed to in advance (Ramsbotham, 2020).

There are broadly four different permutations of actors which can be involved in the implementation mechanism, all of which bring different benefits: conflict protagonist only; civil society actors only; international actors only; or,hybrid formations (Bell and Molloy, 2019).

International actors are often included to support implementation and are often tasked with responsibilities which are technical in nature (Bell and Molloy, 2019; Molloy, 2018).

However, our research finds that third-party actors involved in monitoring agreements also play a role in shaping the dynamics of implementation and thus their contribution can go well beyond the technical aspects of their mandate (Molloy, 2018).

There are a range of possible options to integrate international actors in the implementation process.  These include: including provisions on international assistance in the implementation of the agreement; international actors being tasked with overseeing implementation agreements as a whole; international actors can be involved with monitoring of an agreement; international actors can be nominated as ‘guarantors’ to the agreement; international actors can be involved through designing responsibility to other states or group of friendly states (Bell and Molloy, 2019).

Hybrid mechanisms act as a compromise between a distinctly national and a distinctly international approach. (Bell and Molloy, 2019) suggest that there should always be some mixture of international and national mechanisms, as this allows for national ownership and domestically led and dictated processes, combined with the support of an objective, international actor to help ensure parties distrusting of each other adhere to their side of the agreement.

Civil society actors can also be included in the implementation process. This can either follow on from an inclusive peace negotiation process, or the implementation can provide opportunity to expand elite actors included earlier in the process (Bell and Molloy, 2019).

The decision of who to include in implementation is often a difficult one, with the issue of inclusion commonly seen as a trade-off between the goal of ending violence on one hand, and ideal of legitimacy through inclusion on the other (Molloy, 2018; Bell and Molloy, 2019).

From the perspective of implementation, inclusion in implementation mechanisms is important to ensure hard-fought gains in earlier stages are protected and implemented in the on-going negotiations the implementation stage represents (Molloy, 2018).

Delivering for inclusion early in an implementation process is a key way of securing popular support for implementation, and therefore contribute to a more sustainable peace process (Ramsbotham, 2022).

Inclusive implementation mechanisms open up the space to include women in the implementation process (Bell and Molloy, 2019). However, our research finds that implementation of provisions for women fall below average, and only 3% of peace agreements in the PA-X Gender database provide for the inclusion of women in implementation of the agreement (Bell and McNicholl, 2019; PA-X Gender).

There is no clear correlation between the type of actors included in an implementation mechanism and its effectiveness. Instead, the specific national, international or civil society actors included and their role within the context of the conflict and the nature of the agreement in question is key (Bell and Molloy, 2019; Molloy, 2018).

Regional organisations frequently offer support for peace agreement implementation. In African countries, there have been mixed outcomes for transition and implementation support from the African Union (AU), the Intergovernmental Authority on Development (IGAD) and the Southern African Development Community (SADC). Constraints included:

1. The organisations’ low capacity to provide sustained support;
2. Discords among member states and within the international community;
3. Poorly designed and resourced transitional mechanisms and, most importantly;
4. Signatories’ limited commitment to implement agreements (Aeby, 2022).

The role of mediators changes greatly with the conclusion of framework agreements. These narrow the scope for negotiation and require mediators to achieve parties’ adherence to accords rather than commitment making. Instead of solely facilitating dialogue, African mediators have sought to give direction to talks over implementation modalities and disputes by putting forward detailed solutions, exerting pressure and leveraging resolutions they solicited from the organisations’ decision-making organs (Aeby, 2022).

Our research highlights the importance of independent, well-capacitated and credible implementation monitoring mechanisms (IMM) to inform the work of mediators and guarantors, keep track of progress, resolve disputes and render transitional mechanisms transparent to signatories and societal stakeholders (Aeby, 2022).

As implementation processes are on-going negotiations, the question of the flexibility of monitoring mechanisms is key in implementation design (Molloy, 2018).

Different mechanisms for dealing with disputes adopted by agreements can, broadly speaking, be split into two approaches: ‘adjunctive enforcement’ mechanisms, which provide some sort of third party ruling and proscribed remedy relating to the breakdown, and; ‘flexible dispute resolution’ mechanism, which provide for a measure of ongoing mediation of the peace agreement implementation (Bell and Molloy, 2019: Molloy, 2018).

Timeframes are key to hold signatories to account, but often represent another tricky issue in implementation mechanism design and may backfire if deadlines are not met. For peace implementation to be successful, key milestones can be set for long-term goals which are harder to schedule (Ramsbotham, 2022).

Our research finds that there is a need to ensure the impacts of implementation reaches not only the national-level but also the territorial and local areas (Bell and Molloy, 2019: Molloy, 2018).

Increasing specific indicators and priorities at the sub-national level is key for successful implementation, whilst capacity building often helps strengthen countries’ ability to carry through local-level implementation (Molloy 2018; Bell and Molloy, 2019).

To give their peace agreements legal life, state and non-state parties have invented domestic legalization mechanisms designed to bring their law in line with the terms of their agreements. Those mechanisms have taken a variety of forms, either through legislation/decree, amendment, or replacement, and they have either adhered to the current constitution’s procedures or broken with the order entirely. Each come with their own risks, as well as their own opportunities for close tailoring to the needs and interests of the parties (Davies, 2021).

Legalization of peace agreements matters greatly to parties. Firstly, legalization helps mitigate commitment problems – it places a legal bind on the parties that becomes costly to break.  Secondly, legalization establishes exactly how the domestic legal order will look when it is brought in line with the peace agreement’s terms – making it a centrally important part of the implementation process (Davies, 2021).

Whether parties choose to legalize through legislation/decree, amendment, or replacement, and by breaking their constitution or adhering to it, depends on a variety of factors specific to their interests, stakeholders, situation, and strengths. These factors include practicability; perceptions of the old order’s legitimacy; the interests and relative strengths of the parties; the threat of spoilers; and the preferences of the international community (Davies, 2021).

While post-conflict implementation can be a hazardous and constantly evolving maze to navigate, the proper legalization provision can help parties come out on the other side confident in the future of their institutions and the new order they have established together (Davies, 2021).

How we measure and describe peace defines the ‘goal’ towards which peacebuilding is striving. However, there are clear limitations of what can be realistically measured. Our research finds that there is a certain level of discontent among practitioners associated with current measurements of peace, which often fail to reflect the contextual realities, multiple-narratives, and need for local ownership in peace processes. In order to respond to the limitations of existing measurements of peace, it is important to spend more time on conceptualizing indicators (Molloy, 2018).

Implementing peace accords sustainably: alternative avenues to bypass blockages and mitigate resistance

This builds on a body of work on implementation of peace agreements produced collectively by the Political Settlements Research Programme. Conciliation Resources as part of the Political Settlements Research Programme convened a series of online joint analysis workshops in 2020 in which practitioners, policymakers, donors, conflict parties, civil society and analysts collectively explored alternative avenues to navigate obstacles and maintain momentum in implementation, including case studies from Afghanistan, Colombia and Ethiopia. The report presents some key reflections, findings and recommendations drawn from the workshop discussions.

How Peace Agreements Provide for Implementation

This report examines the ways in which peace agreements provide for their own implementation or the implementation of specific issues committed to in a peace accord. The report illustrates that the particular context will shape what implementation mechanisms are chosen, but that there are a variety of mechanisms and modalities to support the implementation of a peace agreement, which can be illustrated from examining what existing peace agreements have put in place. The task of those negotiating implementation mechanisms, therefore, is not whether to include implementation mechanisms but how to do so in ways that are context sensitive, relevant, and accepted by the key parties, whose implementation activities are critical to the peace agreement sustaining and delivering peace in practice.

Assessing and Influencing Progress in Peace Processes

This report has been produced from the workshop on Assessing and Influencing Progress in Peace Processes held at Barcelona on May 30-June 1, 2018. The workshop brought together a fruitful combination of researchers, policy actors and practitioners, including a mixture of state and civil society actors. The overarching purpose of the workshop was to explore new and emerging developments in methodologies and approaches used to assess and influence progress in peace processes. The report is divided into three sections, with the primary findings of each presented below. These findings are relevant to those working in the areas of implementing and monitoring peace agreements, measuring peace, and developing new areas and approaches for improving the likelihood of successfully transitioning from conflict to peace.

Implementing Peace Agreements through Domestic Law

This research report explores how state and non-state parties can grant their peace agreements legal status through domestic law. In particular, it provides a typology for how parties have granted peace agreements legal status through these domestic processes and evaluates the benefits and risks of each legalization route. The report concludes with a set of factors parties in the future should consider when attempting to do the same. The report argues that, while state and non-state parties to a peace agreement have great interest in giving it a legal status, only agreements between states are granted treaty status under international law. Domestic law, therefore, can be (and has been) one way to legalize the entirety of their agreements.

How African Organisations Support Peace Agreement Implementation

This report explores how African organisations support the implementation of framework agreements for transitions through continued mediation, guarantees and monitoring. To this end, it traces how the AU, Intergovernmental Authority on Development (IGAD) and Southern African Development Community (SADC) supported the implementation of framework agreements in Kenya, South Sudan and Zimbabwe. The case studies highlight the importance of independent, well-capacitated and credible implementation monitoring mechanisms (IMM) to inform the work of mediators and guarantors, keep track of progress, resolve disputes and render transitional mechanisms transparent to signatories and societal stakeholders.