The Past's Promise: Lessons from Peace Processes in Northern Ireland and the Middle East

Gregory M. Maney, Ibtisam Ibrahim, Gareth I. Higgins and Hanna Herzog
Additional contact information
Gregory M. Maney: Department of Sociology, Hofstra University
Ibtisam Ibrahim: Centre for Arab American Studies, University of Michigan–Dearborn
Gareth I. Higgins: Irish School of Ecumenics, Trinity College Dublin
Hanna Herzog: Department of Sociology and Anthropology, Tel Aviv University

Journal of Peace Research, 2006, vol. 43, issue 2, 181-200

Abstract: Just as the Northern Ireland and Israeli–Palestinian peace processes appeared close to achieving lasting resolutions to conflict, both initiatives fell into crisis. This study combines power conflict and transaction cost approaches to analyze the strengths and the weaknesses of the Belfast Good Friday (BGF) and the Oslo peace processes. Dimensions that empower participants and increase certainty strengthen peace processes. Dimensions that are disempowering of participants and decrease certainty weaken peace processes. The two peace processes shared the strengths of including militant nationalists in negotiations and generating international pressure and support. Unlike the Oslo process, the BGF process benefited from greater constitutional certainty, minority safeguards, grass-roots legitimacy, effective responses to spoilers, and minority-supportive intervention by the US government. Unlike the BGF process, the Oslo process benefited from broad international participation in negotiations, leading to agreements that had clearly specified mechanisms for implementation. Shared weaknesses of the two processes included transgressing zero-sum game assumptions and identity boundaries, manipulation of popular fears by elites, and the marginal, if not negative, role played by civil society. In addition to pointing out ways that each peace process could benefit by appropriating the advantages of the other, the article offers several promising strategies for overcoming shared weaknesses, including challenging zero-sum assumptions, constructing more inclusive collective identities, grass-roots education regarding manipulative elites, strengthening non-sectarian segments of civil society, and breaking cycles of violence through reconciliation processes.

Date: 2006
References: Add references at CitEc
Citations:

Downloads: (external link)
http://jpr.sagepub.com/content/43/2/181.abstract (text/html)

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:sae:joupea:v:43:y:2006:i:2:p:181-200

Access Statistics for this article

More articles in Journal of Peace Research from Peace Research Institute Oslo
Bibliographic data for series maintained by SAGE Publications ().