Negotiating Justice? Human Rights and Peace Agreements - Summary

8/6/2019 Negotiating Justice? Human Rights and Peace Agreements - Summary

1/16

Ngiaing Jusi?Human Righs and

Pa Agrmns

Summary


2/16

tHe PRoJect

Many recent peace agreements include specic commitments to human

rights. Some believe that such commitments are necessary i government

institutions, particularly law enorcement bodies, are to become air and

accountable and peace is to be sustained. Others argue, in contrast, that

human rights requirements can limit the hand o negotiators and make it harder

to bring all parties to the table, or explore all options including options that

may compromise justice or the sake o achieving a cease-re and peace

process.

This Summary presents the ndings o a report by the International Council that

examines the perceived clash between principled and pragmatic approaches

to peace negotiation. It lays out the dilemmas and trade-os that those involved

ace when they consider human rights and, based on country cases, suggests

how such diculties can be managed and sometimes resolved.

Tensions primarily arise because the same political and military actors who

waged a confict (and were usually responsible or human rights abuses) tend

to negotiate the peace and, as a result, to dene the post-war political order.

The balance o power between these actors, during negotiation and ater

settlement, infuences the scope and content o human rights provisions that

are included in a peace agreement, and how the agreement is implemented. At

the same time, however, human rights law has increasingly become a dominant

normative ramework, which lays down standards and obligations regarding

the responsibility carried by those who committed human rights crimes in the

past, or example that cannot be set aside or the purposes o negotiation.

The reports analysis suggests that human rights can make a practical and

positive contribution to many areas o confict resolution, during the negotiation

and implementation o peace agreements. Yet tensions certainly occur,

especially regarding accountability or past crimes. The report describes

the dierent roles that human rights provisions can play throughout peace

processes, and argues that no one single method deals perectly with these

tensions. Approaches that impose human rights standards on principle, or

jettison them or short-term negotiating purposes, are both unlikely to produce

lasting solutions. It may be more eective to view dilemmas between justice

and peace as ones that need to be managed as actors search or orms o

settlement that are just and sustainable.


3/16

Negotiating Justice? Human Rights and Peace Agreements

tHe ReSeARcH PRoceSS

The report examines human rights provisions and monitoring mechanisms in

the ollowing peace agreements, as well as the arguments or and against their

inclusion. The cases were:

Cambodia (Final Act o the Paris Conerence, October 99)

El Salvador(Peace Agreement in Mexico City, January 992)

Mozambique(General Peace Agreement, October 992)

Bosnia-Herzegovina (Dayton Peace Agreement, December 995)

Guatemala (Agreement on a Firm and Lasting Peace, December 996)

Northern Ireland(Good Friday/Belast Agreement, April 998)

Sierra Leone(Lom Peace Agreement, July 999)

Burundi(Arusha Peace and Reconciliation Agreement, August 2000)

These agreements were selected because they are geographically diverse, and

illustrate various orms o confict and approaches to international mediation. Itshould be noted that in most cases the agreements are still being implemented.

For this reason, and because many other actors are in play, the research did

not seek to draw conclusions about the impact o human rights provisions on

the long-term success o peace agreements. The reports purpose is to discuss

how human rights standards can be used constructively in peace processes.

The report develops three main themes in order to identiy areas o tension and

complementarity between human rights and confict resolution:

Frameworks for protection. What kind o human rights rameworks and mechanisms

or their implementation were included in peace agreements?

Repairing the past: forcible displacement. To what extent did peace agreementsprotect the needs o orcibly displaced people. In particular, were they able to return

to their homes and claim their rights to property?

Dealing with the past: impunity and accountability. To what extent did peaceagreements include measures to deal with past abuses?

In each case, the report examines whether the provisions that dealt with these

issues comply with international law and whether legal requirements advanced

or obstructed the progress o negotiations. It examines pragmatic arguments or

drawing on human rights as a tool or confict resolution, while acknowledging

that principled arguments exist.

Chapters end with detailed recommendations and a list o questions that those

involved in negotiations might use to assist them in addressing the issues.


4/16

2 Negotiating Justice? Human Rights and Peace Agreements

FRAMeWoRKS FoR PRotectIoN

Peace agreements oten include human rights rameworks (in the orm o bills o

rights or the incorporation o international conventions) and set out institutional

reorms designed to establish public institutions that meet key human rights

requirements, such as independence, equality, accountability, and ability to

protect.

The report poses three main questions:

What kind o human rights protections have been provided or in peace

agreements?

How were they to be implemented, and what institutional reorms were planned?

Whywere human rights protections provided? What role were they to ull?

Case studies suggest that adding human rights to a negotiating agenda helps

to address, or at least monitor, abuses; and in addition, may create opportunitiesto advance talks, as parties oten have an interest in protecting their own rights.

Peace settlements also need to create political and legal institutions that oer

parties non-violent ways to resolve their disputes: human rights rameworks and

mechanisms can help achieve this objective, because they restrain power and

promote air and accountable legal institutions.

Many actors infuence how peace agreements deal with human rights matters.

They include:

The role and nature o human rights abuses, and mechanisms designed to address

them;

The presence o international actors, particularly to monitor and report abuses;The degrees to which the conict spills across borders, or is internationalised;

The political attitudes towards human rights o the parties and civil society; and

The peace settlement, including its use o human rights mechanisms to hold authoritiesaccountable.

Peace agreements provide a unique opportunity to establish a broad human

rights ramework. Overall, experience suggests that the hardest choices or

negotiators concern the extent to which an agreement should describe in detail

institutional reorms and mechanisms to protect rights; or, how much this detail

should be let or the uture.

The dominant role that political and military lites play in peace talks means

that they may block or dilute essential reorms. It may be undesirable to insert

detailed provisions beore civil society and human rights organisations have

been consulted. On the other hand, ailure to be specic (on timetables and

mechanisms, or on sensitive issues like judicial reorm) can mean that parties

evade their commitments.


5/16


Mediators usually ace ve choices when they incorporate a human rights

rameworks:

An aspirainal r judiiabl apprah. Human rights law establishes both

broad principles and detailed rights immediately enorceable in courts. When

negotiating an agreement, however, it is oten necessary to strike a balancebetween setting the highest possible standard or human rights protection, and

ensuring that the ramework chosen is realistic and can be implemented.

Inrnainal r ailrd sandards. International standards have obvious

legitimacy because they are internationally recognised, and use language

that is neutral with respect to the parties; in addition, the state concerned may

already be bound by them. However, they may not seem to address local

issues directly or appropriately. Moreover, in the end, human rights protections

must be locally-owned to be eective. For this reason, it may be appropriate to

tailor provisions or particular problems, taking into account local legal practice.

However, longer-term objectives can usually be signalled by reerring to morecomprehensive international standards.

Inrnainal r dmsi nrmn. The international communitys role

can be short-term and specic, or longer-term and developmental. International

organisations are rarely able to sustain commitment, however, and national

institutions must eventually take charge o reorm processes. For this reason,

international organisations have a duty to build local capacity.

oulin r dail. During negotiations it is easier to agree outlines, principles

and broad processes. Broad processes allow space or change and evolution,

and permit civil and human rights organisations to be consulted on emphasisand detail. On the other hand, parties may be unwilling to reach agreement

unless certain issues are claried, requiring a measure o detail.

Final r rvisabl rm. Agreement on broad principles may mask deep

disagreement over human rights. During implementation, parties to a peace

agreement nearly always try to renegotiate or reinterpret it to their advantage

and human rights provisions oten become an area o dispute precisely because

they constrain and reallocate power. On the other hand, the inclusion o precise

and mandatory human rights clauses can restrict institutional development later

on, and parties may reuse to discuss human rights matters that the agreement

did not address. It can be useul to state in the agreement that its provisionsdo not preclude the introduction o additional human rights standards and

mechanisms that are consistent with international law.


6/16

RePAIRING tHe PASt? DISPLAceD PeRSoNS, LANDAND PRoPeRtY

Confict requently causes orcible displacement and land dispossession; these

may even be military objectives (ethnic cleansing). Enabling displaced people

to return home oten involves dealing with clashing entitlements to land and

property between pre-war and post-agreement populations. Unair distribution

o land may also be a prime cause o confict when it causes inequity or deprives

people o a livelihood. In post-confict situations, willingness to return can be

an indicator o condence in the uture, and a test o the capacity o national

political and legal institutions to protect communities.

Many agreements give attention to the return o reugees and displaced persons

because:

It is an important indicator o peace and the end o conict.

High rates o return can validate the post-conict political order, or example, bylegitimising elections.

Return o reugees is sometimes a precondition or peace, i the reugees are politically

and militarily active.

Return o displaced populations can contribute signifcantly to economic recovery.

To avoid uture conict, it may be vital to deal with land disputes.

At the same time, return can sometimes be argued to put stability at risk

because:

Land claims by returnees can rewrite territorial compromises at the heart o an

agreement.

The treatment o reugees and displaced persons, and management o land disputes,can cause instability.

In many instances, it is dicult to establish a connection between the rate o

return and the presence o provisions on return in a peace agreement. Broader

political circumstances and levels o violence are the most important actors.

Return may thereore happen even where a peace agreement omits reerence

to it, or ail to happen when provided or. Nevertheless, the inclusion o such

provisions can encourage parties to create sae conditions and respect the

human rights o returnees.



7/16

A righttoreturn?

Under international human rights law, states should not prevent people rom

returning to their country o origin, or their ormer homes or home areas. States

have a duty to ensure that return can take place in saety and with dignity. In

practice, however, state policies oten prevent return indirectly particularlywhere political or economic conditions make return unsae.

Recent peace agreements have armed that reugees and displaced persons

are entitled to return specically to their ormer homes. They usually emphasised

the voluntary character o return, under conditions o saety and security, and

some created mechanisms to monitor respect or these provisions.

A rightnottoreturn?

Under international customary law, no state (whether or not it is party to specicinternational instruments) may return individuals to another state where they

would be at risk o persecution (prohibition against reoulement). Furthermore, it

is increasingly argued that as time passes reugees can claim rights in the place

o reuge. When local integration is not a viable option, those in continuing need

o protection should be given the opportunity to resettle in a third country.

Similarly, human rights standards seem to prohibit states rom moving internally

displaced persons against their will, to places where their rights would be

violated by either ocials or non-state actors.

ProPertyrights?

The right to be protected against arbitrary deprivation o property says little

about how to resolve clashes o rights that occur when, as a result o prolonged

confict, several owners may claim that they have a legal and valid title to the

same property. Many peace agreements assert that property lost because o

displacement must be restituted, or that the owner should receive compensation.

Compensation however, should not be an alternative to restitution, but should

be available when restitution is not possible.

A righttocomPensAtion?

The right to a remedy or human rights violations implies a right to reparation

or compensation or orcible displacement. Restitution should thereore include

return to ones place o residence and return o property; and when restitution

is not possible, compensation ought to cover, among other things, material

damages.

Negotiating Justice? Human Rights and Peace Agreements 5


8/16


DeALING WItH tHe PASt: IMPUNItY ANDAccoUNtABILItY

During a political transition, how should gross human rights violations that

were committed in a confict be dealt with? International standards establish

procedures and principles or holding to account individuals who committed

serious abuses. Is compromise on such matters sometimes justied in order to

secure peace?

In addition to arguments that international standards must be respected

because o their legally binding nature, there are several practical reasons to

hold individuals accountable or past crimes:

Accountability strengthens, whereas impunity undermines, the legitimacy and

authority o new political arrangements.

At the end o conicts, prisoners who have not committed serious crimes need to be

released.Society needs to come to terms with its past.

Institutional reorms to establish the rule o law will be ineective i impunity is

tolerated.

Vetting (removal o human rights abusers rom public positions) cannot take place

without an accountability process.

Individual victims cannot orgive and communities cannot reconcile in the absenceo accountability.

Accountability provides a deterrent against uture abuse.

At the same time, eorts to end impunity can also destabilise a peace process

because:

Investigations, prosecutions and punishment may block negotiation or reignite

conict.

They raise complex issues o due process (related to the nature o crimes committed)

that new and ragile democracies cannot satisactorily deal with.

Mechanisms oten ail to achieve the moral, legal or political objectives that processeslinked to eorts to hold accountable those who committed abuses were expected to

achieve.

Traditional orms o legal actions and punishment may not always be appropriate tothe conict or the culture in which they take place.

When guilt and responsibility are shared by a large proportion o the population, truth-

telling and acknowledgement that abuses have occurred may be more successul atenabling all sides to participate in the new political order.

The report argues that it is best to analyse such tensions in terms o dierent

actions required in the short-term to sustain the cease-re (which may justiy

some orms o amnesty) and actions required in the long-term to create a

stable and democratic society based on rule o law principles. The question

then becomes: under what circumstances, and or what crimes, are amnesties

permissible?


9/16


The report analyses grey areas in international law with respect to amnesties, and

discusses compromises that peace agreements have made between blanket

amnesty and no amnesty, and the extent to which these are compatible with

international law. These include:

Truth or amnesty/investigation without prosecution. Reconciliation, institutional reorm

and vetting can become easier when a ull and accurate record has described theabuses, those responsible and victims.

Forgoing punishment. Pardons and other measures, such as vetting, may ollow

investigation and prosecution. International law does not speciy what punishmentrequires or, in the case o imprisonment, the length o sentence.

Proportionate accountability based on responsibility. Peace processes suggest

this is emerging practice, though humanitarian law clearly states that individuals

are responsible or their actions even i they ollowed orders, just as ocers areresponsible or the actions o those they command.

Accountability or the past may be dicult to discuss early in a negotiation,

but may be accepted later. The question then arises: how much to provide or

at what stage? The ollowing peace agreement innovations may be ruitul or

mediators to consider urther:

Creative wording. Amnesties can be conned to permissible crimes or may be

temporary. However, emerging international law provisions against impunity, together

with the principle o universal jurisdiction and the International Criminal Court (whoseprosecutorial discretion is not ettered by peace agreement provisions), limit the

scope o such amnesty provisions.

Dierent mechanisms or dierent purposes at dierent times. Various mechanismsare used, sometimes simultaneously, to deal with past crimes. They include domestic

courts, inquiry and truth commissions, international tribunals, and hybrid tribunals

with international and domestic participation.

Focus on victims needs. Some agreements distinguish delivery o services to

victims rom reparation. In practice this can help to make reparation or victims less

contentious and means that their needs can oten be met more quickly. Reparations

can still ollow or relevant victims.

Amnsis undr inrnainal law

Imprmissibl:

Blanket amnesties covering minor and serious international crimes, including

genocide, crimes against humanity, grave breaches o humanitarian law, war

crimes, torture and enorced disappearances.

Prmissibl:

Amnesties applied to insurgent orces simply or belonging to, or ghting

with, insurgent orces, or or related oences such as carrying arms or alse

identication.

Possibly minor crimes associated with rebellion.

The exercise o human rights cannot be a crime; crimes o this sort should be

considered null and void rather than amnestied.


10/16


IMPLeMeNtAtIoN

It is dicult to implement peace agreements. The involvement and support o

international organisations or external actors is oten necessary initially, though

in the longer-term national institutions must take responsibility i peace is to be

sustained.

Dierent scenarios may occur:

The peace agreement does not hold and conict reignites. I mechanisms or protectinghuman rights operate independently o political institutions, they can continue to help

limit violence and keep space open or a new peace process.

The implementation o human rights provisions reallocates power and is resisted.Human rights provisions are oten ramed in general language that masks dierences

between the parties, which can re-emerge when the agreement is implemented.

Core issues, such as impunity, are not dealt with and human rights become thesubject o new negotiations.

Socio-economic rights are not dealt with. Peace agreements rarely cover socio-economic issues in detail, although they are central to post-war reconstruction.

External processes o monitoring and verifcation are weak, or external actors operate

to undermine the peace agreement. To achieve eective implementation o human

rights provisions, oversight and monitoring by international institutions, or theirparticipation in local institutions, may be necessary.

Civil society is weak, restrained, or made dysunctional by the peace process. Civil

society organisations play a vital role in monitoring and implementing human rights.More generally, their work gives legitimacy to human rights in the wider society.

Human rights are narrowly understood to include only matters and groups relevant

to the conict. Peace processes should include excluded groups and addresstheir needs. Womens rights and the rights o minorities are oten not adequately

considered.

The report discusses challenges associated with rule o law reorm, and building

eective law enorcement institutions. Institutional reorm involves a wide range

o tasks, rom drating new law codes to training ocials in human rights, or

constructing courts and prison inrastructures. Not only is it dicult to change

the practices o such institutions (even in stable democratic societies), but

during the confict they have oten been weakened, corrupted, or implicated in

abuses making transormation even more dicult. Few o the changes required

can be accomplished quickly, and many require expertise and resources rom

outside, as well as local commitment and investment.


11/16

Negotiating Justice? Human Rights and Peace Agreements 9

coNcLUSIoNS

comPlementArity

Experience gathered rom past agreements suggests that human rights otenmake a positive contribution to confict resolution. Human rights abuses are both

a cause as well as a symptom o conficts, and action to tackle them is oten

a vital component o policies to bring about peace. Action to protect human

rights may also convince parties to confict that their ears o discrimination,

domination and annihilation can be addressed by means other than violence.

Human rights standards use mandatory language. At the same time,

governments have some fexibility as to how to implement them. This creates

opportunities to advance human rights in negotiations. International human

rights law suggests good practice or reorm in public institutions, in particular or

those responsible or law enorcement. It provides internationally accepted andimpartial language or setting norms and benchmarks, which can help parties

to distinguish legitimate rom illegitimate demands. Because parties may have

a common interest in protecting human rights (albeit oten or dierent reasons),

agreement over human rights protections can help to create the conditions or

urther talks, or unblock stalemates.

Human rights are relevant at dierent phases o negotiation. Beore negotiation

begins, preliminary human rights rameworks can help to contain the confict.

During negotiation, measures to protect human rights can build condence and

set baselines or institutional and legal reorm. During implementation, human

rights monitoring can strengthen compliance with the agreement as a wholeand, more generally, generate public condence in it.

Furthermore, the development o human rights mechanisms provides an

opportunity to involve civil society. The report argues that it is vital to consult

NGOs and public opinion in the course o negotiating and implementing

national reorm plans. Their involvement helps to ensure that reorm is relevant

and legitimate, and that the peace process does not remain under the exclusive

control o political and military lites.

Finally, the adoption o a human rights ramework and mechanisms or its

implementation creates space or international institutions to play a continuingrole in monitoring and implementing an agreement. This can be essential

during the initial phase. Though ultimately, international agencies should pay

attention to their own legitimacy and accountability, and work to devolve their

direct responsibilities to national institutions as soon as it is easible.


12/16


tensions

Tensions do arise in relation to human rights in the course o negotiating

peace agreements. The report concludes, however, that there is no intrinsic

incompatibility between those who seek justice and those who seek peace.

The challenge is not to eliminate discordance, but to reconcile long- and short-term objectives o a peace process, and to promote understanding between

dierent approaches.

The case studies suggest that the approaches o specialists in human rights

and in confict resolution are oten mutually supportive. The latter oten nd

human rights standards help them to identiy basic needs and understand the

causes o conficts. Human rights activists are oten skilled in processes o

problem solving and negotiation. While dierences o approaches should be

acknowledged, their interaction extends the range o skills and techniques that

can be applied to peace processes.

FActorsAFFectingtheroleoFhumAnrightsinPeAceAgreements

Whether the process is internally or externally driven . Where peace processes ocus

exclusively on military and political lites, international representatives may be the

only participants to raise a human rights agenda; in such cases, continued external

pressure may be vital during implementation. Elsewhere, human rights measuresare oten raised by at least one party to the confict; but dicult aspects are oten

postponed and reappear during implementation.

The extent to which bottom-up processes impact on top-down ones. The extent towhich civil society and mediators are involved infuences the choice o human rights

measures in an agreement as well as plans to implement them. Where agreements

are essentially negotiated by a political lite, human rights measures tend to be

drated in general terms.

The nature o constitutional arrangements. Overarching political and territorial

decisions about the reallocation o power aect the strategic role that human rights

measures play, and the degree to which parties have an interest in implementing

those measures.

Human rights needs. The human rights provisions in an agreement, and their ability

to generate change, are aected by: the types o human rights abuses that occurred

during the confict; the responsibilities o state and non-state actors or them; theextent to which they were a cause o the confict; the political and legal culture o the

society; public condence in law-based solutions and institutional reorm; and the

capacity o key institutions such as the police and judiciary.


13/16


cHoIceS FoR MeDIAtoRS

The report argues that the best approach to drating peace agreements might be

an incremental one combining immediate delivery o basic protection, supported

by temporary monitoring and enorcement measures (using international actors

where necessary), with longer-term reorm plans that build institutions and

institutional capacity and establish an eective legal environment based on

respect or human rights. It is necessary to ensure that parties who sign the

agreement are committed to it: in practice this oten implies establishing core

general principles while leaving much detail to be lled in ater a more inclusive

process o national consultation.

Mediators should be aware o the importance o their role to the inclusion o

human rights. Experience suggests that they have considerable scope to raise

human rights issues during a peace process, and may be the only ones able

to do so. Where possible such opportunities should be taken, on pragmatic

grounds as well as on principle, since their overall objective should not merely

be to stop violence, but to create the conditions or sustained peace.

Rmmndains

Human righs mniring shuld b a pririy during prids nasn ni

r whn nis sala.

Human righs prvisins in pa agrmns shuld b nsisn wih

inrnainal human righs sandards and shuld prvid apprpria mhanisms

implmn and nr hm. However, there remains some room within which to

negotiate, given the need to apply these standards domestically, and the possibility osequencing their implementation.

Ngiars shuld hav ass human righs advi (in pariular, n gndr

qualiy and h righs minriis), and nmpla appinmn ull-im

human righs advisrs.

Mdiars shuld hav a las basi raining in human righs and humaniarian

law rquirmns, and qualiy issus.

ths invlvd in ngiain shuld ngag wih ivil siy, pariularly r

h purps idniying and mniring human righs abuss, and dfning

and implmning insiuinal rrms. Wmn and minriis shuld als b

inludd during ngiains.

Inrnainal dnrs shuld aivly suppr pa prsss, and insiuinal

rrms whih hy giv ris, shuld nurag h paris invlvd ngag

wih ivil siy. Inrnainal ars shuld dvlv nainal auhriis any

dir rspnsibiliis hy undrak, as sn as asibl.

Whil aknwldging hir dirn rls and xpris, spialiss in human

righs and in ni rsluin shuld larn mr rm n anhrs apprahs

pa agrmns.


14/16


AcKNoWLeDGeMeNtS

This report was written by Christine Bell, Director o the Transitional Justice

Institute and Proessor o Public International Law at the University o Ulster.

Catherine ORourke, Research Assistant in the Transitional Justice Institute,

provided research support. The project was co-ordinated by Jean-Nicolas

Beuze, Research Director at the International Council. Fairouz El Tom, Research

and Publication Ocer, sub-edited and produced the report.

The ollowing researchers prepared case studies: Adrian Edwards (Cambodia);

Ingrid Kircher and Martha Doggett (El Salvador); Marcie Mersky (Guatemala);

Andrea Bartoli and Rati Jebashvili (Mozambique); Jasna Baksic Mutic (Bosnia-

Herzegovina); Fionnuala N Aolan (Northern Ireland); Michael OFlaherty (Sierra

Leone); and Fabienne Hara (Burundi). Thematic papers were also prepared by

the ollowing researchers: Naomi Roht-Arriaza (transitional justice); Catherine

Phuong (orcible displacement); Bill ONeil (reorm o the judiciary); and Michelle

Parlevliet (national human rights institutions).

All papers are available on www.ichrp.org

The researchers worked under the supervision o the ollowing Advisory Group:

Maggie Beirne, Director o the Committee on the Administration o Justice in

Belast; Ian Martin, then Vice-President o the International Center or Transitional

Justice, New York, and Board Member o the International Council; Francesc

Vendrell, EU Special Representative in Aghanistan; Suliman Baldo, Director o

the Arica Programme, International Crisis Group; and Frank La Rue, Special

Adviser on Human Rights to the President o Guatemala.

In addition, the ollowing persons participated in a review meeting that was

convened by the International Council and the Transitional Justice Institute,

Belast, in March 2005 to discuss the background papers: Wolgang Amadeus

Bruelhart, Thomas Bundschuh, Colm Campbell, Tibil Dram, Jrmie Gilbert

and Tamrat Samuel.

The International Council thanks the Swiss and Norwegian governments or

their nancial support to this project. We also thank the Netherlands Ministry o

Foreign Aairs, the Swedish International Development Co-operation Agency

(SIDA), the British Department or International Development (DFID), and the

Ford Foundation, New York, or supporting the Councils work.


15/16

ABoUt tHe coUNcIL

The International Council on Human Rights Policy was established in 998ollowing an international consultation that started ater the 99 World

Conerence on Human Rights in Vienna. It conducts practical research intoproblems and dilemmas that conront organisations working in the eld ohuman rights.

The Council starts rom the principle that successul policy approaches will

accommodate the diversity o human experience. It co-operates with all thatshare its human rights objectives, including voluntary and private bodies,national governments and international agencies.

The Councils research agenda is set by the Executive Board. Members o the

International Council meet annually to advise on that agenda. Members helpto make sure that the Councils programme refects the diversity o disciplines,regional perspectives, country expertise and specialisations that are essential

to maintain the quality o its research.

To implement the programme, the Council employs a small Secretariat o sixsta. Based in Geneva, its task is to ensure that projects are well designed andwell managed and that research ndings are brought to the attention o relevant

authorities and those who have a direct interest in the policy areas concerned.

The Council is independent, international in its membership, and participatoryin its approach. It is registered as a non-prot oundation under Swiss law.

Hw rdr cunil publiains

All Council publications can be ordered through the Secretariat at:International Council on Human Rights Policy8, chemin du Grand-MontfeuryP. O. Box , 290 Versoix

Geneva, SwitzerlandPhone: (+ (0) 22) 5 00Fax: (+ (0) 22) 5 0

All our publications can also be ordered through our web site at www.ihrp.rgA link on the home page will direct you to a list o all the publications, thensimply ollow the instructions. The publications can also be accessed in PDF

ormat on the web site.

For more inormation about the International Council and its work, please

contact us at [email protected]

2006 International Council on Human Rights Policy. ISBN 2-90259-2-0.All rights reserved. Cover illustration: The Trustees o the British Museum. Chilkat blanket,detail. Worn as ceremonial regalia by chies. Twined rom a mixture o nely shredded cedar barkand mountain goat wool. Tlingit Indians o south-east Alaska, 9th century.Design and layout by Fairouz El Tom, Research and Publications Ocer at the InternationalCouncil on Human Rights Policy.Printed by ATAR Roto Press, SA, Vernier, Switzerland.


16/16

Are peace agreements negotiated more easily i they include reerences to

human rights? I so, is peace more durable as a result? Negotiating Justice?,

summarised here, examines eight recent peace agreements to assess how they

addressed issues such as impunity and orcible displacement. It concludes that

human rights can make practical and positive contributions to many areas o

confict resolution. Each chapter ends with recommendations and questionsthat can help negotiators, mediators and human rights advocates to address

dilemmas that arise during the negotiation o peace agreements and when the

latter are implemented.

Foreword by Thomas Greminger, Head o the Human Security Division at the

Swiss Federal Department o Foreign Aairs, and Petter Wille, Deputy Director

General at the Norwegian Ministry o Foreign Aairs.

an excellent, comprehensive and thorough report on anextremely important subject, bringing together a wide range

o inormation and recommendations

Dr Pierre-Michel Fontaine

Former Senior Ofcial, UNHCR and OHCHR

thoughtul, well-considered and well-documented ...

a pleasure to read

Dr Peter R. Baehr

Honorary Proessor o Human Rights, Utrecht University

IcHRP48, chemin du Grand-Montfeury

P. O. Box 147, 1290 Versoix

Geneva, Switzerland

Phone: (+41 (0) 22) 775 3300

Fax: (+41 (0) 22) 775 3303

[email protected]

www.ichrp.org

Negotiating Justice? Human Rights and Peace Agreements - Summary

Documents

Transcript of Negotiating Justice? Human Rights and Peace Agreements - Summary