Human rights and negotiated peace
Since the early 1990s, negotiated peace has become somewhat of an international norm of conflict termination. A survey of peace agreements including seventy agreements involving twenty-nine countries has shown that eighteen of these agreements (or series of agreements) included substantive references to human rights, although the degree of specificity and institutional commitment varied considerably. Analysts and practitioners alike disagree as to how decisive such inclusion might be.
The human rights perspective
From a human rights perspective, the inclusion of such provisions is viewed as enhancing the chances of human rights promotion and protection at the post-conflict peacebuilding stage. The advocates of such an approach strongly support the inclusion of human rights specialists in peace negotiations and the process of drafting of peace agreements. "With the assistance of these experts, negotiators have the opportunity to, inter alia, craft effective transitional justice provisions which comply with both law and best practice, enact human rights commitments, provide for human rights treaty ratification, set in train rights-based constitutional review or amendment, establish the place of human rights within post-conflict reconstruction plans, establish human rights institutions and either put in place or provide for national and international programmes of human rights monitoring and protection."17 In that perspective, a mere reference to the respect of human rights is not sufficient. Dispositions to ensure long-term institutional changes (such as the establishment of national human rights institutions, reforming the existing institutions, such as the police and the judiciary) are essential.
The conflict resolution perspective
From a conflict resolution perspective, the inclusion of human rights provisions may not affect the chances of human rights promotion and protection at the post-conflict peacebuilding stage. Some even argue that when the most important objective is to stop the armed conflict and secure "negative peace," forcing the inclusion of extensive human rights provisions may hinder the chances of reaching a peace agreement. Yet, securing a "negative peace" is essential because without ending the violent confrontation, there can be no human rights promotion and protection.
