Through the lens of readiness theory, this book focuses on elements that determine the success and failure in negotiating peace agreements in intractable ethno-national conflicts.
Examining three cases of mediated negotiation in Aceh, Sudan, and Sri Lanka, the book provides an analytical framework for studying the processes underlying the movement toward conflict resolution. By studying readiness theory's capacity to identify the factors that influence parties’ readiness to reach an agreement, it constitutes another step in the development of readiness theory beyond the pre-negotiation stage. The work highlights the central role that third parties – mediators and the international community – play in the success or failure of peace processes, illuminating the mechanisms through which third parties affect the dynamics and outcome of the process. The systematic examination of readiness theory in these cases is instructive for researchers as well as for practitioners who seek to successfully mediate intractable conflicts and help adversaries achieve peace accords.
This book will be of much interest to students of conflict resolution, peace studies, Asian politics, African politics and international relations in general.
Table of Contents
1. Theoretical overview and research design
2. The Aceh Peace Process
3. The peace process in Sudan, 2002-2005
4. The Sri Lanka Peace Process 2001-2004
5. Readiness for negotiation and agreement: Lessons for theory and practice
Amira Schiff is faculty in the Conflict Resolution, Conflict Management and Negotiation graduate program at Bar-Ilan University, Israel.
‘Everyone interested in the resolution of intra-national conflicts should read this book. The three case studies that are the main basis of the analysis are very well done, and the author moves beyond them to contribute to negotiation theory. She employs readiness theory (an extension of ripeness theory that focuses on individual disputants) in the analysis of her cases and then moves into an insightful critique of that theory. She notes elements of the theory that are supported by these and other cases, suggests amendments that give the theory greater depth, and points out deficiencies that need to be corrected. Such a melding of case study and theory is unusual and very welcome in the field of conflict studies.’-- Dean G. Pruitt, University at Buffalo: The State University of New York, USA