Papers by Nick Ross
Development Dialogues, 2015
One of the principal reasons groups resort to violence and protest is to contest their exclusion ... more One of the principal reasons groups resort to violence and protest is to contest their exclusion from social, political or economic power. A wide range of research has found that more inclusive societies are generally more stable, harmonious and developed. Research has also found that the inclusion of additional actors or groups next to the main conflict parties (such as civil society or political parties) in negotiation processes is crucial in making war-to-peace and political transitions more sustainable. However, policy-makers and international donors continue to struggle to respond adequately to calls for greater inclusion.
Mediators and negotiators may resist inclusion for a variety of reasons. They may fear that including additional actors alongside the main negotiating parties will lead to a multiplication of positions at the table, making effective compromise more difficult. Included actors may band together (or ally themselves with negotiators) to form polarised coalitions, further inhibiting compromise. Pressures of ongoing violence, or limited funding, may mean that the negotiation timeframe cannot be extended to encompass the significantly increased numbers of positions, leading to reduced opportunity for dialogue and compromise. Inclusion may also not be compatible with the requirements of secrecy that are often the precondition for negotiators to come to the table. In addition, selecting a small sample of people to make decisions on behalf of an entire population presents huge challenges of representation, which can lead to accusations of corruption, bias or illegitimacy. The negotiating parties may view themselves as the legitimate …
This article illustrates that there were several core points of contention among the major armed ... more This article illustrates that there were several core points of contention among the major armed parties to the negotiations. These were related to the issues of federalism versus secession, and the regional distribution of power in the new Yemeni state. We argue that the design of the dialogue and the overall process was not sufficient to allow the various factions in Yemen to reach a consensus on these issues. In addition, the focus on a highly inclusive National Dialogue was not accompanied by attention to the dysfunctional and elite nature of ongoing government in Yemen,which cost the transition process public support.
All Rights Reserved Cover images © Juan Manuel Herrera/OAS, UN Women/Ryan Brown
techreports by Nick Ross
Effective monitoring and verification increases the durability of peace agreements by addressing ... more Effective monitoring and verification increases the durability of peace agreements by addressing commitment problems inherent in peace processes. It is a feature of most ceasefire agreements and thematic peace agreements. Monitoring refers to the technical process of collecting information on the basis of which a verification judgment is to be made. Verification is the process of using monitoring information to evaluate compliance with an agreement.
The objective of this report is to summarise the available evidence about civil society’s role in monitoring and verification activities around the world in recent decades. It draws on the “Civil Society and Peacebuilding” project (2006-2010), and the “Broadening Participation in Political Negotiations and Implementation” project (2011-ongoing), both under the lead of Dr Thania Paffenholz at the Graduate Institute of International and Development Studies, Geneva.
Based on experiences from different peace processes, this report’s aim is threefold. First, it provides an introduction to the purpose of monitoring and verification of peace agreements. Second, it presents the different modalities of how civil society has participated in the monitoring and verification of peace agreements, drawing upon examples. Third, it analyses opportunities and challenges, and presents seven lessons for civil society’s effective contribution to monitoring and verification of peace agreements.
articles by Nick Ross
Enlightened Myanmar Research Foundation, 2019
Civil society’s peacebuilding work in Myanmar is helping to protect civilians, build bridges betw... more Civil society’s peacebuilding work in Myanmar is helping to protect civilians, build bridges between communities, and support a political settlement to the armed conflict, and has earned it broad recognition from a range of actors, including media organizations, political parties, and EAOs. On the other hand, civil society is constrained by a repressive legal system, and pervasive attitudes that CSOs should defer to political parties, EAOs and the government on issues where those actors prefer to retain control.
International Negotiation, 2019
This article presents four case studies in which peace was negotiated between governments and opp... more This article presents four case studies in which peace was negotiated between governments and opposition political parties, and in which major armed groups involved in the conflict were excluded from some or all of the negotiations. The inclusion of opposition political parties and exclusion of some armed actors in these cases derived from the desire of mediators and some of the parties to foreground political concerns (at the expense of military considerations).
Opposition political parties were able to play a role in bringing armed groups into peace settlements under some conditions, although strong international pressure and support helped to create the preconditions for this role. This evidence suggests a challenge to arguments that major armed groups must be included in peace negotiations if they are to abide by the resulting peace settlement.
Civil Wars, 2019
This paper applies a model of the relationship between armed group authority/legitimacy and popul... more This paper applies a model of the relationship between armed group authority/legitimacy and popular support for armed groups, to explain how the EZLN gained support among a diverse array of constituencies in the period from 1983-2005. Moreover, it shows that the need to maximise support explains the EZLN’s strategy in the different phases of its existence. The EZLN is an interesting case, due to the organization’s high degree of reliance on international and national civil society support, which illustrates the importance of ideology and political messaging in understanding support for armed groups.
inproceedings by Nick Ross
Uploads
Papers by Nick Ross
Mediators and negotiators may resist inclusion for a variety of reasons. They may fear that including additional actors alongside the main negotiating parties will lead to a multiplication of positions at the table, making effective compromise more difficult. Included actors may band together (or ally themselves with negotiators) to form polarised coalitions, further inhibiting compromise. Pressures of ongoing violence, or limited funding, may mean that the negotiation timeframe cannot be extended to encompass the significantly increased numbers of positions, leading to reduced opportunity for dialogue and compromise. Inclusion may also not be compatible with the requirements of secrecy that are often the precondition for negotiators to come to the table. In addition, selecting a small sample of people to make decisions on behalf of an entire population presents huge challenges of representation, which can lead to accusations of corruption, bias or illegitimacy. The negotiating parties may view themselves as the legitimate …
techreports by Nick Ross
The objective of this report is to summarise the available evidence about civil society’s role in monitoring and verification activities around the world in recent decades. It draws on the “Civil Society and Peacebuilding” project (2006-2010), and the “Broadening Participation in Political Negotiations and Implementation” project (2011-ongoing), both under the lead of Dr Thania Paffenholz at the Graduate Institute of International and Development Studies, Geneva.
Based on experiences from different peace processes, this report’s aim is threefold. First, it provides an introduction to the purpose of monitoring and verification of peace agreements. Second, it presents the different modalities of how civil society has participated in the monitoring and verification of peace agreements, drawing upon examples. Third, it analyses opportunities and challenges, and presents seven lessons for civil society’s effective contribution to monitoring and verification of peace agreements.
articles by Nick Ross
Opposition political parties were able to play a role in bringing armed groups into peace settlements under some conditions, although strong international pressure and support helped to create the preconditions for this role. This evidence suggests a challenge to arguments that major armed groups must be included in peace negotiations if they are to abide by the resulting peace settlement.
inproceedings by Nick Ross
Mediators and negotiators may resist inclusion for a variety of reasons. They may fear that including additional actors alongside the main negotiating parties will lead to a multiplication of positions at the table, making effective compromise more difficult. Included actors may band together (or ally themselves with negotiators) to form polarised coalitions, further inhibiting compromise. Pressures of ongoing violence, or limited funding, may mean that the negotiation timeframe cannot be extended to encompass the significantly increased numbers of positions, leading to reduced opportunity for dialogue and compromise. Inclusion may also not be compatible with the requirements of secrecy that are often the precondition for negotiators to come to the table. In addition, selecting a small sample of people to make decisions on behalf of an entire population presents huge challenges of representation, which can lead to accusations of corruption, bias or illegitimacy. The negotiating parties may view themselves as the legitimate …
The objective of this report is to summarise the available evidence about civil society’s role in monitoring and verification activities around the world in recent decades. It draws on the “Civil Society and Peacebuilding” project (2006-2010), and the “Broadening Participation in Political Negotiations and Implementation” project (2011-ongoing), both under the lead of Dr Thania Paffenholz at the Graduate Institute of International and Development Studies, Geneva.
Based on experiences from different peace processes, this report’s aim is threefold. First, it provides an introduction to the purpose of monitoring and verification of peace agreements. Second, it presents the different modalities of how civil society has participated in the monitoring and verification of peace agreements, drawing upon examples. Third, it analyses opportunities and challenges, and presents seven lessons for civil society’s effective contribution to monitoring and verification of peace agreements.
Opposition political parties were able to play a role in bringing armed groups into peace settlements under some conditions, although strong international pressure and support helped to create the preconditions for this role. This evidence suggests a challenge to arguments that major armed groups must be included in peace negotiations if they are to abide by the resulting peace settlement.