Skip to main content

ETHNOS_APP

Home • Search • Journals • List 0

Kvifor forhandle fred? Ein analyse av forhandlingsstart i den væpna konflikten i Colombia

Bibliographic Data

ID12964656
AuthorsD Bard (Norwegian Institute of International Affairs, corresponding author)
Year2018
Volume76
Issue3
Pages193-193
Publication date2018-01-01
Peer ReviewedYes
Open AccessYes
TypeARTICLE
VenueInternasjonal politikk (JOURNAL)
Journal identifiersISSN: 1891-1757 • E-ISSN: 0020-577X
PublisherCappelen Damm Akademisk (PUBLISHER • NO)
DOI10.23865/intpol.v76.1196
OpenAlexW2894764950
LanguageEN
References cited13

Konflikten i Colombia har i mange tiår vore tilsynelatande uløyseleg. Trass i mange fredsforsøk har den alltid blussa opp att. I denne artikkelen forsøker eg å forklare starten på forhandlingane i 2012 mellom den colombianske staten og FARC, den største geriljagruppa i landet. Eg hevdar den fundamentale forklaringa på at dei nådde forhandlingsbordet, ligg i den militære svekkinga av FARC på 2000-talet, som gjorde at geriljagruppa gradvis såg det naudsynt, for i det minste å nå nokre av måla sine, å slutte konflikten gjennom forhandlingar. Den nest viktigaste faktoren er endringa i leiarskapet i Colombia, der den nyvalde presidenten Juan Manuel Santos i 2010 såg ei politisk løysing som mogleg og meir attraktiv enn forgjengaren og tok pragmatiske grep for å skape ein levedyktig prosess. Også tredjepartar bidrog til sjølve gjennomføringa av ein trygg og hemmeleg prosess samt til tillit til prosessen. Forhandlingsstart i 2012 vert – ved bruk av structured focused comparison – samanlikna med fredsdialogen i Caguán (1999–2002) mellom dei same partane, der partane ikkje byrja forhandlingar. Case-studiar som denne kan hjelpe oss å forstå dynamikkar bak kvifor væpna aktørar vel ei politisk løysing på ein væpna konflikt. Forhandlingsstart, som eg analyserer, må ikkje likestillast med fredsavtale eller slutten på konflikten, men kan gje oss viktige svar på kor væpna aktørar sin motivasjon til å forhandle kjem frå, og under kva tilhøve denne motivasjonen kan bringe partane til forhandlingsbordet. The conflict in Colombia has seemed insolvable for decades. Despite several peace attempts, it has always flared up again. In this article, I explain the onset of peace negotiations in 2012 between the Government of Colombia and the FARC, the largest guerrilla group in the country. I claim the fundamental explanation for why they initiated negotiations was the military weakening of the FARC in the 2000s, which led the guerrilla group to appreciate the necessity of ending the conflict through negotiation in order to reach at least some of their goals. The second most important factor was the change in leadership in Colombia, where in 2010 the newly-elected president, Juan Manuel Santos, considered a political solution possible and more attractive than his predecessor did, and took pragmatic measures to create a sustainable process. In addition, third parties contributed to safe and secret proceedings and to trust in the peace process. Negotiations begun in 2012 are – through a structured, focused comparison – compared with the peace dialogue in Caguán (1999-2002) between the same actors, where negotiation did not start. Case studies like this one can help us understand dynamics behind the choices of armed actors to pursue political solutions to armed conflicts. The onset of negotiation, which I analyze, must not be equated with a peace agreement or the end of the conflict. It can, however, provide important answers about where armed actors’ motivation to end conflicts come from, and under what conditions this motivation can bring the parties to the negotiating table

Art · Humanities · Political science · Conflict, Peace, and Violence in Colombia · History and Politics in Latin America · International Relations in Latin America

  • Negotiating Peace

    Paul R Pillar•Negotiating Peace•1983

  • Conflict Management and Israeli-Palestinian Conflict

    Jacob Bercovitch, Seniha Ayse Kadayifci•Asia-Pacific Review•2002

  • Stopping the Killing

    Roy E Licklider, Roy Licklider•Stopping the Killing•1993

  • Ripeness Theory and the Oslo Talks

    Pruitt Pruitt•International Negotiation•1997

  • David Galula's Counterinsurgency

    Alexander Grenoble, William Rose et al.•Civil Wars•2011

  • Political Constraints and Civil War Conflict Resolution

    Brian R Urlacher•Civil Wars•2011

  • Case Studies and Theory Development in the Social Sciences

    Open Access•Berman, Sheri Berman•Perspectives on Politics•2007

  • The Negotiation Calculus

    Jeffrey M Kaplow•International Studies Quarterly•2016

  • Getting to the Table and Getting to Yes

    Open Access•Faten Ghosn•International Studies Quarterly•2010

  • Getting to the Table

    Janice Gross Stein•International Journal Canada s…•1989

  • Blocking resolution

    Open Access•David E Cunningham, David Cunningham•Journal of Peace Research•2010

  • Why Do Some Civil Wars Last So Much Longer than Others

    Open Access•James D Fearon•Journal of Peace Research•2004

  • Readiness Theory and the Northern Ireland Conflict

    Open Access•Dean G Pruitt•American Behavioral Scientist•2007

Citation velocityhistorical
Highly citedNo

Tools

Open DOIOpen Access
Ethnos_APP • Open Source Project • MIT License • Frontend v2.0.0 • Privacy and Cookies • API Documentation: api.ethnos.app/docs • API Source Code: GitHub • DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.17049435 • Frontend Source Code: GitHub • DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.17050053 • cruz.rio.br • Expectantes Misericordiae