Over the past 50 years, nearly 4 in 10 peace agreements have failed within five years of signing. New research shows that when international partners help implement an accord, the odds improve — and the deeper their engagement, the better.
That's according to a study by University of Notre Dame researcher Madhav Joshi . The study, published in the Journal of Intervention and Statebuilding , shows how the visible, on-the-ground presence of partners such as foreign countries, multilateral institutions and policy advocacy organizations keeps peace agreements on track by raising reputational costs for leaders who fail to implement them.
"My research provides a template that policymakers and practitioners can apply in post-conflict settings," said Joshi, research professor and associate director of the Peace Accords Matrix , part of the Kroc Institute for International Peace Studies at Notre Dame's Keough School of Global Affairs . "This evidence-based approach can help support peace agreements."
Evidence from Colombia
Joshi's research drew on evidence from the historic 2016 Colombian peace accord between the government and the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia-People's Army (FARC-EP), which illustrates these dynamics in practice.
The Colombian agreement has had high levels of global involvement, from negotiation to implementation. More than 30 international actors have helped support the agreement, including the European Union, the United Nations Development Programme, the Carter Center and the U.S. government.
Joshi used data from the Peace Accords Matrix Barometer Initiative , which is responsible for monitoring and verifying implementation of the accord. This is the first time a university-based research center has played such a direct role in supporting the implementation of a peace agreement, and the first time researchers have measured the implementation of a peace accord in real time.
Drawing on this data, Joshi tracked 578 individual commitments from December 2016 through April 2023. He found that international support, and the depth of that support, directly improved implementation outcomes.
Previous research has shown that domestic leaders often fail to implement peace agreements either because they are politically costly or because leaders lose domestic political support. Joshi found that international partners bring expertise and resources to support the aspects of agreements that are most at risk. Crucially, he also found that partners' involvement increases the visibility of these agreements. That motivates leaders to work through obstacles rather than risk losing face on the global stage.
"When domestic actors face higher reputational costs, they are less likely to shirk their commitment to implementing peace," Joshi said.
Colombia's story reflects these findings, Joshi said. When Iván Duque won the Colombian presidency in 2018 by rallying voters against the peace agreement, extensive international involvement meant he couldn't walk away from it, despite his campaign promise.
Informing global peace policy and practice
The new study builds on Joshi's broader body of work, which examines why peace agreements succeed or fail. Previous research has explored how partial agreements can pave the way for more comprehensive deals and how addressing gender issues strengthens accords.
Joshi's work plays a central role in the Peace Accords Matrix. It maintains the world's largest collection of implementation data on intrastate peace agreements, informing the work of policymakers and practitioners.
The latest study carries direct implications for how future agreements are designed, Joshi said, adding that partners should be built into strategies from the start.
"To maximize the chances for success, negotiators should design strategies to incorporate partners before the agreement is signed and deploy them as soon as implementation begins," Joshi said.
