Peace talks are an attempt to end an intractable conflict by bringing all sides to the table for negotiations to build a mutually desired future. They often involve complex, multidimensional issues that cannot be solved immediately, and they include a variety of formal arrangements designed to promote the process and address implementation disagreements. Organizational/institutional components—the arrangements that support the implementation of the agreement once it is signed—are the most important element in a successful peace treaty.
Frameworks set the tone and structure the process, and they determine how many actors will participate in the negotiations, the rules for their management, and the scope of inclusivity. They also establish the legal basis for a peace process, determine how much and through which channels to publicize information, and manage the risks of spoilers and exogenous shocks that can threaten the negotiations.
The negotiation frameworks for Colombia and Turkey were similar, yet their outcomes were remarkably different. The Colombian government legislated legal guarantees for nonstate armed actor participation; publicly reported progress (and setbacks) throughout the process; and included a large number of third-party mediators and nonbinding civil society participants. The Turkish government, on the other hand, limited its negotiators to a handful of trusted aides, maintained a monopoly on the flow of information, and excluded nonbinding civil society participation.
The difference in peace process outcome was caused by differences in the negotiation frameworks, which were shaped by the respective regime type and the perceived costs and benefits of initiating the peace talks. Neither regime type directly affected the outcomes of the negotiations, but it was an indirect causal factor through its impact on the negotiation frameworks.