CALL FOR PAPERS
DROPS invites interested female researchers to contribute to the 3rd edition of its annual peer reviewed, Women and Public Policy Journal (WPPJ). This year’s journal will evaluate successful and failed peace processes around the world in an effort to identify key lessons for Afghanistan’s Peace and Reconciliation Process.
Since the end of the Cold War there have been 34 comprehensive peace agreements signed by combatants engaged in armed conflicts around the world. Of these agreements, only a handful of peace agreements have actually resulted in lasting peace. Most have either collapsed into confrontation or have been followed by stalemate, economic struggle, and crime.
Even existing peace efforts around the world, such as the Afghan Peace Process, which have developed their peace frameworks reflecting lessons from previous examples of both successful and failed peace processes, continue to find the future of their peace efforts bleak and unpromising. So this begs the question, what then makes the difference between successful and failed peace processes?
In order to explore this question, the 3rd edition of the Women and Public Policy will offer in-depth research (1) exploring different international case studies involving the implementation of a peace process at one level or another and (2) provide analysis on the Afghan peace process looking at one of nine contemporary peace and reconciliation related indicators.
The Afghan peace process was founded on the principle that military might alone cannot end the violence in Afghanistan. Thus, to facilitate the military approach, the Afghan government created a framework for peace and reconciliation with the Taliban insurgency. The objective of this framework was “To promote peace through a political approach and encourage Taliban fighters and leaders to renounce violence and join a process of reintegration and reconciliation to benefit from a second chance at peace and sustained governance.” To this end, the Afghan government introduced its framework for peace and reconciliation to the international community in 2010 at the London Conference in an effort to garner both political and financial support. Subsequently, it also presented its peace framework to Afghans at the June 2010 National Consultative Peace Jirga in Kabul, where 1500 participants endorsed the creation of a High Peace Council (HPC) mandated to carry out the activities under reconciliation and reintegration. The peace Jirga also set the redlines for negotiations between the government and the Taliban on a possible peace agreement stipulating that Taliban fighters had to accept the Afghan constitution, renounce violence and break ties with al-Qaeda. However, six years into this process, the Afghan government and international community has little to show in terms of achievements. Many attribute this to the peace process lacking transparency and inclusivity, being strictly top-down in its approach, having no clear definition for the opposition, the absence of coordination amongst key state institutions involved in the peace process, the role of local spoilers, regional dissidence and meddling by international actors. These issues have not only created obstacles for progress but have also made the future of the Afghan peace process seem highly ambiguous and unpromising.
FOCUS OF THE 3RD WPPJ:
1. What makes the difference between successful and failed peace processes?
2. How can we improve the chances for a successful peace process in Afghanistan?
To answer the above overarching questions, the 3rd Edition of the Women and Public Policy Journal will be divided into two sections: Section 1 will keep the above questions in mind while identifying lessons learned looking at specific case studies of successful and failed international peace processes. Section 2 will keep the above questions in mind while offering evidence-based research on how different indicators for contemporary peace processes were implemented in the Afghan peace process, what the are existing gaps and what policy recommendations could be formulated to assist policymakers in plugging these gaps.
DROPS invites interested female contributors from the field of research, academia, civil society and the government to submit a 200 word abstract for consideration by DROPS Board of Editors on either one of the case studies, or one of the peace process indicators, mentioned below. Authors of selected abstracts will be commissioned to submit a 2500 word (5 pages) research paper on their selected topic.
The international Case Studies:
1. El Salvador [Case study of a successful peace process]
2. Philippines [Case study of a successful peace process]
3. Rwanda [Case study of a failed peace process]
4. Colombia [Case study of an ongoing peace process]
Peace Process Indicators:
1. Power-Sharing Agreements: Reconciliation, Reintegration and Demobilization
2. Talks and Trust-Building
3. Transitional Justice, the issue of Amnesty and War Victims (incl. disabled persons)
4. Bottom-Up Peace-Building vs. Top-Down
5. Legitimacy and Peace Processes
6. Timing and Sequencing
7. Spoilers Problem
8. Role of International Community in Local Power-Sharing Agreements
9. What Peace means for Citizens: Livelihoods, Rights and Access
• Please email expression of interest by 2 February 2017.
• 200-word Abstract due: 10 February 2017
• First draft of research paper due: 31 March 2017
• Second draft of research paper due: 21 April 2017
• Final research paper due: 9 June 2017
• Journal Launch: October 2017.
Interested authors are requested to email their expression of interest and abstracts to Ms. Rohina Kakar at firstname.lastname@example.org.