In any protracted conflict, peace agreements are indispensable for bringing an end to hostilities. But their structure can vary significantly, depending on the nature of the underlying dispute and the nature of the peace process itself. The Kroc Institute for International Peace Studies hosts an interactive database of peace agreements where scholars and practitioners can compare 51 different themes across all comprehensive peace agreements signed since 1989.
The functions of peace agreements fall into three broad categories. Pre-negotiation agreements have the function of regulating who is going to negotiate on behalf of the belligerent parties, framework or substantive agreements address the underlying dispute triggering the armed conflict, and implementation agreements flesh out the details of the framework or substantive agreement (Bell p. 3).
Another important function of peace agreements is to address the recurrence of violence after a negotiated settlement. To address this issue, some agreements include security guarantees. Jill Freeman describes how such clauses can be crafted in ways that support post-conflict stability.
Finally, peace agreements can also be geared toward transitioning from war to peace. Such agreements typically contain provisions addressing the disarmament, demobilization, rehabilitation, and reintegration of organized armed groups, restructure and training of governmental armed forces, power-sharing and democratization, and national reconciliation. These issues are often intertwined and a full understanding of how they are structured requires an integrated approach to analyzing post-conflict stability. The Lomé Peace Agreement, for example, includes provisions that address these intertwined elements (Arts IV-VII Peace Agreement Between the Government of Eritrea and the Government of the Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia). These are just a few examples of the many ways in which peace agreements can be tailored to meet specific needs and circumstances.