Paths Toward Negotiated Agreement in Terrorism Conflict: Illustrations from Four Cases

Abstract

Government officials are never eager to negotiate with terrorist groups. In practice, though, they often decide to do so after a long terrorist campaign threatens their national security. Sometimes negotiated agreement is the result. What causes this development? Conflict ripeness, turning points and negotiation readiness explain conceptually how parties come to the table for talks. These ideas are represented respectively in frequency and severity of terrorist attacks and leadership change in affected governments and examined in four cases of long wars of terrorism conflict: Northern Ireland, Spain, Sri Lanka, and Israel-Palestine, to discover whether escalation or de-escalation processes-examined in a simple form - signal convergence toward negotiation, and if new leaders in office make a difference.