Balancing Legalism and Pragmatism: A Qualitative Content Analysis of Human Rights Language in Peace Agreements

Abstract

In recent decades, the role of human rights in peacebuilding has been the object of scholarly and practitioner debate. Some commentators criticize human rights for being inflexibly legalist and for lacking pragmatism regarding the domestic implementation of international law. Other scholars support the inclusion of human rights provisions in peace agreements, as central to sustainable peace. Which account—the legalist or the pragmatist—is indeed more accurate in the context of the language of peace agreements? This research draws on the scholarship on peacebuilding and human rights to offer a qualitative content analysis of human rights provisions in 357 peace agreements signed from 1990 to 2020. The analysis finds that, in peace agreements, some human rights provisions can serve a wider range of peace-related purposes that go far beyond a legalist purpose while still advancing the importance of alignment with international law. The findings are important, suggesting that our quest for the causes of human rights implementation failures might have to move past a critique of the language of human rights and look elsewhere for factors explaining non-compliance with international human rights.