Abstract
Drawing on the dataset that surfaced the original definition of ‘inclusive commissions,’ the authors present a framework for classifying peace commissions, and argue that substantial variation in the design of commissions and how they articulate with other institutions in a peace or political process may help to account for the lack of consensus across thematic literatures. On the other hand, the focus of existing commissions studies on a few functions or mandates, and the conception of ‘inclusion’ in these studies, may miss significant parts of commissions’ contribution. We discuss the limitations of conventional models of inclusion, and suggest an alternative that emphasizes the infrastructural contribution made by commissions. Lastly, we describe the important dimensions of how commissions interact with other institutions, and how these correspond to strategies of resistance by conflict imbricated elites.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
