Interactions of political stakeholders and actors Questionbank

Source A

Source B

Adapted from “The Humanitarian Impact of War” by Médecins Sans Frontières (Doctors Without Borders), www.msf.org (2019).

War zones create devastating humanitarian crises that disproportionately affect civilian populations. Médecins Sans Frontières (MSF) reports that in conflict-affected regions like Syria, indiscriminate airstrikes and ground offensives have destroyed vital infrastructure, including hospitals, schools, and water supplies. These attacks not only cause immediate loss of life but also leave millions of people without access to healthcare, clean water, and shelter, driving large-scale displacement both within countries and across borders.

MSF highlights the essential need for humanitarian corridors, secure routes that allow aid organizations to reach populations in need and permit civilians to escape dangerous areas. However, the organization points out that maintaining these corridors is extremely challenging. Warring parties often use access to aid as a bargaining tool, intentionally block humanitarian assistance, or manipulate relief efforts for political gain. The threat of violence against aid workers further restricts operations, placing both civilians and humanitarian staff at constant risk.

The organization calls for stronger enforcement of international humanitarian law, emphasizing that all parties to conflict are obligated to protect civilians and ensure access to humanitarian aid. MSF urges the international community to hold violators accountable, support the neutrality of aid organizations, and prioritize civilian protection to prevent further human suffering in war zones.

Source C

Adapted from “The Limits of Peace Agreements” by the International Peace Institute, www.ipinst.org (2021).

While peace agreements are often celebrated as milestones in conflict resolution, their effectiveness depends on long-term implementation and addressing the root causes of conflict. The International Peace Institute (IPI) examines the 2016 Colombian peace agreement between the government and the FARC rebels, considered a landmark deal at the time. However, IPI notes that achieving lasting peace in Colombia has proved difficult, as challenges remain in reintegrating former combatants, delivering promised reforms, and addressing structural inequalities such as land distribution and rural poverty.

IPI points out that many peace agreements worldwide suffer from a gap between signed commitments and actual change on the ground. In Colombia, violence has persisted in some regions due to the emergence of new armed groups and ongoing disputes over resources and territory. The institute warns that without sustained political will, adequate funding, and mechanisms for accountability, peace agreements risk being only symbolic. Ensuring justice for victims, guaranteeing security, and building trust among divided communities are highlighted as key prerequisites for genuine reconciliation.

The report concludes that for peace agreements to have a transformative impact, they must be accompanied by comprehensive policies that address historical grievances, promote inclusion, and support social and economic development alongside political solutions.

Source D

Adapted from “The Role of Regional Organizations in Conflict Resolution” by the African Union Peace and Security Council, www.au.int (2020).

Regional organizations such as the African Union (AU) are increasingly recognized as essential actors in managing and resolving conflicts on the continent. The African Union Peace and Security Council (AUPSC) describes how regional organizations offer valuable local knowledge, quicker response capabilities, and political legitimacy in peace operations. The AU has played a critical role in mediating conflicts and deploying peacekeeping missions, such as the African Union Mission in Somalia (AMISOM) and the United Nations–African Union Mission in Darfur (UNAMID), to stabilize regions, protect civilians, and facilitate humanitarian aid.

Despite these achievements, the AUPSC identifies several persistent challenges. Funding shortfalls, limited logistical capacity, and dependence on external donors (such as the European Union or United Nations) constrain the scope and effectiveness of regional missions. In addition, political divisions among member states and varying levels of commitment can undermine unified action. The council also highlights the complexity of some conflicts, which often require close collaboration with international partners and national governments.

Nevertheless, the report argues that regional organizations, given their proximity and understanding of local dynamics, are well-positioned to take a lead role in conflict prevention and resolution. The AUPSC calls for stronger institutional support, sustainable financing, and increased cooperation between regional, continental, and global actors to achieve lasting peace in Africa.

Source A

Source B
Adapted from “The Role of Mediation in Conflict Resolution,” United Nations Mediation Support Unit, www.un.org (2018).

Mediation has become a central approach for resolving both interstate and intrastate conflicts in today’s world. The United Nations emphasizes that effective mediation depends on several core principles: the neutrality of mediators, the building of trust among conflicting parties, and the inclusion of all key stakeholders in negotiations.

A prominent example occurred during Kenya’s 2008 post-election crisis, when violence erupted over disputed election results. The African Union, with former UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan as chief mediator, succeeded in brokering a power-sharing agreement that prevented further bloodshed and restored stability. This case is often cited as a demonstration of mediation’s capacity to de-escalate crises and create space for dialogue.

However, mediation is rarely straightforward. The process faces major hurdles, including the reluctance of parties to make meaningful concessions, spoilers seeking to undermine progress, and interference by external actors with their own agendas. Furthermore, a lack of deep understanding of the historical, political, and cultural roots of a conflict can limit the effectiveness of mediation efforts. The UN stresses the need for robust support to mediators, ongoing monitoring, and the adaptation of strategies to local realities to increase the prospects for achieving a durable peace.

Source C
Adapted from “The Human Cost of War,” Amnesty International, www.amnesty.org (2021).

Modern conflicts inflict devastating consequences on civilian populations, causing widespread displacement, civilian casualties, and gross human rights abuses. Yemen’s ongoing war, which began in 2015, exemplifies the toll of protracted violence. The UN has called Yemen the world’s worst humanitarian crisis, with millions of people facing hunger, disease, and limited access to basic necessities like healthcare and clean water.

According to Amnesty International, all sides in the conflict—including Houthi forces and the Saudi-led coalition—have been accused of violations such as indiscriminate bombings, use of banned weapons, and targeting of civilian infrastructure. This has led to large-scale displacement, trauma, and the breakdown of families and communities. Despite repeated international efforts to negotiate ceasefires and improve humanitarian access, the parties’ repeated violations of agreements demonstrate the fragility of peace efforts. Amnesty International calls for greater international accountability and stronger enforcement of humanitarian law.

The report argues that the global community has a duty to protect civilians, ensure aid reaches those in need, and hold perpetrators to account, warning that the absence of such measures perpetuates suffering and instability in conflict zones like Yemen.

Source D
Adapted from “The Dilemma of Humanitarian Intervention,” Jayshree Bajoria and Robert McMahon, Council on Foreign Relations, www.cfr.org (2013).

The escalating violence and humanitarian disaster in Syria have reignited debate over the legitimacy and effectiveness of humanitarian interventions by the international community. The “responsibility to protect” (R2P) doctrine, adopted by the UN in 2005, was intended to provide a framework for intervention when states fail to protect their citizens from mass atrocities.

In practice, however, R2P has become contentious. The 2011 intervention in Libya, where a UN-mandated coalition carried out airstrikes to protect civilians from Muammar Qaddafi’s forces, is often cited as a turning point. While the intervention contributed to the fall of Qaddafi, it was widely criticized—especially by Russia and China—as going beyond civilian protection and being used as cover for regime change. The aftermath of Libya’s collapse led to instability in the region and skepticism about future interventions.

In Syria, despite mounting evidence of atrocities, Security Council divisions and fears of repeating the Libyan experience have paralyzed decisive action. Experts argue that concerns about sovereignty, great power rivalry, and the unintended consequences of intervention now make global support for humanitarian military action less likely, even in the face of grave human rights abuses.

Source A

"Truth And Reconciliation - The Gap". A newspaper cartoon by Zapiro, published in South Africa. (1) Truth (2) Map (3) OOPS! (4) Reconciliation

Source B

Adapted from: “Report: Transitional Justice in Colombia, Five Years After the Peace Agreement,” July 20, 2021, by Human Rights Watch: an international NGO focused on defending and protecting human rights.

The Colombian conflict, which lasted for over five decades, resulted in the deaths of more than 220,000 people and the displacement of millions. The 2016 peace agreement between the Colombian government and the FARC-EP guerrilla group aimed to bring an end to the violence and deliver truth, justice, and reparations to the victims. However, five years after the agreement, many survivors and their families are still waiting for meaningful justice and acknowledgment of their suffering.

While the Special Jurisdiction for Peace (SJP) was established to investigate and prosecute those most responsible for serious crimes, progress has been slow. Many perpetrators have not been brought to account, and victims, especially women, indigenous people, and rural communities, continue to face obstacles in accessing justice, truth, and reparations. Furthermore, continued violence and threats from new armed groups have left many victims feeling unsafe and unsupported.

Our organization urges Colombian authorities to increase support for victim participation, provide comprehensive reparation programs, including psychological support and land restitution, and ensure that all crimes, including those related to sexual violence, are fully investigated. Only by addressing the full scope of harm can Colombia achieve sustainable peace and justice for all its citizens.

Reparation: the action of making amends for a wrong one has done, by providing payment or other assistance to those who have been wronged.

Source C

Adapted from: “Transitional Justice in Colombia, Five Years After the Peace Agreement,” by International Center for Transitional Justice, November 24, 2021, for a human rights report.

Five years have passed since the Colombian government and the FARC guerrilla movement signed a historic peace agreement in 2016, ending over fifty years of armed conflict. While the agreement was a turning point that brought a reduction in large-scale violence, many victims and their families are still struggling to achieve full justice, truth, and reparation for the crimes they endured.

The Special Jurisdiction for Peace (JEP) was established as a transitional justice mechanism to investigate, prosecute, and sanction those most responsible for serious human rights violations, including massacres, forced displacement, kidnappings, and sexual violence. Despite some progress, such as public hearings and the acknowledgment of responsibility by some former FARC commanders, critics argue that the JEP has faced repeated delays, limited resources, and political resistance.

Many victims’ groups highlight that while the JEP has prioritized truth-telling and symbolic reparations, comprehensive material compensation and psychological support remain insufficient. Some communities, particularly indigenous and Afro-Colombian populations, continue to feel marginalized in the process and call for greater inclusion and transparency.

International organizations and local NGOs stress that meaningful transitional justice in Colombia depends not just on legal outcomes, but on concrete efforts to rebuild trust, address socioeconomic inequalities, and guarantee non-repetition of violence. Without sustained commitment from both the government and armed groups, the goals of truth, justice, and reparation may remain only partially fulfilled.

Source D

Adapted from: “Colombia’s Truth Commission: Progress and Challenges in Delivering Justice,” by María Rodríguez, for the Journal of Peace and Human Rights, July 15, 2022.

The establishment of the Truth, Coexistence and Non-Repetition Commission (CEV) was a central part of Colombia’s 2016 peace agreement, designed to clarify what happened during more than five decades of armed conflict and to recognize the suffering of victims. The Truth Commission’s main objectives are to uncover the causes and consequences of violence, foster reconciliation between affected communities, and recommend comprehensive reparation measures for victims of human rights violations.

Since its creation, the Truth Commission has collected thousands of testimonies from victims, ex-combatants, and state officials across the country. These testimonies have revealed the wide-ranging impact of the conflict, including forced displacement, land seizures, massacres, and widespread sexual violence. Despite these achievements, the Commission faces significant obstacles: some former armed actors and members of the security forces have refused to participate, and there has been political pressure to limit the scope of its investigations.

Victims’ organizations have welcomed the Truth Commission’s efforts to give voice to marginalized groups, especially indigenous, Afro-Colombian, and rural communities. However, many stress that symbolic recognition must be followed by concrete reparations, long-term psychosocial support, and effective guarantees that such violence will not happen again. Limited resources and ongoing security threats in some regions have also made it difficult for the Commission to reach all those affected.

International observers note that the success of Colombia’s transitional justice process depends on continued government support, full participation from all sides, and real progress in delivering both justice and reparations. Without these, the risk remains that past patterns of exclusion and impunity will persist, undermining the prospects for lasting peace.