 |
Recent peace agreements have referred extensively to human rights norms and principles. While most human rights proponents consider this a positive trend, peace mediators sometimes feel that the reference to human rights constitutes an obstacle to successful negotiations. References to human rights in peace agreements address a broad set of issues, from ratification of international instruments to establishment of “truth and reconciliation commission” and/or other justice mechanisms, to principles to be respected in holding democratic elections, often believed to be the ultimate step in the transition period.
This paper will analyze as to why certain human rights provisions (substantive protection issues; categories of rights holders/duty bearers; reform of the justice system; monitoring mechanisms; mechanism of dealing with the issues of accountability for the past) were not included in the General Peace Accords of 1992, signed between Frelimo government of Mozambique and opposition forces of Renamo; and how and in what way did the omission of human rights clauses affect the development of democracy and pluralism in Mozambique.
This paper argues that, specifically in the case of Mozambique, it was more important in the immediate sense to bring warring parties at the negotiating table and put an end to hostilities, rather than insist - during the fragile negotiations - on inclusion of human rights provisions in the agreement, thus potentially endangering the negotiation process and prolonging the civil war.
This paper further intends to analyze the relationship between human rights and sustainable peace; examine whether human rights provisions assist or hinder the search for peace; and to what extent were human rights deficits in the agreements subsequently addressed, and to what extent did the agreements’ limitations limit the promotion and protection of human rights?