Peace agreements as way of ending civil wars are on the decline. Whereas the period following the end of the Cold War was a time period that saw many armed conflicts terminated through negotiated settlements, the trend of peace deals in the last few years has been negative. Yet, no study has hitherto explained this significant decline in negotiated settlements. In this study, we empirically substantiate our claim that peace agreements have declined and show that it is not a simple function of less armed conflicts (to be terminated). We argue that the shifting trend of negotiated settlements as a way to end violent conflicts can be explained by four major factors: 1) a changing perception of non-state armed actors following the 9/11 attacks and the so called war on terrorism; 2) the growth and strengthening of a global human rights agenda; 3) structural power-shifts away from a unified American-led unipolar system; and 4) the shifting nature of armed conflicts (political violent groups.) Examining global statistics on armed conflicts from the Uppsala Conflict Data Program (UCDP), as well as a set of cases studies from across the globe, we scrutinize the empirical support for these claims. This study speaks to the ongoing academic debates on the decline of political violence, as well as to the debate about whether military victories or negotiated settlements are the most optimal way of ending civil wars.
