Justice and peace are commonly seen as mutually reinforcing, and key international peacebuilding documents stress the importance of human rights. Is this apparent normative shift reflected in post-Cold War peace agreements? The existing literature is divided on this issue but has crucially treated both conflicts and peace agreements as aggregate categories. This article argues that the conflict type and the agreement's ‘core deal’ impact on the inclusion, or exclusion, of human rights provisions. Based on new coding of the 29 comprehensive agreements signed between 1990 and 2010, it compares agreements signed in territorial and non-territorial conflicts, and agreements with and without territorial autonomy. Qualitative Comparative Analysis is used to examine the different combinations of conditions that led to the inclusion of human rights. The analysis finds that agreements signed in territorial conflicts are significantly less likely to include effective human rights provisions, especially if the settlement includes territorial autonomy. Moreover, such provisions tend to be the result of high levels of international involvement, and the consequent lack of local commitment, or outright resistance, undermines their implementation. These findings point to important trade-offs between group rights and individual rights, and qualifies the notion of a liberal peace.

中文翻译：

---

领土和平协定中的人权

正义与和平通常被视为相辅相成，重要的国际建设和平文件强调了人权的重要性。这种明显的规范转变是否反映在冷战后的和平协议中？现有文献在这个问题上存在分歧，但批判性地将冲突和和平协议视为总体类别。本文认为，冲突类型和协议的“核心协议”会影响人权条款的纳入或排除。根据对 1990 年至 2010 年间签署的 29 项全面协议的新编码，它比较了在领土和非领土冲突中签署的协议，以及有和没有领土自治的协议。定性比较分析用于检查导致纳入人权的条件的不同组合。分析发现，在领土冲突中签署的协议不太可能包含有效的人权条款，尤其是在解决方案包括领土自治的情况下。此外，此类规定往往是国际参与程度高的结果，因此缺乏当地承诺或直接抵制，会破坏其实施。这些发现指出了群体权利和个人权利之间的重要权衡，并证明了自由和平的概念。随之而来的当地缺乏承诺或直接抵制，会破坏它们的实施。这些发现指出了群体权利和个人权利之间的重要权衡，并证明了自由和平的概念。随之而来的当地缺乏承诺或直接抵制，会破坏它们的实施。这些发现指出了群体权利和个人权利之间的重要权衡，并证明了自由和平的概念。