This article argues for a new local turn in peace process research to analyze the perspectives and local embeddedness of peace process participants in Track One negotiations. Historically, peace process research and practice have focused on mediators’ strategies for coaxing belligerent disputants into signing agreements. Problems with the implementation of such agreements (i.e., peacebuilding and peacekeeping) are often faulted as the reason for their collapse. However, statistical data points in another direction and raises the following question: To what extent are the set-up and understanding of peace processes themselves (i.e., peacemaking) implicated in the failure of peace agreements? This article highlights how the different experiences with which peace process participants enter negotiations, and the ways in which they operate at the “local” level in addition to the international diplomatic level, have remained largely unexplored for Track One negotiations. Offering a model that understands peace processes as intersecting, oftentimes informal networks, the article proposes that qualitative—for example, anthropological—research into peace processes can contribute to a critical peace process theory that takes these networks into account. To illustrate this argument empirically, the article draws on the U.N. peace process for Syria.

中文翻译：

---

一轨和平进程研究的新地方转向：人类学方法

本文主张在和平进程研究中进行新的地方转向，以分析和平进程参与者在第一轨道谈判中的观点和地方嵌入性。从历史上看，和平进程的研究和实践侧重于调解人诱使交战各方签署协议的策略。此类协议（即建设和平和维持和平）的执行问题常常被认为是导致其崩溃的原因。然而，统计数据指向另一个方向并提出了以下问题：和平进程本身的建立和理解（即缔造和平）在多大程度上与和平协议的失败有关？本文重点介绍了和平进程参与者参与谈判的不同经历，以及它们在“地方”层面以及国际外交层面的运作方式，在第一轨道谈判中基本上没有得到探索。该文章提供了一个模型，将和平进程理解为交叉的、通常是非正式的网络，并提出对和平进程的定性研究（例如人类学）有助于形成将这些网络考虑在内的批判性和平进程理论。为了实证说明这一论点，本文借鉴了联合国叙利亚的和平进程。人类学——对和平进程的研究有助于形成将这些网络考虑在内的关键和平进程理论。为了从经验上说明这一论点，本文借鉴了联合国叙利亚的和平进程。人类学——对和平进程的研究有助于形成将这些网络考虑在内的关键和平进程理论。为了从经验上说明这一论点，本文借鉴了联合国叙利亚的和平进程。