How can areas of potential agreement be identified and endorsed by citizens in protracted conflicts? In an effort to answer this question, the article introduces a conjoint experiment across the ethnically and territorially split communities of Cyprus and tests a range of hypotheses about the structure of public opinion with respect to a future settlement. We test hypotheses on security and credible commitments, the legacy of past negotiations, as well as transitional justice mechanisms following United Nations plans to mediate the conflict between Greek and Turkish Cypriots. Contrary to conventional wisdom, we demonstrate that a zone of possible agreement (ZOPA) exists from a public opinion perspective. We specifically explore power-sharing in the context of security, provisions for the internally displaced, federal courts, and territorial readjustments and highlight their relative importance for public opinion interventions across conflict-ridden societies.

在旷日持久的冲突中，公民如何识别和认可潜在的协议领域？为了回答这个问题，本文介绍了一个跨越塞浦路斯种族和领土分裂社区的联合实验，并测试了一系列关于未来解决方案的公众舆论结构的假设。我们检验关于安全和可信承诺、过去谈判的遗产以及联合国计划调解希族塞人和土族塞人之间冲突后的过渡司法机制的假设。与传统观点相反，我们证明了从公众舆论的角度来看，可能达成一致的区域 (ZOPA) 是存在的。我们特别探讨了安全背景下的权力分享、国内流离失所者的规定、联邦法院、