Rebuilding the social fabric between states or within a state can be extremely difficult. In some cases, national or national construction may seem impossible. (The U.S. experience in Iraq in 2004-5 is certainly an example of what, if not impossible, it is much more difficult than the U.S. government had anticipated!) The section on the socio-structural aspects of peace agreements discusses ways to recognize and resolve some of these issues. The second type of organizational/institutional component aims to resolve the following/future conflicts on substantive issues such as the abuse of state power over human rights and the promotion of transparency and accountability in governance. These mechanisms, often referred to as “peace-building mechanisms” at the United Nations, help promote the culture of peaceful conflict resolution in a society and public confidence in the state`s ability to systematically and impartially resolve future problems. The components of the procedure define the processes that establish and maintain peace. They are re-developing the ECONOMY of a peace process by defining the processes and actions that contribute to the construction of peace. These include setting timetables and institutions to facilitate the implementation of substantive issues such as elections, justice, human rights and disarmament. Another famous example would be the series of peace agreements known as the peace of Westphalia. It has initiated modern diplomacy that integrates the modern system of nation-states.
Subsequent wars were no longer about religion, but about state issues. This encouraged the Catholic and Protestant powers to ally themselves, which led to a series of important realignments. In any long-running violent conflict, transgressions of justice are inevitable. Peace agreements must be structured to recognize these offences and, in most cases, to bring justice to victims. Michelle Maiese`s “Fighting Injustice” section establishes a framework for the categorization of injustice, and then strategies to combat injustice in the structure of peace agreements. Peace treaties, while diverse, generally have a broad common goal: to outline the conditions for a lasting resolution of hostilities between two belligerents. To this end, the provisions of the peace treaty generally deal with common issues. These include formal identification of borders, access and allocation of man-made natural resources, settlement of relevant debts, recognition of refugees, future dispute resolution procedures and identification of relevant practices in accordance with treaty provisions.
In addition to similar provisions, peace agreements have similar formats. They often begin with an introduction or preamble specifying the purpose of the peace treaty. These introductions often refrain from repeating all the facts often debated about the conflict, but simply explain that peace will begin. The Treaty of Paris, which ended the War of Independence of the Americas with Great Britain in 1783, begins with, for example, a preface that declares the intentions of both sides to “forget all the misunderstandings and differences of the past” and “guarantee both eternal peace and harmony.” The 1994 peace agreement between Israel and Jordan contains a preamble describing the “end of the state of war” between the two nations. The Treaty of Versailles of the First World War, signed in 1919, renounces an expanded formal introduction in favour of a descriptive title, followed by immediate articles on the creation of the League of Nations.