When Peace Fails But Terrorism Succeeds : Do Failing Peace Agreements Encourage Terrorism?

The quality of peace at the end of civil war has emerged as an important concept for understanding persistent security threats. This study seeks to bridge two well established fields by asking: Does the failure to implement a peace agreement encourage terrorism? I argue that the psychological effect of a failing peace agreement shapes the individual’s propensity to terrorism by enhancing the appeal of a frame which favors “radical” action to advance the group’s struggle for recognition. Terrorism can be simultaneously an emotionally driven response at the individual level, and a rational choice at the group level. This paper employs mixed methods. A cross-case study measures the spatial/temporal variation in peace settlement implementation and the intensity of terrorism between/within 34 post-accord settings. A within-case study leverages temporal variation to illustrate how four violent non-state actors responded to perceptions of salient loss at various points in the Mindanao peace process. While each organization used terrorism strategically, the strategies were not always linked to peace settlement implementation. This study advances understanding of the event-driven relationship between implementation failure and terrorism, the process by which “radical” frames convert an individual’s emotional reaction into political violence, and the dynamic integration of quantitative and qualitative research