IDPs directly in a multi-track peace process, it is important to develop complementary strategies to represent their interests.<sup>50</sup> The scholarship articulates some expectations regarding what makes a peace agreement more likely to contribute to the safe and sustainable return of IDPs. We use these expectations to structure our analysis of the LPAs in Iraq and focus on the following key factors identified in the academic literature:

- Of greatest importance is the ability of IDPs to participate in the negotiation and implementation of a peace agreement, via ‘a process that carries weight,’<sup>51</sup> meaning that IDP participation has an identifiable impact.<sup>52</sup> However, scholars also acknowledge that even lesser forms of participation (such as outreach or community consultations) can also make an important contribution.<sup>53</sup>

- The more comprehensive the involvement in a peace agreement, the more likely it is to achieve a durable peace.<sup>54</sup> That is to say, the inclusion of multiple parties’ interests, beyond those of the armed actors, improves an accord’s chances for overall success.<sup>55</sup> Beyond the inclusion of IDPs, scholars highlight that peace negotiations with greater inclusivity of civil society actors are more likely to contribute to durable peace,<sup>56</sup> as are those that include women in the negotiation process.<sup>57</sup>

- In addition to the right to return, it is vital for peace agreements to address the specific concerns held by IDPs, which may include issues such as property restitution, discrimination, and reconciliation.<sup>58</sup> Intra-community relations are highlighted as a key issue to address, given that in many situations, IDPs are not welcomed by local communities and encounter discrimination or even acts of violence upon return.<sup>59</sup>

50 This may include international mediators prompting political leaders to incorporate displacement issues in peace negotiations in consultation with IDPs, or focusing on the legal rights of IDPs through international, regional and national mechanisms. See: Brookings Institution, Addressing Internal Displacement in Peace Processes, Peace Agreements and Peace-Building, September 2007. Available at: https://www.brookings.edu/wpcontent/uploads/2016/06/2007_peaceprocesses.pdf

> 51 Magarrell, L. (2007). Outreach to and engagement of victims on reparations–Lessons learned from truth and reconciliation processes. In _Speech at the Conference Reparations for Victims of Genocide, Crimes against Humanity and War Crimes: Systems in Place and Systems in the Making._

> 52 Magarrell, L. (2007).

> 53 Taylor, D. (2014). Victim participation in transitional justice mechanisms: Real power or empty ritual. _Impunity Watch Research_ .

> 54 Badran, R. (2014). Intrastate peace agreements and the durability of peace. _Conflict Management and Peace Science_ , 31(2), pp.193-217.

> 55 Andersen-Rodgers, D.R. (2015).

> 56 Nilsson, D. (2012). Anchoring the peace: Civil society actors in peace accords and durable peace. International Interactions, 38(2), pp.243-266.; Paffenholz, T., (2014). Civil society and peace negotiations: beyond the inclusion– exclusion dichotomy. Negotiation Journal, 30(1), pp.69-91.

> 57 Mary, C., Nielsen, R. and Hudson, V.M., (2017). Women and Post-Conflict Settings. In _Peace and Conflict_ 2010 (pp. 91-102). Routledge.

> 58 Fagen, P.W. (2009). Institute; O’Neill, W. (2009)

> 59 For example, see: E/CN.4/2006/71/Add.4 (Bosnia-Herzegovina), para. 36; E/CN.4/2006/71/Add.5 (Serbia-Montenegro including Kosovo), para. 56.

9