# **Section 1: Introduction**

Modern intrastate conflicts have become known for their intensity and complexity, generating not only mass displacement, loss of life, and destroyed infrastructure, but also severely damaging social relationships and undermining trust in state institutions. In this context, resolving displacement is a complex task: in order for people to return ‘home,’ they need to feel that the issues driving the conflict have been sufficiently addressed and will not recur in future, to the detriment of both stability and prospects for sustainable development.<sup>1</sup> In order to generate this sense of confidence and understand the concerns of displaced persons, it has become increasingly common to include refugees and internally displaced persons (IDPs) in peace processes that occur at or near the end of war.<sup>2</sup> Peace processes entail a mix of ‘politics, diplomacy, changing relationships, negotiation, mediation, and dialogue’ and aim to solve conflict by peaceful means,<sup>3</sup> typically concluding with a formal peace agreement that articulates and addresses the substantive issues underlying the conflict.<sup>4</sup> Iraq offers a valuable case study in this respect. Following a period of conflict associated with the Islamic State (ISIL) from 2014 until 2017, numerous local peace agreements (LPAs) were negotiated between IDPs accused of siding with ISIL and their ‘home’ communities, members of which including those who rejected, fought against, or were victimized by ISIL. These LPAs aimed to lay the foundation for reconciliation between IDPs and their home communities and negotiate the return of IDPs in a safe and sustainable manner.

This study examines eight LPAs established in Iraq between 2015 and 2020. Each LPA applies to a single town, sub-district or governorate and was drafted and signed by prominent tribal and community leaders. Alternatively known as ‘return agreements’ or ‘tribal peace accords,’ the LPAs grapple with one of the most pressing issues for durable peace in Iraq’s post-war context: how to resolve the protracted displacement of families with a perceived affiliation to ISIL. Each agreement attempted to establish or recognize principles and a mechanism to govern the return of IDPs, as well as a commitment to the rule of law, with the expectation that this would mitigate revenge attacks and collective punishment while simultaneously addressing security concerns. While these LPAs have received substantial attention by the international community,<sup>5</sup> there is little analysis regarding the

> 1 O’Neill, W. (2009) _Internal displacement and peacebuilding: Institutional responses_ . Refugee Survey Quarterly, 28(1), pp.151-180.

> 2 For an overview, 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

> 3 Saunders, H. (2001) Turbulent Peace, Washington DC: US Institute for Peace.

> 4 Although peace agreements still only make up just 18.4 per cent of total terminations. Kreutz, J. (2010). _How and when armed conflicts end: Introducing the UCDP Conflict Termination dataset. Journal of Peace Research_ , 47(2), pp.243-250. 5 The LPAs in this study have been designed, implemented and/or supported in other ways by the United States Institute of Peace (USIP), Sanad for Peacebuilding (Sanad), Peace Paradigms Organization (PPO), the German Corporation for International Cooperation (GIZ), The Government of Canada-PSOPs Program, and the United Nations Development Program (UNDP).

2