Ambiguous Provisions of Peace Agreements: A Crucial Barrier to Implementation and Motivation for Spoilers in Peace Processes

The effectiveness of peace agreements in post-conflict settings is often undermined by vague or ambiguous provisions, which can hinder implementation and enable spoiler behaviour. The 1996 Abidjan Peace Accord, an important but ultimately unsuccessful attempt to end Sierra Leone’s civil war, has been criticised for its lack of clarity. This study examines how the vagueness of the Accord’s provisions contributed to implementation challenges and the resurgence of conflict. It investigates the relationship between the specificity of peace agreement content and the commitment of warring parties, using the Abidjan Peace Accord as a case study. A qualitative research design was adopted, drawing on data from 40 semi-structured interviews with key informants selected through purposive and snowball sampling. Findings indicate that imprecise provisions weakened trust among stakeholders, enabled divergent interpretations, and created opportunities for spoiler actions that ultimately undermined the peace process. The study concludes that clarity and specificity in peace agreements are critical for ensuring accountability, supporting effective implementation, and reducing the risk of renewed conflict. It recommends that future peace agreements prioritise precise, enforceable language to strengthen post-conflict peacebuilding and improve long-term stability.