Peace agreements can bring about serious injustices. For example, they may establish oppressive regimes, provide for the transfer of populations, or allocate natural resources in an inequitable manner. This article argues that third-party facilitators―i.e., states and international organizations acting as mediators, donors, or peacekeepers―should have a responsibility to prevent such injustices. While the primary duty to ensure the justice of peace agreements resides with the governments that negotiate and sign them, directing regulation efforts only at those governments may prove insufficient in protecting human rights under the politically constrained circumstances of peacemaking. It is therefore necessary to complement the primary duties of negotiators with secondary duties of facilitators who can afford to contemplate justice considerations and who often have considerable influence on negotiator decisions.
The article presents a novel theory of sovereign authority that provides a normative basis for holding facilitators responsible for preventing peace-related injustices. In accordance with this theory, all world governments in common should bear the responsibility for ensuring the compatibility of peace agreements with human rights norms. Peace facilitators, however, should be singled out to discharge this collective responsibility in view of their potential contribution to peace injustices and of their special ability to prevent them. After addressing possible criticisms of this proposal, the article explores ways to translate facilitator responsibilities into concrete legal obligations. The potential contribution of such obligations to promoting just and sustainable peace is demonstrated through a critical analysis of the treatment of justice issues in past peace negotiations in Bosnia, Sierra Leone, and Afghanistan.