ABSTRACT
Discourses presenting Northern Ireland as a ‘model’ of conflict resolution have become increasingly prevalent since the 1998 Agreement, and particularly since the restoration of devolution under an Executive headed by the DUP and Sinn Féin. The idea of examining Northern Ireland comparatively is not, of course, a new departure. Earlier comparative work was largely undertaken by academics and entailed looking at Northern Ireland in comparison to other conflicts, notably the Middle East, Cyprus and South Africa. Politicians in Northern Ireland during the Troubles generally sought to invoke international comparisons either to increase sympathy for the plight of their community or the legitimacy of their struggle (as in the case of republicans), or to legitimise the existence of Northern Ireland itself (as attempted by unionists). This pattern changed significantly, however, post-Agreement. A number of politicians associated with the peace process have actively encouraged international comparisons, even making claims as to ‘lessons’ to be learnt from Northern Ireland’s ‘model’ of conflict resolution. The implication (and often the assertion) is that Northern Ireland’s experience may be replicable in other conflict zones and its experience used as a basis for resolving other conflicts. Politicians from Britain, Ireland and the United States in particular have been keen to invoke this case and extol its virtues. This chapter seeks to examine several issues associated with the apparent emergence of the ‘model’ and note some of the problems with its delineation and application.
