ABSTRACT
Resolving intractable conflicts in peace agreements, or even bringing the parties to agree to sit at the table in these persisting conflicts, can be an exhausting and complicated task for third parties or for parties interested in exploring this option. Intractable conflicts are conflicts that defy settlement. Each intractable conflict is different, is rooted in its own specific circumstances, and involves its own issues and actors. Two theoretical strands in the conflict resolution field explain the conditions that convince longtime rivals to change their approach and consider the negotiation option, agree to negotiate, and even sign an agreement. The evolution of the ripeness discourse began with the original theory that identified mutually hurting stalemate and way out as necessary elements affecting the decision to start negotiation. Ripeness as a pressure toward negotiation tends to be absent in intractable conflicts; the parties, deeply immersed in the conflict dynamics, perceive no pressure to resolve the conflict.
