According to the nature of the issues that provoke war, (ethnicity, race, nationalism…etc.) are more difficult to resolve than economic, political issues, since they provoke deeper levels of commitment that is hard to compromise. The secessionist conflicts are best resolved by devolution of powers, while a revolution is best handled by centralizing power and defeating the rebels.
Second, the internal politics of each side will also be significant. Each side in a civil war involves a policy change by at least one side, perhaps both. Internal rivalries try to reduce the ability of the leadership to enforce unpopular agreements w
ith the opposition. Thus, strong leadership maybe necessary for a negotiated settlement. Without strong united leadership, war may continue.
Obviously, however, while united leadership maybe one of the necessary conditions for ending violence, they are certainly not sufficient; one or more united leadership dedicated to continuing the war can make any agreement impossible. But without such unity, negotiation may be fruitless.
Third, the military balance in the field is likely to be reflected at the bargaining table, also expectations of success and failure. But the problem is how to measure the military balance, particularly in a guerilla war. Also, the difficulty occurs in collecting accurate information about the opponent. Moreover, every side may be willing to change its policies if believes that violence does not achieve his purposes. According to the concept of “hurting stalemate.” If both sides believe in that at the same time, then the sustainable agreement is possible.