The post-Oslo period in which this study is situated refers both to the buoyancy of a potential reconciliation in the immediate wake of the 1993 Oslo Peace Accords and the subsequent demise of a viable two-state solution. As evidenced in this chapter, perceptions of the formulation of the Oslo Accords and the reasons for the agreement’s key successes and failures remain a subject of narrative dissent. Rather than provide the reconciliatory framework and confidence-building measures to address past grievances, as was intended through the interim nature of the 1993 agreement, the post-Oslo period therefore witnessed an ongoing irreconcilability of key narratives. This chapter offers both a holistic understanding of the political and societal impact of these historic accords and an overview of the key events that were influenced by – and affected – subsequent implementation and interpretations of the Oslo peace agreements. The events and societal trends highlighted in this chapter do not provide an exhaustive analysis of Israeli-Jewish or Palestinian politics in the post-Oslo era; however, they do seek to render formative insights into the societal underpinnings that explain the rise and persistence of exclusionary identity politics that form the main interest of this work.

This chapter addresses the challenges arising from the often unclear legal status of intra-state peace agreements in establishing their binding force, applicable law and relevant principles of interpretation, and considers how drafting techniques affect the implementation of such agreements. First, it maps out the means available to participants in a peace process to confer binding status on (the substance of) an agreement under either domestic or international law, including UN Security Council endorsement, domestic entrenchment or constitutional reform. Second, the chapter examines how (predominantly international) courts and tribunals have grappled with the task of determining the law applicable to peace agreements, as well as examining trends in the principles of interpretation applied by adjudicatory bodies. Finally, it turns to the effects of drafting techniques on the implementation of agreements from the perspectives of the constitutive and instrumental approaches, including weighing the merits of constructive ambiguity.