Abstract
There is a lacuna in peace studies on theorizing the phenomenon of peace accord revisions. In addressing this lacuna, this study builds on the typology of peace agreement forms in Lex Pacificatoria, observing that over a span of time, a single accord may take on successive, derivative forms. It is argued that during the transition from one form to the next, peace accords become susceptible to revisions in the context of peace endorsement phases, especially when democratic modalities are deployed. This study distills a novel concept of democratic political endorsement to describe this intersection of peace agreements with democratic modalities. It builds on Chantal Mouffe’s agonistic political theory, Jean Arnault’s instrumentalist school of accord construction and Christine Bell’s concept of implementation agreements, to argue an incompatibility between the hegemonic, anti-political nature of peace accords, and the definitively political (i.e., contestational) ontology of democracy, thereby characterizing the use of democratic political devices within peace endorsement processes as a liberal-democratic paradox. The claimed outcome of this paradox is the forceful re-politicization of peace accords, which renders them susceptible to revisions. This study then tests this theory by examining the successive democratic political endorsement procedures of the Philippine-Bangsamoro peace process from 2014 to 2019. It concludes that certain modalities of democratic political endorsement, and degrees of politicization, render accords more susceptible to revision.