Policy Brief No. 219 — January 2026
Technology at the Negotiating Table: Can AI Enhance Peace Processes in Africa? Jon Temin
Key Points → Artificial intelligence (AI) has the potential to be a valuable tool for mediators and diplomats, making their work to end deadly conflicts more effective and efficient. Use cases range from early warning to drafting peace agreement text to monitoring agreement implementation. → One of the most promising potential uses is in making peace processes more inclusive, by using AI to gather, analyze and summarize citizens’ perspectives at scale, and then bringing those views to the negotiating table. → But with these potential uses come substantial obstacles and risks, notably the limited internet connectivity available to people directly affected by conflict and the relative dearth of online material in African languages for AI tools to learn from and utilize, as well as associated concerns about data and algorithmic bias and data sovereignty.
Introduction Violent conflicts kill, displace and irreparably harm millions of Africans every year. One measure of the toll can be found in forced displacement, often arising from violence: according to the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees ([UNHCR] 2024), in 2024 Sub-Saharan Africa accounted for 37 percent of all people forcibly displaced worldwide, though the region is home to only about 15 percent of the global population. Africa is the scene of several of humanity’s most destructive conflicts: the civil war in Sudan that started in 2023 has killed between 150,000 and 200,000 people by some estimates; violence in Ethiopia that began escalating starting in 2020 is estimated to have taken 300,000 to 500,000 or more lives; and in the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC), more than 5.6 million people are internally displaced, largely as a result of violence. Other countries, including Burkina Faso, Mali, Nigeria, Somalia and South Sudan, are the scenes of frequent atrocities perpetrated by government forces and armed groups. And these violent conflict trends on the continent show no appreciable sign of improving.
About the Author Jon Temin is a seasoned foreign policy strategist and national security expert with over two decades of leadership experience across government, think tanks and nonprofit organizations. His work has focused on strengthening democratic institutions, supporting human rights defenders and resolving conflicts. As vice president of policy and programs at the Truman Center for National Policy and Truman National Security Project, Jon developed innovative policy frameworks and led initiatives that shaped principled approaches to complex global challenges. Previously, as director of the Africa Program at Freedom House, he spearheaded efforts to support democracy activists and movements across the continent during a period of significant political upheaval. From 2014 to 2017, Jon served on the US Department of State’s policy planning staff, where he provided strategic guidance to the secretary of state. His leadership as director of the United States Institute of Peace’s Africa program resulted in impactful peace-building interventions in conflict zones including the Horn of Africa, Nigeria, South Sudan and Sudan.
The nature of conflict in Africa is evolving, in part due to technological advances. Drones are now a major factor in violence in the Sahel and in Sudan. Authoritarian leaders prone to employing violence have new surveillance tools at their disposal. But just as new technology aids actual armies, it can also support the army of people seeking to resolve conflicts. Thousands of peace builders and mediators work every day to resolve deadly conflicts on the continent, and their growing access to new technologies — especially those anchored in AI — raise the tantalizing possibility that they can gain an upper hand on the purveyors of violence. This policy brief explores how rapidly developing AI tools may be used in service of conflict resolution in Africa, with a focus on formal, high-level diplomatic processes that seek to negotiate agreements that stop violence between belligerents and address root causes of conflict.1 These tools include large language models that can analyze and generate text; machine-learning systems used for behavioural and social media analysis; and emerging immersive technologies such as virtual and extended reality that can support negotiation and scenario planning. On the whole, AI tools offer transformative potential in early warning, scenario planning, negotiation support, peace process inclusivity and peace agreement implementation — but they are only starting to be used and are unproven, and even when employed for good they are not without risk, including potential biases in data and algorithms. Moreover, AI tools are only as useful as the data they are trained on and can access. That data can be patchy, especially in conflict zones characterized by upheaval and displacement. It is problematic that, for the most part, African companies are not driving the development of AI, though many are leading cutting-edge efforts to adapt it to local circumstances and employ it for worthy causes — including ending destructive conflicts. This brief is divided into three sections. The first looks at the limited ways that AI
1
2
Policy Brief No. 219 — January 2026 • Jon Temin
AI tools can be equally if not more valuable to grassroots peace builders but their work is beyond the scope of this brief.
Box 1: Snapshot of Current Use of AI Tools for Conflict Resolution → In Sudan, Conflict Dynamics International has created Akord AI (www.akord.org), described as “the world’s first AI-powered assistant dedicated to supporting Sudanese peacebuilders.” The tool features an AI chatbot trained on a library of documentation specific to Sudan. → Also in Sudan, CMI–Martti Ahtisaari Peace Foundation conducted digital dialogues with citizens in 2023 (Thompson and Piirtola 2024) that employed AI to process and analyze large amounts of feedback data. → In Libya, the United Nations has worked with the company Remesh (www.remesh.ai) to gather citizen views that can be incorporated into peace processes. → In Ethiopia, Kenya and Mali, the Water, Peace, and Security Partnership uses AI to anticipate water scarcity (Amani Africa 2025) and conflicts that may erupt as a result. → Several initiatives with a global focus, such as the University of Pennsylvania’s Machine Learning for Peace Project and Uppsala University’s Violence and Impacts Early-Warning System, are using AI tools to anticipate new conflicts, including in Africa.
is currently being used in conflict resolution and, more broadly, how it may be used in the future. The second describes obstacles to realizing those use cases and associated risks. The third offers several suggestions on next steps to effectively employ AI for conflict resolution in Africa.
Current Applications and Emerging Opportunities Using AI to end conflicts in Africa is not purely speculative. In isolated instances (described in Box 1) it is happening now, in a handful of countries. These early initiatives preview what eventually can be a plethora of AI conflict resolution use cases.2 They can be grouped into at least four categories, as follows:
Early Warning and Conflict Prediction Conflict early-warning tools have existed for decades and have a mixed record. In a hyperconnected world, few large-scale conflicts come as a true surprise (the risks of civil wars in
2
For additional resources on AI use cases in conflict resolution, see Stanzel and Voelsen (2022), Al Mazrouei (2025), Masood and Waehlisch (2019) and Höne (2022).
Ethiopia and Sudan, for instance, were identified by analysts well in advance3), though predicting when they will erupt, and when seemingly small events will act as catalysts, remains elusive. Where AI tools may help is in understanding subtle but broad shifts in underlying circumstances or narratives that make for a more combustible environment. Such changes may not be directly connected to any obvious tensions between rival groups, but have more to do with circumstances that create the kindling for conflict, such as worsening economic conditions, environmental changes that make subsistence more difficult or shifts in the tone of online discourse. AI tools can be used to monitor those changes themselves and to understand public perceptions and attitudes in response to those changes. In practice, identifying warning signs depends on linking these changes to established conflict drivers, such as economic inequality, political exclusion, resource scarcity or identity-based grievances. Because conflict dynamics vary widely across contexts, AI systems are most effective when trained on context-specific data and informed by local expertise that can interpret correlations and separate meaningful warning signs from background noise.
3
See, for instance, Cheeseman and Woldemariam (2020) and International Crisis Group (2020).
Technology at the Negotiating Table: Can AI Enhance Peace Processes in Africa?
3
One challenge to making early warning useful has always been matching it with the political will to respond, a test that too many governments and multilateral organizations fail. Knowing a conflict is coming is of limited value if the information does not spur action. That comes down to the real-world calculations and trade-offs that politicians and diplomats make. But technology can help shape policy makers’ views, including through the use of virtual and extended reality tools that give them an immersive experience, helping them better understand the conditions citizens in conflict zones endure. For example, the United Nations has used virtual reality to give diplomats a simulated experience of being in volatile areas of Colombia (Pietromarchi 2024).
Mediation and Diplomatic Support For the foreseeable future, conflicts between humans will be resolved by humans — but AI tools can empower diplomats and mediators at the negotiating table with new knowledge, efficiencies and ideas, through several means: → Understanding the people involved: Sometimes key actors in a conflict are well known but at other times they are more obscure — for instance, military leaders who have risen through the ranks but may not be at the top of the hierarchy, or rebel leaders who operate largely in rural areas. In these instances, AI can be used to develop profiles of leaders’ backgrounds, world views and incentives, if there is sufficient data online to build that picture. Although data can be sparse, emerging efforts that blend open-source intelligence, social media traces and locally gathered information suggest that these gaps are narrowing, making such profiling increasingly feasible even in complex environments. → Outlining agreement options and drafting text: Mediators often draft and refine agreements for warring parties to consider. AI can help: for example, a custom-built AI trained on a library of relevant peace agreements and other documentation can suggest agreement options and specific language. A frequent critique of peace agreements is that they tend to use similar formulas from one context to the next, such as power-sharing arrangements or interim periods leading to elections. In some cases these strategies are justified but AI may be able to extend mediators’ imaginations,
4
Policy Brief No. 219 — January 2026 • Jon Temin
pushing them beyond traditional solutions. While AI models would initially draw from past agreements, their value lies in identifying novel combinations of provisions, parallels from other regions or entirely new formulations that might not surface through human recall alone. In this way, AI could both reflect existing practice and expand it, depending on how creatively mediators engage with the tools. → Envisioning future scenarios: AI can help mediators understand the potential consequences of choices made at the negotiating table. For instance, based on historical and real-time data, AI tools could model how different versions of a peace agreement might unfold over time, showing likely points of stress or success. This capability could be enhanced by digital twins — dynamic, datadriven simulations of conflict environments — and extended reality technologies that enable mediators and negotiators to immerse themselves in plausible future scenarios. By making the outcomes of different choices visible and experiential, AI tools may be able to inform and improve decision making. → “Red teaming” draft agreements: Related to scenario development, AI tools can pressuretest draft peace agreements, looking for ways they could break down and yield a return to conflict. The weaknesses revealed can then be addressed through negotiations. → Real-time translation and communication facilitation: As a practical matter, AI can be used to make negotiation more efficient, especially in a cross-cultural setting. AI tools can provide real-time translation, transcribe meeting notes and summarize conversations — all tasks traditionally performed by mediators and other professionals, freeing them up to focus on the core substance of negotiations. Realizing these capabilities will require targeted investment in language technologies and digital infrastructure across Africa. While existing AI translation tools perform well in Arabic, English and French, they are still limited for many African languages.
More Inclusive Peace Processes A regular — and well-justified — critique of peace processes is that they focus almost exclusively on the belligerents driving violence, seeking to compel them to put down their arms and
sometimes rewarding them for doing so (or at least absolving them of their sins). As a result, citizens most affected by violence have little influence on negotiations or the ability to shape the future dispensation. Using AI tools, mediators may be able to upend this imbalance and bring citizens’ voices and interests more directly into negotiations. This could happen through large-scale consultations of affected populations, asking them to prioritize what they want to see in a peace agreement, how they would react to different structural options for post-conflict arrangements (the degree of government decentralization, for instance, or timing of the next election), or whether they are willing to accept granting amnesty to belligerents in exchange for peace. Whereas such questions often used to be discussed in small, time-bound focus groups that at best reflected a sliver of public sentiment, large-scale virtual consultations may now be possible because of increasing mobile connectivity and because AI tools can be used to analyze the results, identify patterns and priorities, and feed that information back to mediators and negotiators. Mediators may also be able to use technology and AI tools to solicit rapid citizen reactions to specific options in real time as negotiations play out. Such public consultation at scale has the potential to alter belligerents’ calculations. Decades of conflict resolution in Sudan provides a case in point. There, one strategy that aggrieved groups use to improve their circumstances is to pick up arms, often in self-defence but also because armed groups get a seat at the negotiating table, and their leaders benefit from the spoils of being part of the process. That dynamic incentivizes a cycle of violence, with new armed groups regularly forming and conflict entrepreneurs frequently changing their allegiances. Similar dynamics play out in other conflict zones. But if civilians have a credible voice at the negotiating table — through the distillation of tens or hundreds of thousands of citizens’ perspectives — savvy mediators can use their virtual presence as leverage to push for agreements aligned with public sentiment, rather than with armed groups’ demands. That can disrupt the pattern of groups taking up arms to gain leverage in negotiations.
Monitoring Peace Agreement Implementation Too often, the signing of an agreement is seen as the end of the process rather than the beginning of a new phase that requires close scrutiny. For diplomats and mediators, the push to secure an agreement can be intense and exhausting, and there is a natural inclination to then turn attention elsewhere. Once an agreement is signed, media outlets and the wider public tend to lose interest. This jeopardizes monitoring of agreement implementation but makes automation quite useful: AI tools can potentially be employed to counteract the post-agreement lull, through online tracking of reports of violations of the agreement, monitoring satellite data for violations and tracking of progress toward agreement benchmarks — if enough useful data is available. Automated and publicly accessible monitoring can make lapses in implementation more visible, helping to sustain diplomatic and public pressure for follow-through. By lowering the cost of oversight and broadening who can access information about agreement compliance, AI may strengthen pressure for implementation.
Challenges and Risks Realizing the AI use cases envisioned above requires overcoming significant hurdles, some specific to the context and some inherent to the technology, while managing risks that are only partly understood. The oft repeated “do no harm” mantra is especially relevant when adapting new and unproven technologies to vulnerable people living in volatile circumstances.
Infrastructure and Access Constraints Effective use of AI depends on a robust body of online knowledge on which AI can learn and train, as well as a regular flow of information on which to base real-time analysis. In parts of Africa, especially in conflict zones, that information can be inconsistent at best. Overall internet access is low compared to other regions: most people get online through their phones, but across Sub-Saharan Africa, mobile internet access among adults is estimated at 25 percent (Kokutse and Thompson 2024). Some violence is concentrated in rural areas, where internet penetration is lower compared to urban
Technology at the Negotiating Table: Can AI Enhance Peace Processes in Africa?
5
areas, further limiting the flow of relevant digital information, and fighting sometimes destroys infrastructure that facilitates internet access. When people are displaced by violence, as they are by the millions in the DRC, Sudan and elsewhere, accessing the internet becomes even more difficult. Moreover, repressive governments are blocking internet access with increasing frequency: in 2024, there were 21 internet shutdowns in 15 countries in Africa (Access Now 2025), including in conflictaffected countries such as Chad, Ethiopia, Nigeria and Sudan. It is also essential to bear in mind the digital gender divide that persists in many countries — for example, in a recent poll in the DRC, 14 percent of women reported having internet access, compared to 35 percent of men (Gallup 2023) — meaning that the information AI consumes in that and other contexts has a built-in gender bias.
Data and Algorithmic Bias The dearth of data available in African languages — combinations of which are spoken in every conflict zone — presents a further obstacle.4 The Brookings Institution notes that “large language models (LLMs) have been documented to systematically perform better in English than in African languages. This issue directly translates into the models’ tendency to generate more false claims in African languages, which can spread disinformation and increase African users’ mistrust toward AI tools” (Wiaterek, Abungu and Okolo 2025). This linguistic bias weakens conflict analysis and mediation tools that must accurately interpret local discourse and sentiment. Equally concerning, AI tools are more vulnerable to manipulation when operating in low-resource languages. Research has documented cases where AI models provide harmful advice in those languages — for instance, guidance on planning terrorist attacks when queried in Zulu (Hsu 2023) — a vulnerability that could be exploited in conflict settings to spread disinformation or escalate tensions. The scarcity of high-quality, contextually relevant training data compounds these problems. Most AI systems are trained on data sets that inadequately represent African languages, contexts, conflict resolution traditions and cultural nuances. This data gap means that AI tools may misinterpret
4
6
There is important ongoing African-led work to correct this — see, for example, Adebayo, Bhalla and Harrisberg (2024).
Policy Brief No. 219 — January 2026 • Jon Temin
local dynamics, fail to recognize important cultural markers of conflict escalation or apply analytical frameworks derived from non-African contexts that are technically sound but culturally inappropriate. Moreover, biased AI systems risk exacerbating existing power imbalances. If these systems methodically favour certain languages, regions or demographic groups in their analysis and recommendations, they could inadvertently reinforce marginalization patterns that often contribute to conflict in the first place. Without careful attention to bias mitigation and inclusive data collection, AI-powered conflict resolution tools may reproduce the inequities they aim to address, potentially exacerbating rather than resolving tensions.
Data Governance and Sovereignty Non-African companies design and control most current AI systems, creating pressing concerns about data sovereignty and safety. In some instances, the AI tools described here require access to sensitive information about political dynamics, social tensions and public sentiment. When this data is processed by foreign-controlled systems or stored on overseas servers, it raises questions about the ultimate control of the information, suggesting a risk that foreign actors could manipulate data to advance their interests in a conflict. At the same time, because a significant portion of violence in Africa is perpetrated by states, data on public sentiment becomes especially sensitive when views tend to oppose government interests, meaning government control over the data, or even storing it domestically, also poses risks. Building African AI capabilities, while maintaining interoperability with international systems, should be the long-term goal, with the understanding that questions of data governance are highly context-specific, especially in conflict zones.
Notes on Next Steps For AI to live up to the world-changing predictions, it has to benefit people in all sectors of society, not just those living in more economically prosperous countries with easy access to technology. Employing AI to help end violent conflicts in Africa and elsewhere helps advance that goal. For diplomats, mediators and technology industry leaders, next steps to consider include: → Initially employing AI tools for conflict resolution in small-to-medium-scale conflicts in more digitally connected settings. There is a temptation to seek to use AI to address the most urgent tragedies, such as in the DRC or Sudan. But testing and proving the tools in relatively lower-stakes conflicts, where internet connectivity is more consistent, may be wise. For instance, Nigeria has relatively high internet penetration and a host of localized conflicts that do not grab international headlines but may benefit from the AI use cases described above, and can be a stepping stone toward employing AI to resolve larger conflicts. → Encouraging African mediators, diplomats and peacebuilders to seize the opportunity to lead in this nascent field of using AI for conflict resolution. These leaders have extensive conflict resolution expertise, but it is not as well-documented or appreciated beyond Africa as it should be. They can assert themselves to shape how AI tools are employed in conflict resolution globally, including beyond Africa, and technologists would be wise to seek their expertise. The African Union Department of Political Affairs, Peace and Security has called for the creation of an Advisory Group on Artificial Intelligence and Its Impact on Peace, Security, and Governance (Amani Africa 2025), which can complement the AU’s recently completed Continental Artificial Intelligence Strategy (African Union 2024) and be a good mechanism whereby Africans can influence the wider field. → Pushing AI companies and developers to invest in African AI ecosystems, not for charitable reasons but because Africa’s dynamism, fast-growing population, large youth cohort, economic potential and growing assertiveness make its expanding global significance inevitable. These factors also mean
that conflicts on the continent will have greater global impact (including in areas such as the DRC that are rich in resources required for new technologies). Investing in developing Africanlanguage AI models, strengthening African-led AI research institutions and developing AI ethics frameworks tailored to the continent will go a long way toward combating perceptions that external engagement is primarily extractive, and will build African capacity to use new tools to end the old scourge of violent conflict.
Works Cited Access Now. 2025. Emboldened Offenders, Endangered Communities: Internet shutdowns in 2024. February. www.accessnow.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/02/ KeepItOn-2024-Internet-Shutdowns-Annual-Report.pdf. Adebayo, Bukola, Nita Bhalla and Kim Harrisberg. 2024. “From Swahili to Zulu, African techies develop AI language tools.” CNBC Africa, June 18. www.cnbcafrica.com/2024/fromswahili-to-zulu-african-techies-develop-ai-language-tools/. African Union. 2024. Continental Artificial Intelligence Strategy: Harnessing AI for Africa’s Development and Prosperity. July. https://au.int/sites/default/files/documents/44004doc-EN-_Continental_AI_Strategy_July_2024.pdf. Al Mazrouei, Noor Saif Fares. 2025. “AI-Powered Diplomacy: The Role of Artificial Intelligence in Global Conflict Resolution.” Trends Research & Advisory, March 23. https://trendsresearch.org/insight/ai-powered-diplomacythe-role-of-artificial-intelligence-in-global-conflict-resolution/. Amani Africa. 2025. “Artificial Intelligence and its impact on peace, security and governance.” March 19. https://amaniafrica-et.org/artificial-intelligence-andits-impact-on-peace-security-and-governance/. Cheeseman, Nic and Yohannes Woldemariam. 2020. “Ethiopia’s Dangerous Slide Toward Civil War.” Foreign Affairs, November 12. www.foreignaffairs.com/ articles/africa/2020-11-12/ethiopiasdangerous-slide-toward-civil-war. Gallup. 2023. “Africa: Digital Divide Provides Lens Into Women’s Progress: A Conversation With Magali Rheault.” March 7. https://news.gallup.com/opinion/gallup/471167/ africa-digital-divide-provides-lens-women-progress.aspx. Höne, Katharina. 2022. “An Algorithm for Peace? AI in International Peace Mediation.” Heinrich Böll Stiftung, April 3. https://il.boell.org/en/2022/04/03/ algorithm-peace-ai-international-peace-mediation. Hsu, Jeremy. 2023. “GPT-4 gave advice on planning terrorist attacks when asked in Zulu.” New Scientist, October 23. www.newscientist.com/article/2398656-gpt-4-gaveadvice-on-planning-terrorist-attacks-when-asked-in-zulu/.
Technology at the Negotiating Table: Can AI Enhance Peace Processes in Africa?
7
International Crisis Group. 2020. “Financing the Revival of Sudan’s Troubled Transition.” International Crisis Group Briefing No. 157, June 22. www.crisisgroup.org/africa/sudan/ b157-financing-revival-sudans-troubled-transition. Kokutse, Francis and Jack Thompson. 2024. “Companies are trying to attract more smartphone users across Africa. But there are risks.” Associated Press, May 19. https://apnews.com/article/mobilephones-internet-africa-climate-change-teche6cbfeb2b974c688a0a298f5e624538f. Masood, Daanish and Martin Waehlisch. 2019. “AI & Global Governance: Robots Will Not Only Wage Future Wars but also Future Peace.” United Nations University Centre for Policy Research, April 23. https://unu.edu/cpr/ media-coverage/ai-global-governance-robots-willnot-only-wage-future-wars-also-future-peace. Pietromarchi, Virginia. 2024. “Can AI mediate conflict better than humans?” Al Jazeera, February 29. www.aljazeera.com/news/2024/2/29/canai-mediate-conflict-better-than-humans. Stanzel, Volker and Daniel Voelsen. 2022. Diplomacy and Artificial Intelligence: Reflections on Practical Assistance for Diplomatic Negotiations. SWP Research Paper 2022/RP 01. January 20. www.swp-berlin.org/10.18449/2022RP01/. Thompson, Sylvia and Aino Piirtola. 2024. “CMI Insight: Artificial intelligence and peacemaking — the case of digital dialogues in Sudan.” CMI–Martti Ahtisaari Peace Foundation. February. https://cmi.fi/wp-content/ uploads/2024/02/CMI_INSIGHT_2024_sudan.pdf. UNHCR. 2024. UNHCR Global Appeal 2024. Geneva, Switzerland: UNHCR. https://reporting.unhcr.org/ global-appeal-2024-6383. Wiaterek, Joanna, Cecil Abungu and Chinasa T. Okolo. 2025. “Building regional capacity for AI safety and security in Africa.” Brookings Institution, May 7. www.brookings.edu/articles/building-regionalcapacity-for-ai-safety-and-security-in-africa/.
8
Policy Brief No. 219 — January 2026 • Jon Temin
About CIGI
Credits
The Centre for International Governance Innovation (CIGI) is an independent, non-partisan think tank whose peer-reviewed research and trusted analysis influence policy makers to innovate. Our global network of multidisciplinary researchers and strategic partnerships provide policy solutions for the digital era with one goal: to improve people’s lives everywhere. Headquartered in Waterloo, Canada, CIGI has received support from the Government of Canada, the Government of Ontario and founder Jim Balsillie.
Director, Programs Dianna English
À propos du CIGI Le Centre pour l’innovation dans la gouvernance internationale (CIGI) est un groupe de réflexion indépendant et non partisan dont les recherches évaluées par des pairs et les analyses fiables incitent les décideurs à innover. Grâce à son réseau mondial de chercheurs pluridisciplinaires et de partenariats stratégiques, le CIGI offre des solutions politiques adaptées à l’ère numérique dans le seul but d’améliorer la vie des gens du monde entier. Le CIGI, dont le siège se trouve à Waterloo, au Canada, bénéficie du soutien du gouvernement du Canada, du gouvernement de l’Ontario et de son fondateur, Jim Balsillie.
Copyright © 2026 by the Centre for International Governance Innovation The opinions expressed in this publication are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of the Centre for International Governance Innovation or its Board of Directors. For publications enquiries, please contact publications@cigionline.org.
The text of this work is licensed under CC BY 4.0. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. For reuse or distribution, please include this copyright notice. This work may contain content (including but not limited to graphics, charts and photographs) used or reproduced under licence or with permission from third parties. Permission to reproduce this content must be obtained from third parties directly. Centre for International Governance Innovation and CIGI are registered trademarks. 67 Erb Street West Waterloo, ON, Canada N2L 6C2 www.cigionline.org
Senior Program Manager Ifeoluwa Olorunnipa Publications Editor Christine Robertson Graphic Designer Sepideh Shomali