Many theorists have attempted to explain why conflicts end. Some theories have proven to be more effective than others. It is difficult to create a theory that applies to all conflicts because every conflict is different. Conflicts can be of ethnic and religious origin or concern resources and territories. William Zartman advocates a theory of maturity and mutually harmful stalemate to explain how and why conflicts ended. Throughout this essay, his theory will be analyzed through the conflicts in Northern Ireland, Cambodia and the Oslo Accords. Through these three conflicts, the strengths and weaknesses of maturity theory can be seen. Zartman's theory states that when a conflict is ripe, it is ready to be negotiated. A favorable moment is described as when both parties to the conflict are ready to negotiate. At that point, the parties are ready to accept a settlement that has always existed, but which only interests them now (Zartman, 2001). Mature moments depend on the emergence of a mutually damaging impasse. This occurs when both parties find themselves in a position in the conflict where they cannot achieve victory and this impasse is painful for both parties (Zartman, 2001). The main condition for a mutually damaging stalemate is when both parties to the conflict realize that they cannot achieve their goals by continuing violence and that this is extremely costly (Ramsbotham, 2011). Mutually harmful impasses occur when a catastrophic moment is approaching, has passed, or is currently being avoided (Zartman, 2001). This catastrophic moment is the deciding factor if action will take place, if nothing is done at this time the situation will get worse (Zartman, 2001). Deadlocks that harm each other are based on an average cost… of paper… displayed at the global level (Amer, 2007). Maturity can be used to explain the internal level of the Cambodian conflict. Once they reach a regional and global level, maturity can no longer be used to explain these negotiations. Maturity and readiness are good theories for why conflicts end. They both show how multiple factors come into play to end a conflict. “Maturity is not sudden, but rather a complex process of situational transformations, changes in public attitudes and new perceptions and visions among decision-makers” (Rambotham, 2011: 180). The Oslo negotiations and the peace process are good examples of preparedness theory and its ease in explaining the resolution of these conflicts. The Cambodian conflict is more difficult to explain due to its maturity. When conflicts are multilateral, this poses a challenge to preparedness theory. Adapting preparation theory