A/HRC/40/CRP.1 communities. The R-ARCSS allows the IBC to draw up guidelines and internal regulations for the fulfilment of its functions. 938 Because of the necessity of achieving outcomes which can be accepted as just and equitable by the various communities, the process by which the respective solutions are conceived should be perceived to be transparent and inclusive. This element will almost certainly prove to be as important as the outcome in determining whether a proposed solution is accepted. 6. The Way Forward: Inclusivity, Transparency and Engagement How boundaries are drawn is in part determined by communities’ identities and their relationships with each other but it will also shape identities and relationships between groups going forward. Any boundary determinations will almost necessarily result in majorities and minorities and if not determined in an inclusive and consultative way, with safeguards for minorities, may create or entrench the impression of winners and losers. The prizes of control over resources, political representation, and administrative responsibility cannot be underestimated as a source of conflict if the boundary determination is not seen to be justly reached, particularly in a society where patronage systems are so important. This increases the incentives for communities and elites to use and promote restrictive and exclusive definitions of ethnicity and territorial belonging to justify exclusive access to and control over resources and territory where historically inter-dependent and inter-connected communities had shared overlapping rights to these resources including communal control of natural resources and negotiated rights of access to grazing or water.939 Because the questions of the number of states and where the administrative boundaries fall are inherently part of the question of how people are governed, which is inextricably connected with the question of the form of government, including whether it is unitary or federal, centralised or decentralised in nature. In this regard, although the number of administrative units is relevant to governance and service delivery, the number and boundaries of states alone will not resolve disputes rooted in competing visions of statesociety relations and decentralisation.”940 Those questions are expected to feature in the permanent constitution-making process envisaged by Chapter VI of the R-ARCSS. Divisions of territory or power which result in exclusionary arrangements will inevitably brew resentment and will risk renewed conflict. The solution does not, therefore, lie in simply drawing better lines or refining models of federalism but in investing in multi-level political and social solutions, rooted in communities. While the questions of the number and boundaries of states and which governance system to adopt will need to be resolved in the course of the implementation of the R-ARCSS and the adoption of the permanent constitution, it is likely that the relationship between the communities and the central state and between communities themselves will require continual good faith negotiations, and committed engagement with appropriate for a for addressing these important issues. In this regard, it will be particularly important for political and traditional leaders to shape the debate in a way that transcends, rather than stokes, ethnic divisions. The parties to the R-ARCSS must follow through on their commitment in the R-ARCSS to building a system that “ensures unity in diversity be enacted during the permanent constitution making process.”941 Even if South Sudan opts for a federal system in its permanent constitution, inclusivity not division will need to be the guiding principle; political investment in separate states is not a substitute for genuine reconciliation and celebration of diversity. Long term, the establishment of strong institutions able to manage and mediate conflict will be the only guarantee of lasting peace. 938 R-ARCSS 1.15.8, Annex E, para. 3. Douglas Johnson et al., “After the Khartoum Agreement: Boundary Making and the 32 States in South Sudan”, Rift Valley Institute, October 2018; Mareike Schomerus and Lovise Aalen eds., “Considering the State: Perspectives on South Sudan’s Subdivision and Federalism Debate”, Chr. Michelsen Institute, August 2016. 940 Douglas Johnson et al., “After the Khartoum Agreement: Boundary Making and the 32 States in South Sudan”, Rift Valley Institute, October 2018. 941 R-ARCSS, Article 1.4.11. 939 123