Lack of commitment on the part of local leaders to peace processes has been seen as one reason for the failure of such processes. However, there is a paucity of research into the development and sustainability of leaders' commitment to dialogue. These issues are explored in this thesis. Drawing upon theories and empirical findings on commitment from various fields of study, a framework is developed to analyse how previously confrontational leaders may become committed to dialogue as a means of resolving conflicts. This framework also provides for the analysis of the dimensions of commitment to dialogue. Applying this framework to case-studies highlights the salience of the interplay between variables, in committing leaders to dialogue. The importance of preserving the volition of leaders for their actions during a peace process also emerges as crucial in the development of their commitment to the process. This finding adds weight to the conflict resolution theory which argues against excessive use of pressure on local leaders during a peace process. The case-studies also reveal conditions that influence the deepening of leaders' commitment to dialogue. Evidence is presented, indicating that leaders are more likely to develop deeper commitment to dialogue when they are not dogmatic about the means of resolving conflicts, as might be expected. Interestingly, it is found that leaders can develop deeper commitment to dialogue even when highest in their hierarchy of commitments is the welfare of their groups. This affirms the thinking in conflict resolution that dialogue is the most likely means to promote the longer-term welfare of groups in conflict. Finally, the thesis examines barriers to the development of leadership commitment to dialogue and causes of retreat from such commitment. It is envisaged that the framework developed in this thesis will be useful for predicting and helping to induce leaders' commitment to dialogue.