Ceasefires
Read our key findings on ceasefires.
Despite being a common occurrence during armed conflict, there are many open questions as to how, when, and why ceasefires are agreed, and how they can be most effective at reducing violence, or contribute to broader mediation efforts. Our research into ceasefires has produced findings on ceasefires as standalone agreements between conflict parties, ceasefire provisions within peace agreements, scope and modalities of ceasefires, ceasefire monitoring, humanitarian ceasefires, and gendering ceasefires.
Ceasefires (overview)
There is no commonly agreed on or legal definition of the term ceasefire (Forster, 2019b; Forster and Bell, 2019). In essence, ceasefires signify a call to permanently or temporarily terminate hostilities between conflicting parties and can either be uni-or multilateral agreements (Forster, 2019b; Forster and Bell, 2019).
The terms armistice, ceasefire, truce and cessation of hostilities are used interchangeably in practice, despite having differing meanings under international law (Forster, 2019a). Parties may also avoid referring to an arrangement as a ceasefire due to the political repercussions associated with ceasefires. Instead, terms such as joint statement, memorandums, declarations or peace accords may be used (Forster, 2019b).
Ceasefires are often a seen as a first step for belligerents to enter into negotiations and find opportunities for more sustainable peace (Forster, 2019b). However, the non-linear nature of peace processes means that: ceasefires are not always necessary for parties to enter into comprehensive peace negotiations, and; ceasefires do not always lead to more comprehensive peace negotiations (Forster, 2019a).
The PA-X Database differentiates between ceasefire provisions contained within peace agreements (which can occur at any time) and ceasefire agreements that have the primary purpose of limiting violence and often feature at the early stages of peace talks (Forster, 2019a; PA-X Database).
In addition to suspending hostilities, the purpose of ceasefires is defined by its scope, degree of inclusion and implementing actors (Forster, 2019b).
Scope and modalities
Our research finds that the scope of ceasefires varies depending on a range of technical decisions:
- the geographical scope – it can be limited to one neighbourhood or check point, or cover whole countries or apply in-between states;
- what parties are involved – both in terms of who should comply with the ceasefire, but also in terms of who is implementing it and who is monitoring it (for implementation and monitoring see below);
- the date and time when arrangements come into force;
- the longevity of a ceasefire – this can be, but is not always, formally agreed in the ceasefire agreement;
- whether modalities are sequenced, timetabled or phased – key modalities often include withdrawal of troops, release of prisoners and handover of armaments (Forster, 2019b).
These technical decisions are in turn determined by what the immediate needs of the actors involved are, the general context of the conflict, whether the ceasefire is agreed at a local, national or international level, and the stage of the process in which it is agreed (Forster, 2019a; Forster and Bell, 2019).
Our research finds that in addition to provisions aimed at ending forms of violence, ceasefire provisions generally fall into three main areas:
1) humanitarian provisions;
2) security provisions;
3) provisions to mitigate conflict escalation (Forster, 2019a).
Ceasefire agreement agreed at a later stage of a conflict will have provisions shaped by the possibility of a more durable peace, as oppose to a more immediate cessation of hostilities (Forster and Bell, 2019). Conversely, ceasefires which are intended to create ‘humanitarian corridors’ and provide situations of momentary reprieve for humanitarian purposes are often intentionally decoupled from the wider political context by practitioners (Wise, Badanjak, Bell and Knaussel, 2021).
A key aspect of a ceasefires’ security provisions are provisions on ceasefire violations and potential exceptions to ceasefire violations. Forster (2019a, 2019b) finds that ceasefire violations usually fall into two overlapping categories:
1) human rights violations – most commonly related to the protection of non-combatants;
2) prohibition of military activities.
Exceptions can include activities such as peace-keeping and policing and the right to self-defense.
Humanitarian ceasefires
In addition to potentially forming a stepping-stone to comprehensive peace negotiations, our research finds that ceasefires can be used to allow for ‘humanitarian corridors’, to mark festivals and religious occasion, to build confidence between conflicting parties, or as a cover to allow warring parties to remobilize, rearm and manoeuvre (Forster, 2019a; Badanjak and Wise, 2020).
Our research on ceasefires during Covid-19 shows that there is a general lack of understanding of whether and how humanitarian ceasefires can provide ‘bridges’ to comprehensive talks and reduction in violence overall (Wise, Badanjak, Bell and Knaussel, 2021; Russell, Wise and Badanjak, 2021).
As time has passed, the humanitarian crisis that the pandemic represents has increasingly become a part of the overall context the actors operate in rather than an external shock, with conflicts increasingly returning to ‘normal’. As such, the pandemic has not been a game changer to peace efforts (Wise, Badanjak, Bell and Knaussel, 2021; Allison et. al; Ceasefires in a time of Covid-19).
We have found little historical evidence for vaccination ceasefires translating into progress in wider peace processes, and it appears unlikely that vaccination ceasefires can directly jumpstart broader negotiations. At best, such arrangements may contribute to the temporary building of trust among warring parties and between armed groups and humanitarian actors (Russell, Wise and Badanjak, 2021).
Our research also shows that past vaccination ceasefires were primarily aimed at immunising children. For infectious diseases that also affect adults off all ages, however, their health may have more direct and immediate consequences for conflict dynamics. This may lead armed groups to consider pandemics and vaccination as immediate tactical issues which can affect their standing more than a campaign aimed at children would, making it less probable that vaccination ceasefires can be used to build trust between warring parties (Russell, Wise and Badanjak, 2021).
Our research also suggests that instead of focussing on the use of vaccination ceasefires as peacebuilding activities, such interventions should be viewed as one of a range of actions that can help to address public health needs and outcomes in areas affected by conflict. Vaccination ceasefires should not be treated as a mechanism for revitalising stalled peace processes or for initiating new ones (Russell, Wise and Badanjak, 2021).
Monitoring
Monitoring of ceasefires significantly adds to their durability as it increases accountability, adherence and confidence in the process, can help build trust between the parties, and creates structures to manage incidents that arise (Buchanan, Clayton and Ramsbotham, 2021; Forster, 2019b).
For monitoring to be successful, ceasefires should clearly set out key technical details to minimize the space for signatories to contest it. This includes key questions such as the composition of the monitoring body, where monitoring will be employed and the tasks the monitoring bodies will undertake, and will depend upon a range of contextual factors (Buchanan, Clayton and Ramsbotham, 2021).
Our research finds that ceasefire monitoring has seen three key developments in recent years (Buchanan, Clayton and Ramsbotham, 2021):
- International actors have traditionally played a key part in monitoring ceasefires (alone or together with the conflicting parties). However, there is a growing reluctance from global-north actors to engage in ceasefire monitoring due to increasingly challenging and complex environments for peace keeping missions;
- The inclusivity of orthodox monitoring models have been questioned;
- The need for conflicting parties to have a sense of ownership to the monitoring mechanism has been highlighted.
As result of these trends, there is increasing contribution from civilians and civilian society in ceasefire monitoring as well as an increased use of technologies such as cameras, smartphones and drones (Buchanan, Clayton and Ramsbotham, 2021).
International actors still play a crucial role in monitoring arrangements through supporting monitoring tools such as facilities and meditation support (Buchanan, Clayton and Ramsbotham, 2021; Forster, 2019b).
Monitoring of ceasefires significantly adds to their durability as it increases accountability, adherence and confidence in the process, can help build trust between the parties, and creates structures to manage incidents that arise (Buchanan, Clayton and Ramsbotham, 2021; Forster, 2019b).
For monitoring to be successful, ceasefires should clearly set out key technical details to minimize the space for signatories to contest it. This includes key questions such as the composition of the monitoring body, where monitoring will be employed and the tasks the monitoring bodies will undertake, and will depend upon a range of contextual factors (Buchanan, Clayton and Ramsbotham, 2021).
Our research finds that ceasefire monitoring has seen three key developments in recent years (Buchanan, Clayton and Ramsbotham, 2021):
- International actors have traditionally played a key part in monitoring ceasefires (alone or together with the conflicting parties). However, there is a growing reluctance from global-north actors to engage in ceasefire monitoring due to increasingly challenging and complex environments for peace keeping missions;
- The inclusivity of orthodox monitoring models have been questioned;
- The need for conflicting parties to have a sense of ownership to the monitoring mechanism has been highlighted.
As result of these trends, there is increasing contribution from civilians and civilian society in ceasefire monitoring as well as an increased use of technologies such as cameras, smartphones and drones (Buchanan, Clayton and Ramsbotham, 2021).
International actors still play a crucial role in monitoring arrangements through supporting monitoring tools such as facilities and meditation support (Buchanan, Clayton and Ramsbotham, 2021; Forster, 2019b).
Inclusion
Whilst ceasefires predominantly tend to focus on armed actors and halting fighting, they have sustained impact on pathways to peace and the wider security concerns of civilians (Bell and Forster, 2019).
Ceasefire agreements consistently ignore or neglect gender. Our research finds that only 38 out of 411 ceasefire agreements (9%) signed between 1990 and 2021 contain provisions relating to gender and ceasefires (PA-X Peace Agreement Database, Version 6, 2022; Wise and Asproni, 2022).
Where provisions relating to women and gender are included in ceasefires, these provisions commonly relate to the prohibition of sexual and gender-based violence, the prioritization of women and children during prison release exchange and women’s interest and needs in demobilization efforts (Bell and Forster, 2019).
Including gender provisions in ceasefires is important as it has the potential to establish the logic of inclusion for any superseding peace talks, and can emphasis the need for and relevance of women’s expertise (Bell and Forster, 2019).
Provisions relating to women and gender can be included as a part of human rights clauses, or by including non-discrimination clauses in ceasefires as a type of ‘hook’ for other general and gender-specific rights (Bell and Forster, 2019).
Our research finds that strategies for increasing the inclusion of provision relating to women and gender in ceasefires have ranged from women in civil society ‘gender editing’ ceasefires (as done with the Nationwide Ceasefire Agreement in Myanmar), to bolstering grassroot conciliation mechanisms (Libya), and establishing gender panels to help to develop inputs into the mediation process and highlight gender components (Colombia) (Bell and Forster, 2019).
Our research also finds that the increasing civilian and civil society movement involvement in ceasefire monitoring provides the opportunity for inclusion of often overlooked groups such as women (Buchanan, Clayton and Ramsbotham, 2021).