The recently concluded ceasefire agreement at the federal level is a step in the right direction. Any ceasefire may be weak because tensions and skepticism remain high. If one party does not sincerely intend to pursue a negotiated solution, the whole process is threatened. In addition, ceasefires are often manipulated as tools of political or strategic advantage. For example, a party may use a ceasefire to build up its war combat capability and/or maneuver its armed forces to stronger tactical positions. One party may also undertake other provocative actions that are not compatible with the spirit of a ceasefire to weaken the position of its adversary, perhaps inciting the other party to break the ceasefire, resulting in condemnation and pressure from third parties. This publication is a classic “ceasefire reading”, written by experienced intermediaries. Originally produced for an East African audience, it has since been used for training in several other locations, including Nepal and Sri Lanka. It should be noted that Julian Hottinger, Jeremy Brickhill (mentioned above) and Jan Erik Wilhelmsen are the palliators of the truce with the most important comparative expertise in this area of work. This reading package defines ceasefires as “agreements supported by third parties that define the rules and modalities for the parties to the conflict to stop the struggle.” However, in order to achieve a ceasefire, the parties to the conflict, mediators and third parties will in most cases go through an initial cessation of hostilities agreement. This contains some elements of a ceasefire, but is generally less formal and detailed, as can be seen in the case of the agreement that applied to Syria in the spring of 2016. Recently, “codes of conduct” have emerged as another mechanism for reducing and regulating the use of force between belligerents.

Until 2012, there was only one international precedent in which the parties to the conflict signed a reciprocal code of conduct for their troops, the 25-point ceasefire code agreed in 2006 between the Nepalese government and the KPN (Maoist), which contained some elements of a ceasefire. This approach was then used as a model in Myanmar, where international advisers helped the parties agree on common rules of engagement, general principles governing their relations with the civilian population and a common monitoring framework. Reading 4: Ceasefire agreement in the Nuba Mountains. (2002). Full text and annexes: bit.ly/1TB0nJT ceasefire can take place between state actors if they can even reach the stage of a global ceasefire[5] or non-state actors and be “local”. [6] You can be formal (usually in writing) or informal; their conditions may be public or secret. Ceasefires may be mediated or otherwise as part of a peace process or may be imposed by United Nations Security Council resolutions relating to Chapter VII of the Charter of the United Nations. [1] This last point is of the utmost importance. .

. .