Ceasefires as a Part of War, Peace Process, or a “No Peace, No War” Format

Ceasefires are increasingly relevant for contemporary conflicts and conflict management. During the first two decades of the 21st century, ceasefires also became the most widespread form of outcome for conflicts with any conclusive outcome. Half of all ceasefires, however, either had not yet been part of a political negotiated process to address key incompatibilities contested in an armed conflict, or had no relation to any peace process at all. A ceasefire in its traditional interpretation – as a technical stage on the way to peace – increasingly becomes a ceasefire in the absence of peace and a pragmatic alternative to a stalled peace process. What are the goals and functions of ceasefires at different conflict stages, including, but not limited to, a peace process? What are the main types of ceasefire based on its key function in conflict and on underlying goals and motivations of its parties? The article explores these questions at the theoretical/conceptual and empirical levels, on the basis of analysis of available statistical data and drawing upon concrete examples in various contexts, with special attention to conflicts in Syria and Donbass. It offers an original functional-motivational typology of ceasefires classified into three types: ceasefires as part of hostilities; ceasefires ‘for the sake of peace’ that aim at supporting and preparing conditions for peace negotiations; and ceasefires as a format of an intermediate state of ‘neither peace, nor war’, including as a means of structuring this semi-frozen state to achieve a degree of stabilization. In practical terms, this typology helps clarify (а) the issue of effectiveness – success of failure – of a ceasefire that should not be expected to advance or deliver one type of outcome if one or all of its parties deliberately seek to use it to achieve another type of outcome; (b) the role of the factor of armed violence at the stage of a ceasefire that may achieve its main, underlying goals even if it does not lead to lasting cessation of hostilities.

1. (2021). ETH/PRIO Civil Conflict CeaseFire (ETH/PRIO CF). Center for Security Studies, Eidgenössische Technische Hochschule Zürich (ETH), Peace Research Institute in Oslo (PRIO). 1989–2020. URL: https://css.ethz.ch/en/research/datasets/civil-conflict-ceasefire.html#:~:text=The%20%E2%80%9CETH%2FPRIO%20Civil%20Conflict,civil%20conflicts%20across%2065%20countries (accessed: 20.01.2023).

2. (2021). UCDP Conflict Termination Dataset. Version 3-2021. 1946–2020. Department of Peace and Conflict Research, Uppsala University. URL: https://ucdp.uu.se/downloads/index.html#termination (accessed: 21.01.2023).

3. (2023). PA-Local: Peace Agreement Dataset (Local Agreements). 1990 – January 2023. Political Settlements Research Programme, University of Edinburgh. URL: https://www.peaceagreements.org/ lsearch (accessed: 19.07.2022).

4. (2023). PA-X Peace Agreements Database and Dataset, Version 7. 1990 – January 2023. Political Settlements Research Programme, University of Edinburgh. URL: https://www.peaceagreements.org (accessed: 20.01.2023).

5. (2022). UCDP Peace Agreement Dataset (UCDP/PA). Version 22.1. 1975–2021. Uppsala Conflict Data Program. Department of Peace and Conflict Research. Uppsala University. URL: https://ucdp.uu.se/downloads/index.html#peaceagreement (accessed: 21.01.2023).

6. Åkebo М. (2016). Ceasefire Agreements and Peace Processes: A Comparative Study. Abingdon: Routledge. 230 p.

7. Badanjak S. (2021). The PA-X Peace Agreement Database: Reflections on documenting the practice of peacemaking. Pathways to Peace and Security. No. 2 (61). P. 24–42. DOI: 10.20542/2307-14942021-2-24-42.

8. Bara C., Clayton G., Rustad S.A. (2021). Understanding ceasefires. International Peacekeeping. Vol. 28. No. 3: Special Issue: Understanding Ceasefires. P. 329–340. DOI: 10.1080/13533312.2021.1926236.

9. Bell C., Badanjak S., Beujouan J., Epple T., Forster R. et al. (2020). PA-X Peace Agreements Database and Dataset, Version 4. Edinburgh: Political Settlements Research Programme, University of Edinburgh. 71 p.

10. Bell C., Wise L. (2022). Peace Processes and Their Agreements. In R. Mac Ginty and A. Wanis-St.John (eds.). Contemporary Peacemaking: Peace Processes, Peacebuilding and Conflict. Cham: Palgrave Macmillan. P. 381–406.

11. Bebeshko E.V., Shipilin P.I. (2020). Diplomatiya peremiriya: vopros zaversheniya sovestso-finskoi i nachala laplandskoi voiny [Ceasefire diplomacy: The issue of ending the Soviet-Finnish war and starting the Lapland war]. Uchonyie zapiski Krymskogo Federal’nogo Universiteta: Istoricheskiye nauki [Research Notes of the Crimean Federal University: History]. Vol. 6 (72). No. 1. P. 3–16.

12. CEASEFIRES AS A PART OF WAR, PEACE PROCESS, OR A “NO PEACE, NO WAR” FORMAT

13. Chounet-Cambas L. (2011). Negotiating Ceasefires: Dilemmas and Options for Mediators. Mediation Practice Series. Geneva: Centre for Humanitarian Dialogue. 40 p.

14. Clayton G., Nathan L., Wiehler C. (2021). Ceasefire success: a conceptual framework. International Peacekeeping. Vol. 28. No. 3: Special Issue: Understanding Ceasefires. P. 341–365. DOI: 10.1080/13533312.2021.1894934.

15. Clayton G., Nygård H.M., Rustad S.C.A., Strand H. (2023). Ceasefires in civil conflict: a research agenda. Journal of Conflict Resolution. Vol. 67. No. 7–8. P. 1279–1295. DOI: 10.1177/00220027221128300.

16. Clayton G., Nygård H.M., Strand H., Rustad S.C.A., Wiehler C., Sagård T., Landsverk P., Ryland R., Sticher V., Wink E., Bara C. (2023). Introducing the ETH/PRIO civil conflict ceasefire dataset. Journal of Conflict Resolution. Vol. 67. No. 7–8. P. 1430–1451. DOI: 10.1177/00220027221129.

17. Clayton G., Sticher V. (2021). The logic of ceasefires in civil war. International Studies Quarterly. Vol. 65. No. 3. P. 633–646. DOI: 10.1093/isq/sqab026.

18. Davydov O.V., Novichkova M.N. (2020). Mirnyi protsess na Koreiskom poluostrove: problemy i puti razvitiya [Peace process on the Korean peninsula: problems and prospects]. World Economy and International Relations. 2020. Vol. 64. No. 1. P. 56–63. DOI: 10.20542/0131-2227-2020-64-156-63.

19. Dronova S.Yu. (2017). Vzaimootnosheniya mezhdu Stranoi Baskov i Madridom posle ustanovleniya peremiriya s ETA [Relations between the Basque State and Madrid following a ceasefire with ETA]. Obschestvo: politika, ekonomika, pravo [Society: Politics, Economics, Law]. No. 2. P. 26–29.

20. Forster R. (2019). Ceasefire Arrangements. PA-X Peace Agreements Database Spotlight Series. Edinburgh: Political Settlements Research Programme, University of Edinburgh. 15 p.

21. Fortna V.P. (2004). Peace Time: Cease-Fire Agreements and the Durability of Peace. Princeton: Princeton University Press. 264 p.

22. Haysom N., Hottinger J. (2010). Do’s and Don’ts of Sustainable Ceasefire Agreements. Presentation revised for use by Peace Appeal in Nepal and Sri Lanka; initially presented to the Intergovernmental Authority for Development (IGAD) Sudan Peace Process Workshop on Detailed Security Arrangements in Sudan During the Transition. URL: https://peacemaker.un.org/sites/peacemaker.un.org/files/DosAndDontofCeasefireAgreements_HaysomHottinger2010.pdf (accessed: 02.02.2023).

23. Hinnebusch R., Imady O. (2017). Syria’s reconciliation agreements. Syria Studies. Vol. 9. No. 2: The Day After: Post-Uprising Realities and Challenges. P. 1–14.

24. Högbladh S. (2022). UCDP Peace Agreement Dataset Codebook Version 22.1. Uppsala: Department of Peace and Conflict Research, Uppsala University. 14 p.

25. Karakuş D.C. (2023). Resolution of local conflicts involving armed Islamists: the Syrian civil war, 2011– 2021. Pathways to Peace and Security. No. 1 (64). P. 58–75. DOI: 10.20542/2307-1494-20231-58-75.

26. Karakuş D.C., Svensson I. (2020). Between the bombs: exploring partial ceasefires in the Syrian Civil War, 2011–2017. Terrorism and Political Violence. Vol. 32. No. 4. P. 681–700. DOI: 10.1080/09546553.2017.1393416.

27. Ki Kvan So (2020). Sovestko-kitaisko-severokoreiskiye konsul’tatsii po viprosu of zakluchenii peremiriya v Koreiskoi voine [Soviet-Chinese-North Korean consultations on ceasefire in the war in Korea]. Voprosy istorii [History Issues]. No. 10-3. P. 274–287. DOI: 10.31166/VoprosyIstorii202010Statyi47.

28. Kreutz J. (2021). Uppsala Conflict Termination Dataset Codebook. v.3 (2021). Uppsala: Uppsala Conflict Data Program, Department of Peace and Conflict Research, Uppsala University. 13 p.

29. Mac Ginty R. (2006). No War, No Peace: The Rejuvenation of Stalled Peace Processes and Peace Accords. Rethinking Peace and Conflict Studies Series. Basingstoke; New York: Palgrave Macmillan. 230 p.

30. Matveeva A. (2022). Donbass at limbo: self-proclaimed republics in the inter-war period (2014–2021). Pathways to Peace and Security. No. 1 (62): Special Issue: Peace Processes, Violence, and De Facto States. P. 92–106. DOI: 10.20542/2307-1494-2022-1-92-106.

31. Polyakova Ye.Yu. (2022). Irlandiya v gody voiny za nezavisimost’: ot peremiriya k mirnomu dogovoru [Ireland during the war for independence: from ceasefire to peace treaty]. Novaya i noveishaya istoriya [Modern and Contemporary History]. 2022. No. 5. P. 120–130. DOI: 10.31857/S013038640020639-0.

32. Slantchev B.L. (2003) The principle of convergence in wartime negotiations. American Political Science Review. Vol. 97. No. 4. P. 621–632.

33. Sosnowski M. (2020). Negotiating statehood through ceasefires: Syria’s de-escalation zones. Small Wars and Insurgencies. Vol. 31. No. 7–8. P. 1395–1414. DOI: 10.1080/09592318.2020.1829872.

34. Stedman S.J. (1997). Spoiler problems in peace processes. International Security. Vol. 22. No. 2. P. 5–53. DOI: 10.2307/2539366.

35. Stepanova E.A. (2022). Peace process: On substantive definition. World Economy and International Relations. Vol. 66. No. 9. P. 5–18. DOI: 10.20542/0131-2227-2022-66-9-5–18.

36. Stepanova E. (2006). Terrorism as a tactic of spoilers in peace processes. In E. Newmann and O. Richards (eds.). Challenges to Peacebuilding: Managing Spoilers During Conflict Resolution. Tokyo: United Nations University Press. P. 78–104.

37. Sticher V., Vuković S. (2021). Bargaining in intrastate conflicts: The shifting role of ceasefires. Journal of Peace Research. Vol. 58. No. 6. P. 1284–1299. DOI: 10.1177/0022343320982658.

38. Zagorski A. (2022). The OSCE, Ukraine, and peace process. Pathways to Peace and Security. No. 1 (62): Special Issue: Peace Processes, Violence, and De Facto States. P. 121–132. 10.20542/23071494-2022-1-121-132.