Cessation of Hostilities

Cessation of Hostilities

​Katie Hetherington: Hello and welcome to this session on cessation of hostilities. My name is Katie Hetherington and I'm a program manager at the Public International Law and Policy Group. Today, I'm very pleased to be joined by Professor Milena Sterio, Managing Director at PLPG, and Dr. Gregory Noone, Executive Director of PLPG, and both international law professors. It's lovely to be joined by you both. 

Prof. Milena Sterio: It's such a pleasure to be here, Katie. 

Dr. Greg Noone: Thank you, Katie. 

What is a cessation of hostilities agreement?

Katie Hetherington: Now, Greg, I'll turn to you to begin today's session. What is a cessation of hostilities agreement? 

Dr. Greg Noone: So, a cessation of hostilities is an agreement between the conflict parties to stop fighting for an extended period. So, it tends to be broader and more formal than a humanitarian ceasefire or a truce or other conflict mitigation and battlefield management agreement. 

Whereas a cessation of hostility agreement is normally agreed upon in writing, includes provisions on prescribed participant behavior, so the vital component of all cessation of hostility agreements is that one or both parties declare that they will suspend all fighting. 

What are the scope and parameters of such agreements?

Katie Hetherington: Thanks, Greg. And Malena, could you speak to the scope and the parameters of cessation of hostilities agreements?

Prof. Milena Sterio: So a cessation of hostilities agreement is always going to be temporary, and it does not attempt to bring about a permanent conclusion of a conflict. Agreements are normally declared for a specified period, and they aim to create a space for political negotiations to develop and for a verifiable ceasefire to be agreed upon.

Now, how long a cessation of hostilities lasts depends on the context and the interests of the conflict parties. In rare cases, these agreements can extend over long periods even though this is very unlikely, because most of the time, the intention of the parties is not for the cessation of hostilities agreements to last for a very long time.

Dr. Greg Noone: Yeah, and I'd like to add that cessation of hostility agreements signify a halt to the fighting at the operational level, but they are distinct from a formal ceasefire in that they do not commit the parties to the repositioning or redeployment of military forces around the battlefield. So, cessation of hostilities usually do not include an agreed procedure for monitoring and or verification.

How do they fit into the peace process?

Katie Hetherington: Now, cessation of hostilities agreements serve an important conflict management function. Milena, how do these agreements fit into the broader peace process?

Prof. Milena Sterio: Well, you're right, Katie. Cessation of hostilities agreements do serve an important conflict management function because they attempt to control or limit conflict violence, but they do so without resolving the underlying issues over which a conflict is fought.

Cessation of hostilities create periods in which violence is stopped or at least during which violence is significantly reduced. The main conflict incompatibility remains unresolved and all the while the parties retain the willingness and capacity to return to violence at the end of this predefined period.

Cessation of hostility agreements, therefore, make the ongoing conflict less painful and damaging to all sides because they allow conflict parties to manage and deescalate the violence, but without committing to any permanent resolution of the conflict of the dispute. 

Dr. Greg Noone: Yes, and I'd just like to add here, as Melina mentioned earlier, cessation of hostilities agreements are always temporary, in that they are not intended to stop violence indefinitely, unlike a peace agreement.

They do not attempt to resolve the underlying conflict issues either. So, on some occasions, they can be relatively short term and used to manage violence to facilitate some specific event, like stopping violence for a religious holiday.

Whereas, on other occasions, if the conflict parties benefit from the suspension of violence, but do not wish to progress towards a more finalized political arrangement, a cessation of hostilities agreement can suspend violence for a longer period. 

So, these agreements are less stable than political settlements that address the underlying tension, or the more formal cease fire that are verified and commit the parties to a more clearly specified terms. In other cases, cessation of hostilities agreements can be used to contain rather than stop violence, as exemplified with the ceasefire agreements in Myanmar. These agreements have helped to limit and contain, rather than stop violence in the country. 

Prof. Milena Sterio: Now Katie, to add to this a little bit further, thinking about how these cessation of hostilities agreements fit into a peace process, a cessation of hostilities is usually a part of a larger peace process, and it often provides an effective signal of a conflict party's intention to move towards a peace agreement, while also providing an opportunity for them to assess the intentions of their opponent.

By sticking to an agreement, by foregoing opportunities to take advantage of the opponent during the pause in the fighting, conflict parties can send a strong signal that they're serious about moving towards peace. Cessation of hostilities agreements can also be important confidence building measures.

Conflict parties often have very little confidence in each other during violent periods of combat and conflict. Negotiations always require a minimal degree of trust between the parties, as otherwise parties are unlikely to talk or reach any deal if they don't trust each other, if they don't trust the other side.

Peacemakers therefore often seek to develop a series of actions that are negotiated, agreed, and implemented by the conflict parties in order to build confidence without specifically focusing on the root causes of the conflict. These can occur prior to, during, or towards the successful conclusion of a peace process.

Cessation of hostilities agreements, if successful, can be a very effective confidence building measure upon which future initiatives, future peace talks can be built. 

Dr. Greg Noone: And finally, if I can just add something briefly here, cessation of hostilities agreements can also help to build connections between the conflict parties. This can often be the first opportunity for the parties to build lines of communication, and an opportunity to develop and test security provisions that might later be a part of the peace agreement. So, these interactions tend to focus on tactical rather than political issues, making collaboration and pragmatic solutions more possible.

Does this mean that the conflict parties want peace?

Katie Hetherington: So, Greg, this discussion raises the question, does a cessation of hostilities agreement mean that the conflict parties want peace? 

Dr. Greg Noone: So, it's a great question, and it's important to remember that from the perspective of the conflict party, any cessation of hostilities is a strategic tool to advance their political goals.

So, if a group's political goals are best served through a peace process, then a cessation of hostilities can perform several useful functions to support conflict management and conflict resolution efforts. If a group believes that their interests are best served through a continuation of violence, they might still use a cessation of hostilities to advance their political and military position.

So, it's not uncommon for conflict parties to use a cessation of hostilities to create a period of reduced military hostilities that will allow them to rearm, regroup, and recover from a period of costly violence, or consolidate their territorial control. So, sometimes this kind of military incentives can be the primary objectives for parties entering a cessation of hostilities.

Whereas on other occasions, parties might agree on a cessation of hostilities with the desire to engage in efforts focused on managing or resolving conflict or serving humanitarian purposes, but still expect to benefit militarily from breaking the fighting. 

Prof. Milena Sterio: Now, Katie, to add to this a little bit more, on some occasions, conflict parties may enter a cessation of hostilities agreement with no intention to abide by the terms of an arrangement, but instead they will use this agreement to relieve domestic or international pressure.

If a conflict party is placed under serious pressure from powerful third parties from the international community, they might be compelled to accept an agreement before they're actually ready, willing, and able to commit. And this is the case when the most powerful actors in the world are involved. So for example, in 2018, the United Nations Security Council, which is one of the six principal organs of the United Nations, mandated with ensuring international peace and security, and unanimously called for a nationwide cessation of hostilities in Syria for 30 days under resolution 2401. 

But despite this resolution, violence continued, and within a month of this resolution, at least 500 people were killed and thousands more were wounded. This really demonstrated the limitations of international pressure in these challenging contexts, where in Syria, despite the international pressure, despite the Security Council resolution, the fighting did not actually stop.

Now, even when all of the conflict parties enter into a cessation of hostilities agreement with an intention to genuinely explore peaceful solutions, violations might still occur. These agreements are not designed to last indefinitely. They also lack provisions to monitor and verify compliance. And oftentimes, they do not contain the provisions needed to de-escalate the situation on the battlefield.

So while they're important, they might not provide long lasting solutions to a conflict. 

Are there other reasons conflict parties might enter these agreements?

Katie Hetherington: Thank you both. And a final question for this session, are there any other reasons that parties might enter into this type of agreement beyond what we've discussed so far? I'll turn to you, Greg. 

Dr. Greg Noone: Parties might enter into a cessation of hostilities to, as we say, test the waters, and and so should not be expected to produce a complete or durable break in the fighting,and it's always important to remember that a cessation of hostilities are strategic tools that can be used by conflict parties to advance their political goals.

So, as I said earlier, for groups political goals that are best served through the peace process, then the agreement can perform several useful functions to support conflict management conflict resolution efforts.

However, if a group believes that their interest is best served through continuation of violence, they may be using cessation of hostilities to advance their political or military position. And this includes using the agreement to rearm, regroup, deflect domestic or international pressure. Or, strategically redeploy troops to other locations.

So, concerns that their opponents would benefit from a cessation of hostilities is one of the primary impediments to agreements like this. And so, it's always important to keep this possible dark side of cease fires in mind. So, whatever the approach, a cease fire of hostilities agreement is a significant and important step towards a formal ceasefire and an important part of the process towards ending the violence.

Katie Hetherington: Well, that brings us to the end of our discussion today on cessation of hostilities agreements. Thank you so much, as always, Professor Sterio and Dr. Noone for joining us. And for those of you watching, thank you for your time, and we will join you in the next video, which will discuss preliminary ceasefire agreements.

Thank you.