Humanitarian Ceasefires

Humanitarian Ceasefires

​Katie Hetherington: Hello and welcome to this video on humanitarian ceasefires. My name is Katie Hetherington and I'm a program manager at the Public International Law and Policy Group. Today, I'm delighted to welcome both Professor Milena Sterio, Managing Director of PILPG, and Dr. Gregory Noone, Executive Director of PILPG, and both international law professors.

They'll help us today to provide an overview of the key components of humanitarian ceasefires. Great to be joined by you both today. 

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

Dr. Greg Noone: Happy to be here, Katie. 

What are humanitarian ceasefires?

Katie Hetherington: Let's begin then with a definition and explanation. What are humanitarian ceasefires? 

Dr. Greg Noone: Yeah, humanitarian ceasefires are arrangements between the conflict parties to suspend violence altogether or in designated areas in order to improve the situation for civilians and those caught up in the conflict.

So, humanitarian ceasefires are normally signed documents that set out the specific terms of the agreement and often involve the support of a third party actor. This makes them distinct from the more informal, local conflict mitigation or battlefield arrangements that can often serve humanitarian functions as well.

Civilians are often the primary victims of conflict violence, and due to the ongoing conflict, have restricted access to adequate health care, water, food, shelter. So, the ongoing violence can also make it hard for communities to recover and limits local and international support to those in need.

So, a pause in the violence can therefore greatly benefit the local population who suffer the worst effects of the violence.

Prof. Milena Sterio: And to add to this, Katie, specifically humanitarian ceasefires are oftentimes agreed in order to allow for things like, for example, the distribution of food and other food items, the evacuation of civilians, or the provision of health services. On other occasions, humanitarian ceasefires can focus on enabling the evacuation and relocation of civilian populations, internally displaced persons, refugees, and in some cases, even injured armed personnel.

And just to give you an example, in 2014, the Syrian rebels and the Lebanese armed forces agreed on a humanitarian ceasefire to allow for the evacuation of civilians and those wounded, and also to permit for the delivery of food and other medical and humanitarian aid. Humanitarian ceasefires, as I know we will discuss later, can also involve the creation of demilitarized zones and also other protected areas and no fly zones. 

What is the scope of these types of ceasefires?

Katie Hetherington: Greg, can you speak to the scope of these ceasefires and tell us whether they're limited by the likes of geography or time length?

Dr. Greg Noone: Absolutely. So, let's start with the fact that humanitarian arrangements can be limited to a clearly defined geographic area that's negotiated and agreed upon by the conflict parties. So, this is often a particular town, a city, or region. So, for example, during the Syrian conflict that Melana just mentioned, the government declared a 24 hour ceasefire for the rebel held city of Harasta to give civilians a chance to lead the city.

Whereas on other occasions, this can involve the creation of protected areas or humanitarian corridors or demilitarized zones, where violence is limited over a longer period to allow a more constant supply of aid to reach those in need. It's also possible that humanitarian arrangements cover the whole state, as was the case with the 2004 Darfur humanitarian ceasefire, which encompassed all of Sudan to ensure unimpeded humanitarian access. 

Prof. Milena Sterio: And Katie, to add to this, it's important to note that humanitarian ceasefires are usually temporary, and they can range from just a few hours to a few days, or even a few weeks. The UN Office for Humanitarian Affairs often labels this type of a ceasefire as a humanitarian pause, which clearly implies that fighting is unfortunately likely to continue after this pre-agreed upon break. More rarely, humanitarian ceasefires can extend over weeks or even months.

So, for example, the Operation Lifeline humanitarian ceasefire in Sudan was extended for several months. Now, the humanitarian objectives of a humanitarian ceasefire can vary depending on the context and nature of the crisis, but in most cases, parties will start with a short agreement that might be subsequently prolonged rather than pushing for an extended agreement at the start.

To give you another example, various insurgent groups in Myanmar extended a 30 day ceasefire for COVID 19 response purposes several times. 

Dr. Greg Noone: Let me also highlight that humanitarian ceasefires are often tangible and measurable. So, in principle, this means that it's possible to hold conflict parties publicly accountable for reaching or failing to reach these benchmarks.

So, for example, humanitarian ceasefires negotiated in several countries to allow for widespread polio vaccine distribution, such as in Colombia, Sudan, more recently, Afghanistan, as part of an effort to eradicate the disease. So, it's interesting that in all these cases, these arrangements were not labeled as humanitarian ceasefires by the conflict parties, but they came up with other names that both sides could agree upon.

So, for instance, in Latin America, the ceasefire periods were known as days of tranquility, whereas, in Afghanistan, they were known as national immunization days. Unfortunately, fighting resumed shortly following these arrangements, but they still limited violence for a long enough period of time to allow for millions of children to be vaccinated.

Are humanitarian ceasefires common?

Katie Hetherington: Thank you both. Now, we have already highlighted a number of examples of humanitarian ceasefires in our discussion so far, which leads us to a question I'll pose to you first, Milena. Are humanitarian ceasefires common? 

Prof. Milena Sterio: They are fairly common, but they're not always as popular as you might think. And Greg just illustrated that that's the case by explaining that sometimes because humanitarian ceasefires are not perceived as popular, parties might label them something else, for example, days of tranquility or pause or something like that.

One of the main reasons that conflict parties often resist humanitarian ceasefires is that they fear that this might undermine their war effort by providing a temporary break in the fighting that could then be abused by their opponents or that could somehow place them in a military or strategic disadvantage.

And unfortunately, these fears are not without substance. So, for example, in Sudan, several humanitarian ceasefires that took place between 1995 and 1999 were arguably exploited by the conflict parties to return and strengthen their war making capacity, their war efforts. These concerns can sometimes be mitigated by clearly delineating what we mean by a ceasefire.

So, clearly delineating the duration, the area covered, as well as the objective of a ceasefire agreement in such a way as to limit the possibility for its manipulation by the conflict parties. 

Dr. Greg Noone: Yeah, and we see this everywhere in the world, right? Um, the concern is that by having any type of ceasefire, the other side is going to gain a military advantage.

So, nevertheless, the conflict parties will often only agree to a humanitarian arrangement if they see some benefit. For example, a need to increase legitimacy or support from the civilians, or reducing pressure from domestic or international third parties. So, humanitarian arrangements are most likely in the wake of a serious crisis when demand from the civilians, the local, the international actors is likely to be the highest. So for instance, in 1998, the Taliban declared a three day ceasefire after a massive earthquake. So as a result, humanitarian ceasefires are usually concluded in reaction to a crisis and not preventively.

How do humanitarian ceasefires relate to peace negotiations?

Katie Hetherington: So, Milena, turning to you first, how do humanitarian arrangements relate to the wider process of peace negotiations? 

Prof. Milena Sterio: In many cases, humanitarian ceasefires are formally separate from any broader political negotiation. And the logic here is that humanitarian agreements tend to be more successful when they're not politicized and when they're not mixed in with other complicated issues.

Linking humanitarian arrangements to broader political demands can lead to a stalemate in the negotiation process and can lower the chances of concluding any agreement. So, following this logic, it's thought best to avoid politicizing humanitarian ceasefires, and it's best to keep them separate from a broader political peace negotiation.

Obviously, this can often be very hard, as parties may disagree on whether something is political or humanitarian, depending on how they view the conflict. And on other occasions, humanitarian issues might be considered as the primary motivation for political talks. So it just depends, but oftentimes humanitarian ceasefires are going to be separate from any broader political negotiations.

Dr. Greg Noone: Yeah, and Milena, with that said, humanitarian ceasefires can still have an important indirect effect on the political negotiation process. So, humanitarian ceasefires have a lower threshold for cooperation and might only require very brief adjustment to the fighting and the behavior of the parties.

So this can pave the way for future agreements by providing an opportunity to test and try limited forms of cooperation. So in this way, humanitarian agreements allow conflict parties to test the reliability of their opponents, and if successful, can actually build the confidence that makes more substantive negotiations easier in the future.

So, let me give a few examples. The Indonesian government and the Free Aceh Movement, Adopted humanitarian ceasefire in response to the 2004 Indian Ocean tsunami, which paved the way for future agreements and the final peace settlement the following year. So, humanitarian ceasefire can therefore sometimes act as a confidence building measure and is often the initial form of ceasefire adopted following a declaration of intent.

Unfortunately, these dynamics can also work in reverse. If the humanitarian agreements are abused for military gains, this can destroy the trust and the goodwill that the parties have tried to achieve, therefore, making concluding other forms of agreements even more difficult in the future.

So, it's possible that mediators of conflict parties have rudimentary roadmaps of humanitarian ceasefires and how they should be developed in the future as part of a broader process, but in other cases, parties might not agree to any formal humanitarian ceasefires and move straight from declaration of intent to negotiations on a cessation of hostilities agreement.

So, remember, there's not not always a clear line. There's not an A to B in a very linear fashion between these types of ceasefire agreements. So, humanitarian ceasefires can be concluded as part of the broader peace negotiations and more formal cessation of hostilities agreement, which we'll discuss in another video.

But, they also serve humanitarian functions which are incredibly important to the people that are stuck in the conflict. And, that's something we always need to keep an eye on is how this conflict impacts the civilians and the civilians ability, as we said earlier, with respect to health care, with respect to food, with respect to water, all of these things that are that are quite important for the day to day survival of the of the civilians caught in this conflict.

May third parties assist in any way?

Katie Hetherington: Thank you, Greg. Now, we have briefly mentioned in our discussion so far mediators and third parties in passing. So, Milena, may third parties or the international community assist in the facilitation of humanitarian ceasefires in any way? 

Prof. Milena Sterio: Yes, absolutely. And actually, the negotiation and the implementation of humanitarian ceasefires oftentimes actually requires support from third parties and technical experts.

And oftentimes, this then offers a possible entry point to begin to build the capacity of the conflict parties, to begin to engage them in more significant negotiations around the ceasefire process, which I would add can, at times, lead to more successful, broader peace negotiations as well. 

Dr. Greg Noone: Yeah, and I would just follow on to that. We talk a lot about achieving a ceasefire, and in this case, a humanitarian ceasefire. The next big hurdle is adhering to it, and you'll see accusations coming from both sides that they failed to adhere, they violated this, so getting the cease fire is one thing, but then having the implementation and adherence to it is going to prove to be rather difficult as well. 

Concluding remarks

Katie Hetherington: Great, thanks so much for both your insights.

And as we come to the end of this session, is there anything else you'd like to add? Greg, I'll turn to you first. 

Dr. Greg Noone: Yeah, thank you, Katie. Look, humanitarian ceasefires can create a break in the violence in order to respond to specific humanitarian needs.These arrangements are normally negotiated and have clear objectives and temporal and geographic limitations. But, I say formally, these ceasefires are often distinct from the negotiation of the political issues, because politicizing these agreements can be harmful as it can prevent the conflict parties from agreeing in the first place to get that humanitarian need to the people who absolutely need it most.

Prof. Milena Sterio: And Katie, I absolutely agree with all of this, but I think we also need to remember that on some occasions, humanitarian ceasefires can serve as confidence building measures that can create opportunities for future forms of cooperation or conversely, if unsuccessful, they can also undermine a whole process and make future forms of cooperation more challenging.

Katie Hetherington: Absolutely. These are really important points. So, this brings us to the end of our discussion on humanitarian ceasefires. Thank you so much, Dr. Noone and Professor Sterio for joining us. And for those watching in the next video, we will discuss cessation of hostilities agreements. Thanks so much for your time.