The Demise of Peace Treaties in Interstate War

Fazal, Tanisha M.

doi:10.1017/s0020818313000246

Cited by 19 publications

(10 citation statements)

References 42 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Fast forward roughly 30 years from the last year of data in Walter's study, the general pattern she described has been turned completely upsidedown. In recent articles, international relations scholars are now trying to explain "the demise of peace treaties in interstate war" (Fazal 2013) and the great "rise of the peace agreement" in civil wars (Bell 2006, pp. 373-374).…”

Section: Historical Backgroundmentioning

confidence: 99%

Peace Agreements

Quinn¹,

Álvarez²

2020

The Palgrave Encyclopedia of Peace and Conflict Studies

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Types and Prevalence In contemporary usage, the term peace agreement loosely describes any textual instrument produced in a process aimed at ending or preventing armed conflict between two or more parties. Such a typology stretches from protocols, principles, frameworks, and memorandums at one end, toward single and limited issue agreements and comprehensive accords at the other. Here the most common types of peace agreements are presented by surveying the most widely used datasets and research projects on peace agreements. The Uppsala Conflict Data Program (UCDP) Peace Agreement Dataset at the University of Uppsala (Sweden) contains 217 peace agreements of various types signed between 1975 and 2011 (UCDP 2020). Of these 217 peace agreements, all but 20 were signed in

show abstract

Section: Historical Backgroundmentioning

confidence: 99%

Peace Agreements

Quinn¹,

Álvarez²

2020

The Palgrave Encyclopedia of Peace and Conflict Studies

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The literature has long recognized a difference between ceasefires and peace agreements, both at the interstate and intrastate levels (Walter, 2002;Hartzell & Hoddie, 2003;Fortna, 2004;Werner & Yuen, 2005;Fazal, 2013;Wagner & Druckman, 2017). This separation often turns on two key characteristics of negotiated outcomes: (1) whether the agreement addresses a conflict's incompatibility and (2) the degree of variation in the specific terms of the agreement.…”

Section: Negotiated Outcomes Dual Sovereignty and Post-conflict Jusmentioning

confidence: 99%

Negotiating justice: Ceasefires, peace agreements, and post-conflict justice

Cox

2019

Journal of Peace Research

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Post-conflict justice is an integral component in maintaining stability and building peace in the aftermath of civil conflict. Despite its instrumental function, scholars routinely find that policymakers’ choice of justice is shaped by the structural conditions of the post-conflict environment, with outright victories leading to retributive forms of justice and negotiated outcomes yielding restorative forms of justice. However, existing literature conflates ceasefires and peace agreements into a single phenomenon, thereby overlooking the independent effects of each outcome. Leveraging the dual sovereignty framework, this article argues the conflation of negotiated outcomes is problematic because peace agreements and ceasefires generate different post-conflict environments. Relative to ceasefires, peace agreements lead to a reduction in the degree of dual sovereignty because they resolve a conflict’s incompatibility, thereby encouraging efforts to move society beyond war through restorative forms of justice. Due to the persistent threat of recurrent war generated by high levels of dual sovereignty, policymakers following ceasefires will be inclined to pursue retributive forms of justice that may target political opponents or potential defectors to bolster organizational strength. Statistical analyses confirm the underlying expectation that ceasefires and peace agreements yield different post-conflict justice outcomes. Peace agreements, relative to ceasefires, are more likely to be followed by the implementation of amnesties and reparations, whereas ceasefires exhibit a greater probability of yielding purges in the post-conflict environment.

show abstract

“…Because the rise in civil war peace agreements has occurred concurrently with “the demise of peace treaties in interstate war” (Fazal : 695, emphasis added), it seems reasonable to ask whether the underlying causes are related. Tanisha Fazal (: 696, 701) has attributed the demise of peace agreements in wars between nations to a “new era of accountability,” characterized by the “codification of norms” and “the emergence of a strong and growing canon” of international law regulating the conduct of actors involved in war and the termination of wars. Fazal has argued that this heightened level of “accountability” creates “disincentives for states to conclude formal peace treaties” (696) because they know that they will be “unequivocally obliged to pay the costs of compliance and to bear the consequences of noncompliance” (699).…”

Section: The Rise Of Intrastate Peace Agreements and The Commitment Pmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Remarkably, the long‐standing historical trends regarding how wars end that we noted above have reversed over the last two decades. Today, the majority of civil wars end in negotiated peace agreements, two thirds of which successfully end armed conflict for at least five years, and international relations scholars are now working to explain “the demise of peace treaties in interstate war” between nation‐states (Fazal ). Because of the magnitude of changes that have taken place in the international system over the last twenty‐five years, we believe the time is ripe to revisit the commitment problem in civil war negotiations.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%