Document Type : Original Article
Author
PhD in Regional Studies, St. Petersburg State University, St. Petersburg, Russia
10.22034/ipsan.2026.602578.1033
Abstract
Introduction
Ceasefires constitute one of the most important mechanisms for regulating armed conflicts and occupy a significant position in the space between war and peace. Although ceasefires are commonly understood as arrangements designed to suspend hostilities, their political and security functions extend beyond the mere interruption of armed violence. In many contemporary conflicts, the cessation of hostilities does not necessarily indicate the termination of war, the resolution of underlying incompatibilities, or the beginning of a linear transition toward sustainable peace. Rather, ceasefires may emerge at different stages of a conflict and may serve different purposes, including humanitarian relief, military repositioning, tactical pause, reduction of violence, creation of conditions for negotiations, or management of protracted conflict. Consequently, treating all ceasefires as equivalent stages on the path from war to peace obscures important differences in their objectives, functions, and outcomes. The central problem addressed in this study is therefore how ceasefires should be understood within the transition from war to peace and how their effectiveness can be assessed in light of their diverse purposes and conflict contexts. The study seeks to clarify the conceptual nature and typology of ceasefires, examine their role in managing and transforming armed conflicts, and identify the conditions under which they can contribute to peace processes or, alternatively, consolidate a prolonged state of “neither war nor peace.” The study is guided by the argument that a ceasefire should be assessed in relation to its stated objective and its position within the broader dynamics of the conflict and peace process rather than solely by whether armed violence has stopped.
Methodology
This study employs a qualitative research approach based on documentary and conceptual analysis. The research material consists of academic literature, research reports, international documents, and studies addressing ceasefires, armed conflicts, peace processes, conflict management, and the relationship between cessation of hostilities and political settlement. Particular attention is given to the conceptual and analytical framework developed in the literature on ceasefires and to the distinctions among different forms and functions of ceasefire arrangements. Documentary analysis is used to identify the principal characteristics, purposes, provisions, and consequences associated with ceasefires, while conceptual analysis is employed to distinguish between the cessation of violence, the termination of war, and the resolution of conflict. The unit of analysis is the ceasefire as a political-security arrangement embedded within the dynamics of an armed conflict. On this basis, ceasefires are examined according to their purpose, nature, scope, implementation, durability, patterns of violation, and relationship with political negotiations. The analysis also distinguishes between ceasefires that primarily serve military or tactical objectives, ceasefires intended to facilitate a peace process, and arrangements that contribute to the stabilization of a prolonged “neither war nor peace” condition. Effectiveness is consequently treated as a multidimensional concept rather than as a simple indicator of whether violence has ceased.
Results and Discussion
The analysis demonstrates that ceasefires do not constitute a homogeneous category and cannot be adequately understood as a single, uniform stage between war and peace. Their functions vary according to the objectives of the parties, the military balance, the stage of the conflict, and the existence or absence of a political process. Some ceasefires primarily perform military or tactical functions by creating temporary pauses that allow the parties to regroup, reposition forces, obtain supplies, consolidate territorial gains, or adjust their military strategies. In such cases, the cessation of violence may occur within the logic of continuing warfare and should not automatically be interpreted as evidence of progress toward peace.
A second category of ceasefires is more directly connected to peace processes. These arrangements can reduce the level of violence, establish minimum security conditions, facilitate communication between adversaries, create space for negotiations, and increase the possibility of addressing the political causes of conflict. Their effectiveness therefore depends not only on the degree to which hostilities are reduced but also on whether the resulting political space is translated into sustained negotiations and meaningful political arrangements. The relationship between ceasefires and peace processes is consequently reciprocal: a ceasefire can facilitate negotiations, while progress in negotiations can strengthen the stability and durability of a ceasefire.
A third pattern concerns ceasefires that contribute to the consolidation of a prolonged “neither war nor peace” situation. In such circumstances, the cessation of large-scale hostilities may be relatively durable without producing a comprehensive political settlement. The result can be a stable but fragile condition in which neither side achieves a decisive military victory and the underlying conflict remains unresolved. Ceasefires in this category may therefore reduce the intensity of violence while simultaneously institutionalizing or prolonging the unresolved nature of the conflict.
The findings further indicate that ceasefire effectiveness cannot be measured exclusively through the presence or absence of violations. A ceasefire may experience violations and nevertheless perform its intended function, particularly when its primary objective is to reduce the overall intensity of violence or maintain limited channels of communication. Conversely, an apparently stable ceasefire may have limited political effectiveness if it merely freezes the conflict without creating mechanisms for addressing its underlying causes. Accordingly, the assessment of effectiveness should begin with the original objective of the ceasefire and then consider the extent to which its commitments are implemented, the durability of the arrangement, the pattern and intensity of violations, its effects on the behavior of the parties, and its consequences for the broader political process. This approach makes it possible to distinguish between the military, humanitarian, tactical, and political functions of ceasefires and to avoid treating every resumption of violence as evidence of failure.
The analysis also shows that ceasefires may change their function over time. An arrangement initially established for tactical or humanitarian purposes may subsequently become connected to political negotiations, while a ceasefire originally intended to facilitate a settlement may become a mechanism for managing a prolonged conflict when negotiations stagnate. Thus, the relationship between ceasefire and peace should not be understood as linear or irreversible. The same ceasefire may perform different functions at different stages of a conflict, depending on changes in the parties’ objectives, the balance of power, the political environment, and the trajectory of negotiations. This dynamic character explains why the effectiveness of a ceasefire should be evaluated in relation to both its immediate objectives and its longer-term consequences.
Conclusion
The study concludes that a ceasefire should be understood as a multidimensional political-security arrangement rather than merely a temporary interruption of armed violence. Its position between war and peace is neither fixed nor necessarily transitional in a linear sense. Depending on its purpose and context, a ceasefire may contribute to humanitarian protection, regulate military behavior, create an opportunity for political negotiations, or stabilize a prolonged condition of “neither war nor peace.” Consequently, the cessation of hostilities alone cannot serve as a sufficient criterion for determining whether a ceasefire has been effective. The findings support the central argument that ceasefire effectiveness is conditional upon the purpose, nature, scope, and position of the arrangement within the conflict and peace process. An appropriate assessment therefore requires consideration of the initial objective of the ceasefire, implementation of its commitments, durability, patterns of violation, changes in the behavior of the parties, and its political consequences. This approach also demonstrates that violation or resumption of violence should be interpreted within the broader dynamics of the conflict rather than automatically equated with failure. A ceasefire may achieve its immediate objective even when violence subsequently resumes, while a prolonged cessation of violence may remain politically limited if it does not create conditions for addressing the underlying conflict. The principal implication is that ceasefires should be analyzed not as independent endpoints but as context-dependent arrangements whose significance depends on what they are intended to accomplish and what they actually produce within the wider trajectory of conflict and peace.
Keywords
Journal of Peace Studies