Cecil Bohanon and John Horowitz: Devil is in the details with ceasefire results

Protestors are demanding a ceasefire between Hamas and Israel. Recently, there have been discussions of a ceasefire between Russia and Ukraine. During the Korean War, the United Nations agreed to a ceasefire and a demilitarized zone between North and South Korea, which U.S. and Korean troops have been patrolling ever since.

In her recent book, “Redefining Ceasefires: Wartime Order and Statebuilding in Syria,” Marika Sosnowski argues that ceasefires have important economic and governance implications. She discusses four types of ceasefires.

The first is substantive ceasefires, where opposing forces have roughly equal power and create precise ceasefire agreements. Precise language helps reduce strategic deception. The ceasefire and demilitarized zone separating North Korea and South Korea is an example.

The second type she calls interim ceasefires. In interim ceasefires, opposing forces have roughly equal power, but the ceasefire agreements are vague. The agreements typically create some monitoring mechanism to monitor the plan’s implementation. An example of an interim ceasefire was the United Nations’ six-point plan for Syria.

Interim ceasefires’ vagueness often makes them unactionable, with no specific obligations, responsibilities, coordination or notification procedures. Interim ceasefires might allow parties on the diplomatic level to retain the status quo while dealing with local areas as they see fit. They might also allow the parties to avoid dealing with key conflict issues.

Third are symbolic ceasefires. In symbolic ceasefires, one party has more power than the other, and the ceasefire agreements are vague. The provisions are like a memorandum of understanding, often with aspirational text about what the parties want to see but little detail on how it will happen. An example is the UN-endorsed 2016 Cessation of Hostilities in Syria Accord. The more powerful party can dictate, enforce or ignore the terms of the agreement and use it to consolidate its power. For example, the Syrian regime targeted opponents by labeling them terrorist elements.

Fourth are coercive ceasefires. In coercive ceasefires, one party has more power than the other, and ceasefire agreements are detailed. For example, the Syrian government, supported by the Russian military, negotiated hundreds of localized ceasefires that the government calls reconciliation agreements. The localized ceasefires allowed the government to assert control over the area, which in practice means that people viewed as part of the political opposition must leave to survive.

Ceasefires are tools groups use to improve their economic and political positions. The outcomes of ceasefires vary enormously depending on their details and implementation.•

__________

Bohanon and Horowitz are professors of economics at Ball State University. Send comments to ibjedit@ibj.com.