Since the UN’s establishment in 1945, the body has been pivotal in maintaining global peace and security. A critical instrument in its arsenal is the ceasefire resolution, primarily used by the UN Security Council (UNSC) as a vehicle for showing the overriding will of the Council in times when tensions are high. These resolutions often serve as preliminary steps toward peace negotiations by halting violence and providing humanitarian relief. This long read delves into the practical implications of ceasefire resolutions, analyzing their historical use, objectives, achievements, and challenges in light of the US-proposed three-phase Israel-Hamas ceasefire resolution adopted by the UN Security Council on Monday.
Mechanisms of a UN Ceasefire Resolution: The Legal Framework
Ceasefire resolutions by the UN are supported by various articles of the UN Charter. Chapters VI (Pacific Settlement of Disputes) and VII (Action with Respect to Threats to the Peace, Breaches of the Peace, and Acts of Aggression) provide the legal foundation of these resolutions. Chapter VI encourages peaceful dispute resolution, while Chapter VII empowers the UNSC to enforce binding resolutions when international peace is threatened.
The UNSC consists of 15 members, including five permanent members with veto power (China, France, Russia, the United Kingdom, and the United States) and ten rotating members. A minimum of nine affirmative votes is required to pass a resolution, with no veto from any permanent member. This procedural rigour ensures broad international support and legitimacy, though it also introduces complexities, particularly when geopolitical interests clash.
Aims of UN Ceasefire Resolutions
There are many ways in which a ceasefire resolution can impact a conflict and cause an end to fighting. The most prominent example is that a resolution may cause an immediate halt to the hostilities, which in their very nature, is the aim of a ceasefire resolution—to prevent further casualties and destruction by establishing an immediate stop to military engagements. In the Yemen Civil War, ceasefire resolutions enabled temporary relief, providing critical reprieve for war-stricken civilians.
The second reason to adopt a ceasefire is to aid humanitarian access, mitigating the impact of the conflict on non-combatants. As observed in both phase 1 of the current Gaza ceasefire proposal and in several Syrian ceasefires, ceasefire agreements often include provisions of humanitarian aid reaching civilian populations. One of the core elements of post-ceasefire humanitarian efforts in Ethiopia’s Tigray conflict has been to provide necessary food and medical supplies to civilian communities.
The third reason is that ceasefires seek to de-escalate conflicts or to prevent conflicts from spreading or intensifying. Resolution 2268 in the Syria conflict aimed to halt the spread of violence to neighbouring countries in order to prevent regional destabilization.
On the long-term goals, ceasefire resolutions can be a foundation for peace talks—creating a conducive environment for initiating comprehensive peace negotiations between conflicting parties. For example, the prolonged periods of calm following ceasefires in Northern Ireland provided opportunities for the Good Friday Agreement discussions. They can also change a conflict’s dynamics and enable work to be undertaken towards a political solution that addresses the root causes of the conflict. In the Balkans, the UN-brokered ceasefires during the 1990s facilitated political talks that eventually led to the Dayton Agreement being signed.
Ceasefire resolutions also enable post-conflict reconstruction and facilitate rebuilding efforts that can address the socio-economic needs of affected areas. During the Gulf War, the UNSC passed Resolution 687, which established a formal ceasefire following Iraq’s defeat. The resolution mandated Iraq disarm its weapons of mass destruction and allowed UN inspectors to monitor compliance. Following the cessation of hostilities, the UN took part in extensive reconstruction and humanitarian aid programs in Kuwait. Therefore, whether seen as a fruitless effort, a waste of time, or diplomatic nonsense, ceasefire agreements can be the first domino to trigger a series of events which lead to a sustainable peace.
Challenges
Ensuring compliance with ceasefire terms is often difficult, with frequent violations reported and the enforceability of ceasefire agreements on a constant knife-edge. In South Sudan, despite multiple ceasefires, violations have been rampant, undermining peace efforts. Additionally, ceasefire violations were continually reported in Ukraine and the Donbas region before the full-scale Russian invasion.
Geopolitical interests and the entrenched positions of key UNSC members can hinder consensus, creating complete political deadlock and weakening the potential impact of UN resolutions. The Syrian conflict has often seen vetoes from permanent UNSC members, stalling effective intervention as geopolitical interests and unresolved tensions cause permanent members to wield their veto power. As often temporary measures, ceasefires sometimes provide only short-term relief without addressing the deeper, structural issues that fuel the conflict, leading to recurring cycles of violence. One notable example is Resolution 2268 (2016) in the Syrian Civil War, which endorsed a nationwide cessation of hostilities. While it temporarily reduced violence, frequent violations hindered its effectiveness, illustrating the challenges of enforcement in complex conflict zones with multiple actors and deep-rooted grievances. The enduring conflict in the Democratic Republic of Congo also reflects how temporary ceasefires fail to resolve long-standing political and ethnic tensions.
The Israeli-Palestinian Conflict: A Case Study
The Israeli-Palestinian conflict, marked by recurrent cycles of violence and deep-seated historical grievances, presents a particularly challenging context for ceasefire resolutions. The UN has intermittently intervened to call for ceasefires aimed at halting hostilities and facilitating humanitarian aid.
During the 2008-2009 Gaza War (Operation Cast Lead), the UNSC passed Resolution 1860 in January 2009, which called for an immediate ceasefire, the withdrawal of Israeli forces from Gaza, and unimpeded humanitarian assistance. The resolution contributed to a temporary cessation of hostilities, but long-term peace remained elusive due to ongoing political and security concerns.
In the 2014 Gaza Conflict (Operation Protective Edge or Battle of the Withered Grain), multiple UN appeals for a ceasefire were made. Despite intense international pressure, sustained violence continued until an Egypt-brokered ceasefire was agreed upon after 50 days of conflict. This highlighted both the critical role of international mediators and the limitations of UN resolutions when faced with entrenched positions and mutual distrust.
In May 2021, after an 11-day escalation of violence, the UN, alongside countries such as Egypt and Qatar, facilitated a ceasefire between Israel and Hamas. The UNSC held several meetings but faced challenges in issuing a formal ceasefire resolution due to differing views among permanent members.
Examining the Security Council’s Gaza ceasefire plan
Monday’s resolution, Resolution 2735, calls for the implementation of a three-stage plan to secure a lasting and comprehensive end to the fighting in Gaza.
The first phase of the ceasefire plan calls for an “immediate, full, and complete ceasefire,” which includes the release of some hostages, such as women, the elderly, and the wounded, along with the return of the remains of deceased hostages and an exchange of Palestinian prisoners. It demands Israeli forces withdraw from “populated areas” of Gaza, enabling Palestinians to return to their homes across the enclave, including the north, and ensuring the safe and effective delivery of large-scale humanitarian assistance. In the second phase, a permanent end to hostilities is sought “in exchange for the release of all remaining hostages in Gaza, and a full withdrawal of Israeli forces from the region.” The third phase involves initiating a major multi-year reconstruction plan for Gaza and ensuring the return of any remaining deceased hostages to Israel. It is stipulated that if negotiations for phase one exceed six weeks, the ceasefire will continue as long as talks are ongoing.
The resolution also emphasizes that no demographic or territorial changes will be accepted in the Gaza Strip, affirming the Security Council’s “unwavering commitment” to a two-state solution where Israel and Palestine coexist peacefully within secure and recognized borders as per international law and relevant UN resolutions. It stresses the importance of unifying the Gaza Strip with the West Bank under the Palestinian Authority.
Conclusion
UN ceasefire initiatives play a vital role in mitigating immediate violence and facilitating humanitarian relief in conflicts worldwide. The Israeli-Palestinian conflict underscores the complex interplay of successes and limitations associated with these efforts. While ceasefire resolutions have provided critical humanitarian relief and periods of calm, achieving lasting peace requires addressing the root causes of the conflict and sustaining international engagement. A holistic approach, incorporating robust enforcement mechanisms, diplomatic ingenuity, and comprehensive peace-building strategies, is essential for transforming ceasefire efforts into enduring peace and stability.
