Several attempts have been made to negotiate ceasefires during the Syrian civil war.  This reading package defines ceasefires as “third-party-facilitated agreements that define the rules and modalities of the parties to the conflict to end the fighting.” However, in order to achieve a ceasefire, parties to the conflict, mediators and third parties will, for most years, go through an initial cessation of hostilities agreement. This contains some elements of a ceasefire, but is generally less formal and detailed, as can be seen in the case of the agreement for Syria in spring 2016. More recently, “codes of conduct” have been seen as an additional mechanism for minimizing and regulating the use of force between belligerents. Until 2012, there was only one international precedent in which the parties to the conflict signed a reciprocal code of conduct applicable to their troops, the 25-point code of conduct concluded in 2006 between the Nepalese government and the NPC (Maoist) “, which contained certain elements of a ceasefire. This approach was then used as a model in Myanmar, where international advisors helped the parties agree on common rules of engagement, general principles that guide their relations with the civilian population and a common monitoring framework. The ceasefire is inherently unstable. They will only be implemented after there has been a great deal of hostility and mistrust in the hostility. Once a conflict has spread to many parties, the interests of the parties are inevitably different. Some (whom Guy and Heidi Burgess describe as “conflict profiteers”) take advantage of the conflict itself and therefore try to prolong it.  Other “extremists” could aspire to an escalation of the conflict and even seek the total destruction of the adversary. It is difficult for each governing body to ensure that these groups comply with ceasefire agreements or have minimal impact, particularly a task that attempts to accept the proposed agreements while hostilities are still ongoing. Third parties can help highlight the benefits of ceasefire agreements and allay fears that support the arguments of opponents of the ceasefire.
However, the introduction of ceasefire agreements also carries risks: they can be manipulated by one or all parties to the conflict; to freeze and legitimize inequalities of power and resources between opponents and within their constituencies; And by giving the belligerents time to rebuild their forces, they could create the conditions for a more destructive conflict in the future. A ceasefire (or ceasefire) that has also concluded a ceasefire (the anonymity of “open fire” ) is the temporary end of a war in which each side agrees with the other side to suspend aggressive actions.  Historically, the concept existed at least in medieval times, when it was known as the “peace of God.”  Ceasefires may be declared as a humanitarian gesture provisionally, i.e. before a political agreement, or definitively, i.e. for the purpose of resolving a conflict.  Ceasefires can be declared as part of a formal treaty, but they have also been described as an informal agreement between opposing forces.  On 1 January 1949, a UNITED Nations-brokered ceasefire was concluded between India and Pakistan, ending the 1947 Indo-Pakistan War (also known as the 1947 Kashmir War).