Ceasefire Agreement Research Articles

Myanmar: China’s Decisive Intervention, India Marginalised

Myanmar’s ongoing civil conflict has emerged as a key arena for geopolitical competition, particularly between India and China. China has significantly enhanced its influence in the country through assertive and strategic interventions, notably in the context of the China-Myanmar Economic Corridor (CMEC) under the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI). By mediating ceasefire agreements and engaging actively with Myanmar’s ethnic armed groups, China has consolidated its position as the primary external player in the conflict, ensuring the stability of critical infrastructure routes and safeguarding its investments. In contrast, India’s approach has been more reactive, primarily relying on ASEAN-led mediation efforts that have yielded limited results. India’s failure to capitalize on historical ties with Myanmar’s ethnic groups and its cautious diplomatic stance have sidelined it in the region, undermining its aspirations under the ‘Act East’ policy. As China continues to assert its influence, India risks further marginalization, with implications for its connectivity projects and broader strategic goals in Southeast Asia. This paper explores the contrasting approaches of India and China in Myanmar, analyzing the implications for India’s regional ambitions and suggesting that a more proactive strategy is essential for India to secure its geopolitical and economic interests in the face of China's expanding dominance.

Evolution of the Balance of Power in Northeast Asia: Implications for Regional Status Quo

The article examines the influence of the balance of power on the status quo existing around the Korean Peninsula in Northeast Asia since the summer of 1953. The status quo that emerged then still exists. On July 27, 1953, an Agreement was signed on a temporary truce in the Korean war, signed on the part of the DPRK by the Supreme Commander of the Korean People's Army, Marshal of the DPRK Kim Il Sung and the Commander of the Chinese People's Volunteers, General of the People's Liberation Army of China, General Peng De Huai, and on the part of the "UN troops "American General A. Clark. The Republic of Korea, a participant in that war, did not sign the Armistice Agreement either then or subsequently. The signatories of the Armistice Agreement represented their states and agreed to sign it because they understood the impossibility of victory in the Korean War due to the generally equal strength of the warring parties. It reflected the balance of power that had developed in the region by that time. Since then, there have been repeated attempts to somehow change it, on the one hand, and to keep it unchanged, on the other. Both supporters of changing the status quo and opponents of such a measure had their own reasons. This issue is especially acute now due to the significant change in the balance of power in the region to date.

המאבק בין צה"ל למשרד החוץ על השליטה בוועדות שביתת הנשק, 1956-1948

The armistice agreements signed between Israel and the Arab states at the end of the War of Independence required the establishment of joint commissions to oversee their implementation. Upon their formation, the Foreign Ministry supported placing these commissions under the responsibility and management of the IDF, based on the understanding that the primary issues they would handle would be military in nature. However, the Foreign Ministry soon realized the political nature of the commissions’ activity and the political consequences of their actions and positions. From the Foreign Ministry's perspective, the problem was that military personnel managed the discussions on political issues within the commissions and firmly refused to allow the Foreign Ministry to be involved in their activities or in relations with the UN entities. This was a prolonged, intense, and bitter power struggle between the Foreign Ministry and the IDF over control of the commissions. In the early years, the Foreign Ministry did not demand control over the commissions but merely sought improved coordination and consideration of its position on various issues. This was met with firm refusal from the IDF, which was supported by Ben-Gurion. Only after Ben-Gurion stepped down as Prime Minister and Moshe Sharett had replaced him did the Foreign Ministry begin to exert pressure, eventually succeeding in early 1955 when Sharett transferred control over the commissions to the Foreign Ministry. Ben-Gurion’s return, first as Minister of Defense and later as Prime Minister, reignited the struggle, as Ben-Gurion contested Sharett’s decision and demanded that responsibility for the commissions be returned to the IDF.

At the Crossroads of Destiny: Romania’s Tumultuous Journey from 23 August 1944 to the Armistice: Consequences

The second half of 1944 was one of the most complex periods in Romania’s contemporary history. It all started with the act of 23 August, after which Romania not only left the alliance with Nazi Germany, but had to endure Soviet pressure, to accept the entry of communist representatives into the government and the provisions of the Armistice Agreement, as well as the removal of Northern Transylvania from the administration of the Romanian state and the establishment of the Soviet administration in the region. However, despite everything that happened, one of the objectives for which Romania had first entered the anti-Soviet war, then the war against Hitler, was fulfilled. The Romanian–Hungarian border drawn at the end of the First World War was restored.

In the Russia, Türkiye and Iran Triangle; Karabakh

Karabakh, located within the triangle of Turkey, Russia, and Iran, is a region of significant strategic importance. It particularly serves as a gateway connecting Turkey to Central Asia. Throughout history, Karabakh has been part of Azerbaijan’s territory. From the first quarter of the 1800s, Armenians, along with people from regional powers such as Russia, Turkey, and Iran, migrated to the region. Especially Russia and European countries, aiming to separate Turkey from Central Asia, supported the migration of Armenians to the region. After the fall of Tsarist Russia, the Soviet Union supported Armenian territorial claims on various platforms within the framework of its own interests. This study examines Armenia’s policies of seizing Azerbaijani lands throughout history and the approaches of neighboring countries to the situation. Specifically, it analyzes the policies of the three regional countries during the First and Second Karabakh Wars, the November 10 ceasefire agreement that ended the war, the crimes committed by Armenians during the war and their withdrawal from Karabakh, and the international response to these issues based on various sources.

Israeli War Crimes in Palestine from the Perspective of Human Rights and International Humanitarian Law

The ongoing conflict between Israel and Palestine, marked by alleged war crimes against the Palestinian people, is rooted in a long and complex history. Despite numerous ceasefire agreements and peace negotiations, the conflict remains unresolved, often due to unilateral violations attributed to Israel. This research aims to analyze these war crimes within the framework of human rights and international humanitarian law. Using a normative legal research method and a literature study approach, the study reveals that Israel has repeatedly violated key principles of international humanitarian law, specifically military necessity, humanity, and proportionality. Incidents, such as the use of white phosphorus bombs and blockades on humanitarian aid, have intensified the conflict and are found to contravene the 1949 Geneva Convention. These actions amount to war crimes, severe human rights violations, and acts of genocide. The implications of this research underline the urgent need for accountability and adherence to international law to prevent further human rights abuses and promote lasting peace in the region.

The Impact of the Russia-Ukraine Conflict on Global Economic Stability and Political Security

The conflict between Russia and Ukraine has emerged as a significant geopolitical tension, with far-reaching implications for global stability and security. This paper intends to study the impact of the war on the worlds and regional economic development and political stability, and achieve some findings that may trigger further policy considerations in mitigating challenges and issues imposed by the war. Through literature reviews and comparison analysis, the findings reveal economic, political, and security consequences of the conflict. The disruption of trade flows, economic sanctions, and uncertainty have impacted both Russia and Ukraine, as well as the wider region and the world. Energy security concerns and shifts in military alliances have added to the complexity of the conflict. The expansion of NATO and increased rivalries between Russia and Western countries have further heightened tensions. Based on the findings, the paper concludes that the Russia-Ukraine conflict poses a significant threat to global economic stability and political security. It emphasizes the need for a multilateral approach to address the conflict and promote peace and stability in the region. Ceasefire agreements, humanitarian assistance, and reconstruction efforts are crucial steps towards long-term peace and development. The paper highlights the importance of prioritizing diplomatic solutions over short-term gains from the conflict. In summary, this paper intends to explore the implications of the Russia-Ukraine conflict on global stability and security, with findings that underscore the need for international cooperation and concerted efforts to mitigate the consequences of the conflict and foster a peaceful resolution.

Russia in the politics of South Caucasus countries after 2022

The research question is how national governments and civil societies reflect Russian involvement in the decision-making process of South Caucasus countries in 2022–2024? The structure of the research includes two sections: 1) Strategic interests of the countries of the South Caucasus and Russia in 2022–2024; 2) Changing the role of Russia in the South Caucasus in 2022–2024. In result of the research it was revealed that opting for a policy of normalization Georgia cannot renounce its territory (Abkhazia and South Ossetia). Azerbaijan has been the most consistent among the Caucasian countries in challenging Russian hegemony in the region. This trend intensified after the beginning of Russia's full-scale invasion of Ukraine: Azerbaijan increased humanitarian aid to Ukraine; pro-Ukrainian sympathies in Azerbaijani society were expressed through a number of leading media outlets that openly supported Kyiv. Baku unilaterally reviewed the ceasefire agreement - 2020, mediated by Russia. Amid the international isolation of the Kremlin, Azerbaijan began to play a much larger role for Russia. Baku is important link in the chain of diplomatic and economic ties of Putin's regime. Russia tries to maintain productive relations with Baku, even at the expense of its long-time ally Armenia. Yerevan revises its foreign policy, favouring a pro-Western vector. In Yerevan, the pro-Russian opposition organized rallies against the current government. Moscow and Baku both gained mutual benefits: Russia destabilized the situation in Armenia, and Azerbaijan restored its territorial integrity. However, these actions of Moscow struck at its influence in the region, marginalizing Russia and its "guarantees." The Caucasus provides a clear example of Russia's inability to continue playing the role of a major power: it simply lacks the strength and means.

포로에서 민간인으로 - 한국전쟁기 유엔군 포로수용소의 민간인 억류자 심사·분류·석방 과정

This paper aims to reconstruct the process of screening, classifying, and releasing Civilian Internees held in UN prisoner-of-war (POW) camps during the Korean War, highlighting how this process was closely intertwined with the UN Command’s POW repatriation policy. In these camps, not only communist POWs were held, but also civilians who were mistakenly detained as refugees, conscripted volunteers who had been forcibly drafted by the North Korean army in the South, and former South Korean soldiers. The South Korean government, focusing on the conscripted volunteers from the South, demanded the prompt release of approximately 40,000 individuals. However, the UN Command delayed their release in preparation for the ongoing armistice negotiations. After about a year from the first screening, in July 1951, the UN forces, as part of preparations for POW negotiations, reclassified around 39,500 South Korean POWs as Civilian Internees and excluded them from the POW exchange lists with the communist forces. However, when the communist side insisted on including these individuals in the exchange lists, causing delays in the negotiations, the UN Command conducted an additional screening to determine repatriation based on the internees’ voluntary decision. Ultimately, in 1952, approximately 30,000 Civilian Internees refused repatriation and were released to various regions in South Korea, while around 9,000 were repatriated to North Korea after the signing of the armistice agreement in 1953. The fluctuating handling of Civilian Internees between voluntary and forced repatriation demonstrates how the POW repatriation principles of both sides, while publicly emphasizing their ideological merits, were in practice shaped by rapidly shifting political demands and the situation within the camps.

Life-sustaining transboundary survival: rethinking Armenian struggles for heritage

ABSTRACT In September 2020, the ‘frozen conflict’ between the Republics of Armenia and Azerbaijan over the region of Nagorno-Karabakh erupted into full combat when Azerbaijan invaded Armenian towns in Nagorno-Karabakh and the surrounding regions. In this war, Armenia lost control over parts of Nagorno-Karabakh and the surrounding regions that it had gained in the early 1990s before a ceasefire agreement in 1994. Most importantly, thousands of young people lost their lives. In September 2023, following a nine-month blockade of the region, Azerbaijan invaded and took over, leading to the exodus of the remaining 100,000 Armenians of the region. In this speculative article-provocation, examining heritage discourses popular in Armenia and the Armenian Diaspora, we argue that what counts as heritage in the context of present political claims regarding land, territoriality, and culture insists on what we call national survival that necessitates restrictive lives (especially for women) as well as death (for soldiers). We, thus, ponder the possibility of what we call life-sustaining transboundary survival by imagining a different relation to heritage, drawing on shared inheritance of interconnected culture, knowledge, and water.

Exclusionary Inclusion: The Unforeseen Consequences of Norm Promotion in Myanmar’s Nationwide Ceasefire Agreement Process

ABSTRACT What happens when the promotion of ‘inclusive peace’ creates an exclusionary negotiated settlement? Through analysing the promotion of inclusion in Myanmar's Nationwide Ceasefire Agreement (NCA) negotiations that took place from 2011–15, I challenge claims in peace research that the more inclusive a peace process is, the more effective the outcome. Through discussing how the promotion of the inclusivity norm to the negotiating parties had unintended negative effects on the outcome of the process, namely excluding certain armed groups and crowding out civil society actors, I argue against assuming that integrating salient peacemaking norms always result in effective outcomes.

Learning to Fight Together: UN Peacekeeping Coalitions and Civilian Protection

Abstract Since the end of the Cold War, the United Nations has increasingly used peacekeeping operations (PKOs) to manage crises between and within states. The mandates of contemporary PKOs are demanding, calling on peacekeeping personnel to separate belligerent parties, enforce ceasefire agreements, and protect the physical security of civilians. The pursuit of these distinct objectives presents a unique challenge for the UN because it relies on member states to volunteer personnel for these missions. Therefore, the achievement of mandated goals depends on the ability of diverse national contingents to overcome coordination problems and function as a cohesive force. Integrating research of PKOs and international military coalitions, we argue that as national contingents share operational experience within a UN mission, they develop common institutional practices, and become more effective at protecting the civilian population. Using monthly data on UN PKOs from 1990 to 2019, we find that increasing operational experience within a peacekeeping coalition reduces civilian fatalities significantly.

The Excavation of the Remains of Soldiers Killed in the Korean War: Implications and International Cooperation

The main purpose of this article is to explore the significance of the objectives by focusing on activity theory, as well as the legal and institutional establishment of the Ministry of National Defense (MND) Agency for KIA Recovery & Identification (MAKRI), the subject of the Korean War remains excavation project, and the implications of expanding the excavation of remains in the DMZ and the repatriation of the remains of US and UN soldiers on the 70th anniversary of the Armistice Agreement. The excavation project, which began in 2000, aimed to build public trust by realizing the noble will of national unlimited responsibility that “the state is responsible for those sacrificed for the country forever.” Thus, it has allowed social integration beyond ideological and generational conflicts. It expanded the issue of excavating remains from South Korea to Arrowhead Hill and White Horse Hill in the DMZ area under the September 19 Inter‐Korean Military Agreement in 2018. Also, the ROK–US MOU was signed in 2000 in terms of international cooperation in the excavation of remains and carries out joint identification and repatriation of remains. The repatriation of the remains of Chinese troops and the remains of UN combatant countries has important implications for strengthening military diplomacy in legal and humanitarian aspects.

The Mudros Armistice. The Armenian Question and British Diplomacy

The Ottoman Empire came out of World War I defeated. The representative of Great Britain signed the armistice agreement with the Turks in the port of Mudros on the Greek island of Lemnos. With that, the Turks were subject to capitulation. The terms of the Mudros armistice also had an impact on the Armenian Question. During the war, the Turks organized the Armenian Genocide and the Armenian territories under Ottoman rule (Cilicia and 7 provinces of Western Armenia) were completely ethnically cleansed. Out of 2.5 million Ottoman Armenians, 1.5 million were killed and 1 million became refugees. The task of this study is to demonstrate how Cilicia was immediately liberated from the Turks by the agreement of Mudros and the Armenians were able to return to their homeland, but Western Armenia was not liberated, which led to the emergence of the Kemalist nationalist movement and the failure of the Armenian Question. The article covers the negative consequences of the conditions of the Mudros armistice in the failure of the Armenian Question. The problem has never been considered from this point of view by historiography. Analyzing facts, the article shows that it was due to the intrigues of British imperialist diplomacy, which was directed primarily against France. However, it also aimed to block Russia’s way from the Caucasus to the south. The British tried to achieve their far-reaching goals through another power – the United States. The work mostly refers to archival materials and documents, also drawing on some studies related to the topic. The article is built on comparative and critical analysis, observing the principles of objectivity and historicity. Many representatives of Western and Russian historiography have addressed the Franco-British contradictions over the Ottoman heritage. Armenian historians have also referred to some aspects of the issue in question. In the study, facts previously published for different purposes are presented in a new way. The problem was set to show the influence of the British far-reaching aims on the Armenian Question.

Understanding the transition of community land use from shifting cultivation to cash cropping in southern Tanintharyi, Myanmar

Abstract Many tropical landscapes have experienced the loss of traditional cultivation practices as they have transitioned to other land use systems. The Tanintharyi Region of southern Myanmar is a landscape experiencing a rapid land use regime shift from traditional subsistence farming to permanent cash crop agriculture. Despite previous research in this region on the expansion of large‐scale agribusiness, such as oil palm and rubber plantations, little is known about how the small‐scale shifting cultivation system practiced by the local Karen ethnic people in Tanintharyi has changed over recent decades or the underlying reasons for this transition. Our study explores this transition process and its drivers from a social and land system change perspective in four villages of Bokpyin Township in Tanintharyi. We investigated the drivers of land cover and land use change by collecting information through focus groups and individual interviews with community members who previously practised shifting cultivation. We also quantified the overall change in land cover and land use through remote sensing analysis of Landsat 8 (2020) and declassified KH‐9 satellite imagery (1976). Prior to a period of civil war in the 1980s, cultivators used a traditional ‘slash‐and‐burn’ agricultural system for subsistence use. The present land use system is dominated by permanent betel nut cultivation, which represents the primary income source for farming households. The reported drivers of the transition to cash crop farming are greater income potential and livelihood security, risk of losing fallow land due to the needs for new cultivation areas for in‐migration and new centralized land use policies and administration after the national ceasefire agreement in 2012. The documented change in land use systems has been paired with a concurrent net loss of forest that, given the conflicted governance within the landscape, seems likely to continue without additional land use planning efforts. Our study contributes to an increased understanding of changes in shifting cultivation systems that are being documented globally. Furthermore, our example of combining qualitative interviews with analysis of historical satellite imagery to detect and explain land use regime shifts can serve as a model for future work in different landscapes. Read the free Plain Language Summary for this article on the Journal blog.

True Agreement Between India and Pakistan Regarding Disputes for The Kashmir Territory

Kashmir is an area located around the Himalayas which is located in northern India and Pakistan. Kashmir has been a trigger for conflict between India and Pakistan as both countries claim the Himalayan region. India and Pakistan have fought two wars over the Kashmir region, namely the India-Pakistan War in 1947 and the Kargil War in 1999. In 2019 tensions between India and Pakistan flared up again after India revoked the autonomy of the state of Jammu and Kashmir. The military leadership of India and Pakistan in February 2021 announced a truce agreement along the disputed border region in Kashmir. This was done after the exchange of fire between the militaries of the two countries in recent months.

남북 접경지역 발전 방안에 관한 소고

The border area between North and South Korea is the place that most clearly shows the political reality following the outbreak of the Korean War in 1950 and the division of the Korean Peninsula through the Armistice Agreement in 1953. Although it had a central location on the Korean Peninsula before the division of the country, it is now located in the periphery, where many restrictions and distortions occur. In the past, as inter-Korean relations repeatedly waxed and waned, development plans and policies were established in various relationships, but there is a need to establish policies and strategies from a long-term perspective in the future. Therefore, in the future, economically stable and sustainable development must be accompanied.
 Due to the regional characteristics of the divided Korean Peninsula, the border area between North and South Korea is still inevitably affected by inter-Korean relations, but in the future, an environment free from inter-Korean relations must be created to ensure continuous development. In this study, we examine the uniqueness of border areas and related policies and laws, and suggest development plans for border areas.

한미동맹의 변화와 발전

Marking 70th anniversary of the Armistice Agreement and ROK-US alliance in 2023, this article aims to look back on the development of the alliance and contextualize Yoon Suk Yeol and Biden administration’s recent efforts in strengthening the alliance. In particular, this article focuses on mapping strategic continuity as well as changes embedded in Yoon administration’s ‘global comprehensive strategic alliance.’ This article also delves into strategic implications and progress in Yoon administration’s efforts to promote ‘conventional-nuclear integration(CNI)’ in strengthening US’s extended deterrence commitments. The article is structured as follows. First, building upon previous literatures on the ROK-US alliance, the article analyzes the impact of recent Trump administration on the cohesion of the ROK-US alliance, and how current Yoon-Biden administration has worked to reverse the effects. Second, the article highlights how ROK-US alliance envisions horizontal and vertical deepening of the alliance under the strategic concept of global comprehensive strategic alliance. Third, the article delves into the evolution of ROK-US extended deterrence and implications of CNI. Lastly, the article concludes with alliance’s tasks ahead, with particular emphasis on possible return of Trump administration and its implications on the alliance.

Unraveling the Nagorno-Karabakh Conundrum: Deciphering Russia’s Southern Caucasus Strategy

Following the Nagorno-Karabakh War, a ceasefire agreement was signed by Azerbaijan and Armenia. However, the path towards a comprehensive peace accord still needs to be solved with some challenges. The unresolved status of Nagorno-Karabakh and the fate of its Armenian inhabitants remain critical points of contention. Additionally, the difficulties of Armenian Prime Minister Nicol Pashinyan in executing provisions related to the proposed transportation corridors outlined in the Ceasefire Pact add another layer of discord. External actors further complicated this situation. Armenia’s domestic opposition and Iran’s strategic ambitions within the region played significant roles. Conversely, Russia has taken a central role in overseeing peace negotiations and advancing its interests in the Southern Caucasus. This article delves into the entrenched disputes between Azerbaijan and Armenia and examines the potential trajectory of their relations. Moreover, it provides insights into Russia’s intricate agenda, which shapes the evolving dynamics of the Southern Caucasus region. In essence, this study analyzes the intricate web of challenges, interests, and influences that intersect in this geopolitical landscape, shedding light on the intricate interplay between internal and external factors.

Mongolian People’s Republic and Japan in Advance of the Khalkhin Gol Incident

Introduction. The year 2024 celebrates the 85th anniversary of the Battles of Khalkhin Gol. The slashing war (May-September 1939) ended with a truce agreement signed on 15 September 1939 and immediately followed by ceasefire. The warring sides agreed on the latter, settlements of territorial claims, POW and KIA exchanges. The events proved another significant milestone in the national history and shaped a new stage in Soviet-Mongolian cooperation. The multiple penetrations of Japanese units deep into Mongolia’s territory under various pretexts did attest to those were preparing for war. On 11 September 1939, Japanese troops invaded the Mongolian People’s Republic in the Khalkhin Gol area. As a faithful ally the Soviet Union granted its military support to the nation. The historical significance of the incident still attracts attention of scholars from various countries, including from the direct participant ones. Goals. The article examines some border conflicts between the MPR and Manchukuo, i.e. the events that had preceded the invasion of Mongolia by Japanese-Manchu troops. Materials. The paper examines published archival materials, collected documents, and scholarly writings. Results and conclusions. The tense relations between the MPR and Japan on the eve of the hostilities were somewhat a manifestation of the complicated political agenda then witnessed worldwide. Japan did have certain influence on Mongolia’s foreign policy, since it had launched aggression across Northeast China in 1931 only to create the state of Manchukuo in 1932 and, thus, find itself bordering the former. So, Japan in the form of Manchukuo started posing an evident threat to the independence and sovereignty of the MPR: it would articulate claims to the Khalkhin Gol area. Since 1934, Mongolia was facing border violations that led to a full-scale military attack. There was no clear borderline between the MPR and Manchukuo across the disputed area, which made both the sides begin negotiations. However, the rounds of 1935 and 1937 ended with null results. The Soviet-Mongolian victory would further strengthen mutual political, economic, and military ties.