Ceasefire Agreement Research Articles

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.

Діяльність ООН щодо врегулювання війни Росії проти Грузії 2008 року

Background. In August 2008, the world witnessed the escalation of the military conflict between Russia and Georgia, which was the result of several complex preconditions and geopolitical relations. The events of that time were marked by a sharp aggravation of the situation in the Caucasus and determined new realities in international relations. The topicality of the article lies in the attempt to consider the problem of war through the participation of the UN in it and to assess the effectiveness of its work in conflict resolution. In addition, an attempt was made to assess the capabilities of the Security Council and the UN in general that could influence the development of events in the region. The purpose of this paper is to trace and evaluate the role of the UN in the settlement of Russia's war against Georgia. Methods. During the research we used the following research methods: systematic – for a comprehensive study of the problem of the powers and work of the UN and the Security Council on conflict resolution as a whole; analysis – by breaking down the research area into its components, participants, and chronological aspects in order to study them comprehensively; historical and content analysis – to consider the content of documents, resolutions, reports, etc. on the UN's work on the issue; induction and deduction to form a conclusion based on all the material. Results. The study examined the main events that took place on the eve of the war, as well as the reaction of the international community, including the role of the UN and its efforts to stop the violence and facilitate a diplomatic settlement. In addition, important resolutions and decisions adopted by the UN were analyzed. Important aspects of the relations between Russia and Georgia are revealed, as well as certain difficulties regarding the possibilities of conflict resolution at the global level and the role of international organizations in ensuring peace and stability in the region. Conclusions. Thus, the analysis concludes that in August 2008, Russia, in violation of the principles of international law, intervened in Georgia's internal affairs by using military force and recognizing the independence of Abkhazia and South Ossetia. Russia's actions provoked an immediate reaction from the international community, but the UN's actions in this conflict were not effective enough. Even after urgent meetings of the Security Council and appeals for compliance with the ceasefire agreement, Russia used its veto power to block a resolution to extend the UMONIG mission in the region. Subsequent attempts to resolve the conflict through the General Assembly have not led to concrete action, and the situation remains unresolved. The main aggravating circumstance is the inconsistency of Russia's actions with international norms, which keeps Georgia's sovereign territory under occupation and threatens international stability in the region.

중일전쟁 준비를 위한 일본의 만주지역 치안숙정과 군비강화

The 1933 Tanggu Armistice Agreement reduced military conflict between China and Japan. However, Japan resumed its invasion of China in 1935 with the separation of Hebei. As a result, tension between China and Japan reached its peak again. Accordingly, Japan tried to prepare for a war with China by strengthening security and arms against Manchuria. In particular, China-China relations deteriorated rapidly toward the end of 1936. And in June 1937, just before the outbreak of the Sino-Japanese War, Japanese Kwandong Army and Soviet Army clashed in northeastern China. Since then, Japan has carried out a military reorganization in northeastern China and also carried out reforms to the Manchurian Army. The reform was mainly centered on the integration of the military and police central organization. In addition, in the late 1936, Japan spent a lot of money to reorganize the armaments of Manchuria, and the weapons possession situation of Manchurian troops more than doubled compared to before.
 In addition, since 1936, Japan has conducted a security settlement in Manchuria to respond to the all-out war. The main contents are based on the security plan of the Manchurian army and the Foreign Ministry police. In particular, this security policy includes ideological work, which promoted a basic ideological exhibition that recognizes the excellence of nationalism in life while promoting the principles of people's lives. At the same time, an exhibition of wartime thought was held to strengthen the ideological general mobilization system in the urgent environment before the war. As such, Japan has already been strengthening security and arms against Manchuria as a preparatory step for invading China since the middle of 1936. Because of this preparation, it was possible to start a war without a declaration of war when the Lugouqiao incident occurred.

Trans-boundary water management during the peace process in Korean peninsula: Solution finding from previous precedents

South Korea and North Korea are divided states and armed-conflict counterparties. Peace building has been pursued since the 1953 Armistice Agreement, but no meaningful results have been achieved. Recently, tensions have risen in the transboundary maritime areas around the NLL, the provisional maritime delimitation line between the two Koreas. Two Koreas' unique circumstances require case studies between divided and/or armed-conflict States focusing on maritime areas. From the first case of maritime delimitation under the peace treaty between Israel and Jordan to the divided States and/or the armed-conflict States case, i.e. the East and West Germany case, the Cyprus case, the Northern Ireland case, the Israel-Jordan case), this paper aims to extract legal implications and lessons for the peaceful management of transboundary maritime areas and waters surrounding the NLL. Till now two Koreas have only agreed on transboundary maritime management with the issue-specific approach. For the future, in addition to the achievement of the issue-specific approach to the transboundary maritime management, it needs to consider the integrated maritime management, such as the MSP.

The role of the Israeli-Syrian mixed armistice commission in the fate of the Arabs of Krad al-Baqqara and Krad al-Ghaname 1948-1956

ABSTRACT The 1949 Israeli-Syrian armistice agreement stipulated the establishment of a mixed armistice commission [MAC] to oversee the implementation of the terms of the agreement. One of the outcomes of this agreement was the creation of demilitarized zones inhabited by local Arab villagers. During Israel’s War of Independence, the residents of Krad al-Baqqara and Krad al-Ghaname fled to Syria; the agreement enabled them to return to their lands in the demilitarized zone. Two years later, Israel moved them out of the demilitarized zone, but then allowed them once again to return. During the 1956 Sinai War most left the zone or were forced to leave for Syria. The legal status of the demilitarized zone meant that unlike the residents of other Arab cities and villages in Israel, these villagers were not under military rule, and that UN observers could intervene in their affairs. Unexplored documents paint a complex picture of the different interests and involvement of the IDF (which oversaw the Israeli Delegation to the Mixed Armistice Commission), the Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs, the Syrian government, and the UN observers in their fate.

A poliheuristic analysis of South Korea’s responses towards North Korea’s missile tests

The North Korean missile program has gained undeniable momentum in the twenty first century, highly sensitive to dialogues within the region. One could argue South Korea is accustomed to these repetitive launches splashing into the Pacific Ocean, at times nearing two dozen in a year, but the republic has its sets of policy alternatives when responding to the neighbor’s aggression. To understand South Korea’s decision-making mechanism, I utilize the ‘Poliheuristic Theory’ developed by Mintz. A decision matrix consisting of three policy alternatives (passive by-standing, reaching out, joint drills) is applied to three crisis moments from 2013, 2017, 2022. Primary and secondary sources like defense ministry press releases and news reports are used for data collection. The North’s tests are closely observed by the South but usually not responded to provocations. When South Korea decides to respond, the tendency is to carry the issue to the international audience by citing U.N. Convention, Armistice Agreement, etc. The presence of the U.S. military in the peninsula plays a crucial role, as seen from the remarkably increased tests after the U.S. declared it would lessen military involvement. Several domestic and regional criteria (the Sunshine Policy, eventual unification possibility, U.S. military presence, asymmetrical capabilities, regional status quo) has possible influence over leaders’ responses.

United Nations Security Council’s Role in the Liberation War of Bangladesh: Critical Analysis

Bangladeshis began their fight for independence on March 26, 1971, as a response to Pakistani rule that was unfair to their race and treated them like a colony within their own country. Between the start of the Liberation War and November, the UNO's main job was to provide aid and support for civilians. When India and Pakistan went to war on December 3 over the Liberation War, the UN Security Council got very busy. The Security Council met nonstop during this time and discussed many ideas and counter-proposals. Two superpowers of this time, USA and the Soviet Union, took opposing positions in the Security Council. United States and China sided with Pakistan while Soviet Union sided with Bangladesh (East Pakistan). In the Security Council, France and Britain remained neutral and did not vote. The Security Council could not reach a consensus. After debate and vote in the Security Council, the agenda was transmitted to the General Assembly on 6 December. General Assembly passed a 'Unity Formula for Peace' resolution by an overwhelming majority on December 7. India and Bangladesh rejected this idea; therefore, the US called a second Security Council session. The Security Council met from 12 to 21 December at various times. Bangladesh's independence on December 16 altered everything. International representatives acknowledged reality and unanimously approved a ceasefire agreement on December 21, resolving the long-awaited Bangladesh problem.