Listen to the article
In legal terms, the notions of truce and ceasefire are “fixed;” however, in the political realm, they are more “flexible.” Often instrumentalized, they can serve as a revealing message of the intentions of the belligerents as well as the various stakeholders regarding the resolution (or lack thereof) of the conflict.
In Gaza, efforts from Qatar, Egypt and the United States have led to a truce that came into effect on Friday morning. According to this agreement, a “humanitarian pause” has been decided, and the Israeli government has secured the release of 50 hostages held by Hamas in exchange for 150 Palestinian prisoners. Their release will occur in stages.
Truce, ceasefire, armistice. Vocabulary that refers to legally distinct concepts but, in political practice, are employed fluidly. “When you talk about a ceasefire, an armistice or a truce, you are legally designating fairly different situations,” explains Jean-Yves De Cara, Doctor of Law and Emeritus Professor of Public International Law at Paris Descartes University, interviewed by This is Beirut. “An armistice signifies the cessation of hostilities. Take the example of the 1918 armistice, after which a period of negotiations for peace was to begin,” he continues, indicating that an armistice signifies a commitment to engage in a peace process.
Today, in the case of the conflict between Israel and Hamas, the issue is to understand where the agreement stands from a political point of view, as the use of each term holds importance, given the differences in positions.
According to Professor De Cara, a ceasefire “calls for an end to hostilities; it can be temporary or durable and final, depending on political considerations and the degree of commitment of the parties to ending the armed conflict.”
In contrast, a truce, according to Professor De Cara, constitutes a “kind of preliminary episode involving various operations, notably of a humanitarian nature:” evacuation of civilians, exchange of prisoners or hostages, Red Cross intervention, opening of humanitarian corridors, establishment of peaceful zones, etc. “Provisional, it can facilitate progress towards a political solution and, more rarely, the commencement of negotiations,” he states.
Normally, these terms are used in conflicts between states. However, due to the evolution of forms of armed conflict, the concepts of ceasefire and truce can now be used in conflicts between a state and rebel or armed groups.
“In such cases, these agreements are obviously not solemn. They are often made on the front line,” specifies Professor De Cara.
How Are Truces and Ceasefires Decided?
In some situations, the belligerents decide on a ceasefire or truce. In others, it may be a decision emanating from an international organization, which generally must be respected. When asked about the authority responsible for “monitoring” the “proper progress” of the truce or ceasefire, Professor De Cara responds, “Regarding the Gaza war, we can talk about self-monitoring, meaning Israel and Hamas commit to refraining from using force, with no guarantee, since the decision of the truce was not made by the United Nations. In this case, an international force intervenes between the parties to guarantee the effects of the truce or ceasefire.”
Less formal and regulated, a truce can lead, if it persists, to negotiations for a ceasefire, with the establishment of “border” lines that the parties commit not to transgress. Politically, mentioning a truce signifies that the war has not ended and that the fighting will resume until the belligerents achieve their objectives.
What About the Humanitarian Pause?
The term “humanitarian pause” was recently used in the case of the war between Israel and Hamas. What does it entail? “Legally, this term is not included in legal texts. It is rather used for political purposes to signify that it could be a somewhat more durable stage, intermediate between the truce and the ceasefire,” explains Professor De Cara.
