International community interventions in areas of tension or conflict are not always military. They can also be diplomatic, such as developing international conventions, treaties and agreements. These can have different purposes, including:
-
ending armed conflict
-
protecting vulnerable groups, such as civilians, from the impact of armed conflict
-
regulating the weapons and acts permitted in times of conflict
Peace agreements are often drafted after a long period of conflict, when one side appears to have prevailed and the other side accepts defeat. A peace agreement is established in which the defeated party makes concessions to the winning party, such as handing over power or control of natural resources.
The terms “convention,” “treaty” and “agreement” are used interchangeably in this concept sheet.
It is no easy task to ensure that the parties involved in a conflict meet and sign an agreement to end tensions or conflict. For this to happen, the parties must meet in a neutral location and be willing to reach a resolution through negotiation. To facilitate this process, the international community may choose a neutral location and serve as a mediator to facilitate the dialogue.
Agreements do not always officially end a conflict. Sometimes they simply establish a temporary or long-term compromise, such as a ceasefire for a specific period.
A ceasefire is a temporary cessation of fighting and hostilities between adversaries in time of war. In order to be truly effective and respected by the groups involved in a conflict, a ceasefire may go through a negotiations process and then be formalized as an agreement.
Some very important diplomatic agreements have been signed throughout history, even if they did not always prevent new confrontations. This is the case with the Oslo Accords (1993) and the Dayton Peace Accords (1995).
|
Date |
Signed on September 13, 1993 |
|---|---|
|
Conflict |
The Israeli-Palestinian conflict from 1948 to present |
|
Parties involved in the conflict |
Note: This was the first time that an Israeli leader negotiated directly with a PLO leader. |
|
Causes of the conflict |
This is a very complex conflict with multiple causes. The borders dividing Palestine (Arab territory) and Israel (Jewish territory) have been a source of conflict for a long time. The conflict worsened after World War II with the creation of Israel on Palestinian territory in 1948, a region to which many Jewish people then immigrated. In 1947, the UN proposed dividing the territory into an Arab state and a Jewish state, with Jerusalem as an international zone not officially belonging to either state. However, this idea was rejected and violence broke out. It is important to note that Palestine is not officially recognized as a state by all UN member countries. |
|
International community involvement |
From January to August 1993, the two sides held secret meetings in neutral territory in Oslo, Norway.The President of the United States Bill Clinton oversaw the official signing in Washington, DC. |
|
Effects of the agreements |
The agreements established a process that would grant Palestinians greater autonomy in Israeli territories. The agreements involved the gradual withdrawal of the Israeli army from Palestinian territories, which has been occupied since 1967. However, the borders of a Palestinian state were not defined in the agreement. This process was meant to last five years and end the Israeli-Palestinian conflict |
|
Success or failure? |
Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin was assassinated on November 4, 1995, during a peace protest, by an Israeli extremist who opposed the Oslo Accords. The assassination disrupted the Israeli-Palestinian peace process and deepened the differences between the secular and religious communities. Many Palestinians and Israelis alike opposed these agreements. The fighting resumed, making these agreements a failure. |
Pour en savoir plus sur le conflit israélo-palestinien et les accords d'Oslo, consulte les liens suivants :
|
Date |
Officially signed on December 14, 1995 |
|---|---|
|
Conflict |
Bosnian Civil War from 1992 to 1995 |
|
Parties involved in the conflict |
|
|
Cause of the conflict |
In 1992, following a referendum, Bosnia and Herzegovina declared its independence from Yugoslavia. The Bosnian Croats and Bosniaks agreed with this declaration, but the Bosnian Serbs did not. The Bosnian Serbs then declared the independence of a Bosnian Serb Republic. Violence broke out between the three groups, resulting in tens of thousands of deaths. It was one of the deadliest conflicts since World War II. |
|
International community involvement |
These agreements were negotiated and signed in neutral territory in Dayton, Ohio, USA. The U.S. President Bill Clinton mediated the signing of these agreements. The agreements were signed by the President of Serbia, the President of Croatia and the President of Bosnia and Herzegovina. |
|
Effects of the agreements |
The Dayton Accords divided Bosnia and Herzegovina into two territories almost equal in size: the Federation of Bosnia-Herzegovina and the Republika Srpska (Bosnian Serb Republic). The latter is a territory within Bosnia that has its own internal politics, but is represented by Bosnia in international matters. |
|
Success or failure? |
These agreements ended the Bosnian Civil War. However, tension still exists between the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina and the Republika Srpska. The state faces some issues, as communication between the two parliaments is very difficult. Therefore, these agreements were partly successful and partly unsuccessful. |
Image in English coming soon
Pour en savoir plus sur les suites des accords de Dayton, consulte ce site :
Following the Dayton Accords, the municipality of Brčko in Bosnia and Herzegovina was divided in two. Half of the district belonged to the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina, and the other half belonged to the Republika Srpska. Soon coexistence and the territory itself became sources of tension and conflict. To resolve the situation, in 1999, the UN made both municipalities self-governing.
The country’s official name is Bosnia and Herzegovina, but is sometimes informally referred to as just Bosnia.
There have always been conflicts in the world. However, as weapons have developed, the international community has had to face new questions, including what kinds of weapons should be allowed? Nuclear weapons present a major problem. If all countries had nuclear weapons and a nuclear war broke out, it could lead to the destruction of all forms of life on the planet. The following four treaties and conventions regulate the types of weapons that can be used in armed conflicts.
Image in English coming soon
Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPTs) establishes that the countries possessing nuclear weapons (USA, USSR, United Kingdom, France and China) pledge not to share the technology with countries that do not possess it. Countries that did not possess nuclear weapons before 1967 agreed never to produce or acquire them. A large number of states ratified the treaty. Three have refused: Israel, India and Pakistan. North Korea withdrew from the NPT in 2003.
Full text available here: The Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPTs)
The Biological Weapons Convention (BWC) bans signatory countries from developing, producing, stockpiling or acquiring microbiological or biological agents for military purposes and weapons or equipment designed for creating biological weapons
Full text available here: The Biological and Toxic Weapons Convention
The Chemical Weapons Convention prohibits all biological weapons and provides international verification for their destruction. Specifically it bans production, stockpiling and use of chemical weapons and mandates their destruction.
Full text available here: The Chemical Weapons Convention
The Anti-Personnel Mine Ban Convention completely prohibits the use, production and stockpiling of anti-personnel landmines. Anti-personnel mines are explosive devices hidden underground that are triggered when a person or vehicle passes over them. These mines have been widely used in modern warfare. Even today, some mines that were laid during wars remain undetonated and continue to pose a threat.
Full text available here: The Anti-Personnel Mine Ban Convention
Armed conflicts do not occur as direct confrontations between two armies on a remote battlefield. They often take place in cities where there is a civilian population. Conflicts also result in wounded soldiers and prisoners of war, who are human beings with rights, even in times of war. The Geneva Conventions were established to outline the rights of civilians, wounded soldiers and prisoners of war as well as their protection and standards for their treatment during wartime.
In 1949, 59 states participated in a conference in Geneva, Switzerland. Other states and international organizations such as the United Nations were also in attendance. This conference led to the drafting of four conventions (international treaties) that established the foundation of international humanitarian law (IHL). IHL is the branch of international law that applies to armed conflict. It defines the rights and obligations of parties involved as well as the rights of the people affected by conflict. Each of the four Geneva Conventions has a distinct purpose:
-
The First Geneva Convention protects wounded and sick military personnel on land during war
-
The Second Geneva Convention protects wounded, sick and shipwrecked military personnel at sea during war
-
The Third Geneva Convention establishes the rights and conditions for detaining prisoners of war
-
The Fourth Geneva Convention protects civilians living in conflict zones
As mentioned above, peace treaties are not always upheld, nor do negotiations lead to an agreement. Countries are sovereign, and therefore have control over their own affairs, meaning the international community cannot force a state to sign or comply with an agreement. An example of this is North Korea withdrawing from the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty in 2003. Countries are not obligated to uphold their commitments.
The international community can put political or economic pressure on a country to try to influence its actions, but once again, there is no guarantee of success
The principle of sovereignty means that a state or the international community cannot force another state to do anything. However, they can use different types of pressure and sanctions to achieve their objectives or to express their disapproval of a state’s actions. The table below gives some examples of pressure and sanctions.
Sovereignty is the absolute power of a state to govern itself by making its own laws and enforcing them within its territory. A sovereign state is independent, meaning that it cannot be controlled by any other nation or institution.
Pressure or sanctions can be implemented by a single state or by international organizations such as the UN, which means that it is enforced by all UN member states.
|
Political pressure or sanctions |
|
|---|---|
|
Economic pressure or sanctions |
|
|
Military pressure or sanctions |
|
To find out more about the sanctions that Canada has imposed on other countries, visit this site: Current sanctions imposed by Canada.
But do these sanctions actually work? To find out more, read the following article: What Are Sanctions and Are They Even Useful?
An embargo is a political and diplomatic measure to put pressure on another country by prohibiting other countries from importing and exporting with the embargoed country.
Following the Gulf War (invasion of Kuwait by Iraq) in the 1990s, the UN (under strong pressure from the United States) imposed a trade, financial and military (including arms) embargo on Iraq (led by Saddam Hussein). This sanction had enormous consequences for the population of Iraq, which fell into intense poverty due to an economic collapse, since Iraq’s economy relied on the export of oil, which was banned . As a result, the embargo caused Iraq’s GDP to fall by 50% and factories were forced to close. Infant mortality also increased during this time. The embargo ended in 2003, but some sanctions remained in place for years.
In January 2020, U.S. President Donald Trump threatened Iraq with severe economic consequences because the Iraqi parliament voted to expel American soldiers from Iraq after they killed an Iranian general on Iraqi soil. The intention was to apply political pressure, but once again, the local population suffers the most from any potential economic collapse caused by sanctions.
Read this article on the Libya arms embargo: UN Imposes Sanctions Against Libya
Ladouceur, Maude et al. Globe, 2014.