Ceasefires

> **Abstract**. Ceasefires play a role in almost all civil war peace processes. Yet existing studies undertheorize the ways in which different logics drive the design of ceasefire agreements, and the effect this has on violence suspension. Building on bargaining theory and existing ceasefire literature, we identify different bargaining problems conflict parties face over the course of a conflict, and three classes of ceasefire design they use to address these problems. We argue that the effect of ceasefires is driven both by these underlying logics and by the provisions they contain. Building on the PA-X data to capture the provisions included within all written civil war ceasefires between 1990 and 2019, and using Uppsala Conflict Data Program georeferenced event data, we estimate models of ceasefire survival, with conflict deaths as the main measure of whether a ceasefire remains in place. We find that definitive ceasefires (i.e., agreements with demobilization and incompatibility provisions), followed by preliminary ceasefires (i.e., agreements with compliance mechanisms), are associated with longer periods of violence suspension than cessation of hostilities agreements that lack such provisions. We discuss the implications of our results for conflict parties and third parties seeking to facilitate the transition from war to peace.

# Conceptualizing Ceasefires We define ceasefires as arrangements that include a statement by at least one conflict party to stop violence temporarily or permanently from a specific point in time (see Clayton et al. 2021). In this sense, the defining characteristic of a ceasefire is that it contains a clear commitment by a conflict party that their armed forces will temporarily or permanently stop the use of violence. We include the stipulation that a ceasefire be linked to a specific point in time to distinguish them from more general statements and documents in which parties signal a loose commitment to ending violence in the future. In principle, ceasefires can be written or verbal, uni-, bi-, or multi-lateral.

Our broad conception of ceasefires captures a wide range of arrangements. We adopt this expansive definition as we are concerned with considering how different ceasefire designs emerge from different underlying logics and how both the underlying logic and ceasefire design shape subsequent conflict dynamics. Thus, rather than limit which agreements are classified as ceasefires a priori, we adopt a broad definition to capture a full range of agreements and then below derive different classes of ceasefire design in relation to the logic that motivates their adoption.