Whether this ceasefire lasts or not, its success will hinge on the implementation of the details that have yet to be agreed. The initial provisions—hostage and prisoner exchanges and expanded humanitarian access—are relatively clear, though the deadlines for Israeli withdrawals from Gaza, the mechanisms to verify Hamas’s demilitarization, and the terms under which the Palestinian Authority would assume administrative control in Gaza all remain unspecified. It’s also unclear whether Netanyahu will be able to resist the pressure of his right-wing coalition partners and a public exhausted by years of confrontation, particularly given that the U.S. is pushing hard for him to move on to the next phases of the deal.
In contemporary international armed conflict contexts, a ceasefire agreement typically involves an initial period of suspension of hostilities, with a view to enabling a more formal peace process that seeks to address the underlying causes of the conflict. Contemporary non-international armed conflict ceasefire agreements often include ad hoc provisions dealing with matters particular to the specific conflict in question and perhaps beginning to sketch out a future agenda for a comprehensive settlement.
Ceasefire agreements can be negotiated between the parties to a conflict, or they can be recommended or imposed by a UN Security Council resolution. The latter often specifies enforcement action if the ceasefire is breached, but such provisions can be difficult to implement in practice. Moreover, the legal capacity of ceasefire agreements to specify terms that authorize external force to enforce them has been contested (Wippman). The Guidance addresses planning considerations for mediators and parties preparing for and implementing ceasefire negotiations and agreements.
