This manual has been used as training material in different contexts, including to support stimulation exercises organized by PILPG. It contains standard languages on the essential provisions of the ceasefire agreements. The manual should be read in the light of Brickhill`s paper: it is better to train parties and help them design technical and political solutions acceptable to them, rather than being mistaken for the perfect tool to tackle a primarily technical undertaking. Reading 6: Zaw Oo, M. (2014). Understanding the Myanmar Peace Process: Ceasefire Agreement. Catalyzing discussion paper 2. Bern: SwissPeace. Several attempts were made to push through ceasefires during the Syrian civil war.  This last point is of the utmost importance.
Ceasefires will only contribute to peace (beyond reducing violence) if security progress can be integrated into a political process. This may mean that a ceasefire monitoring commission (usually called the Joint Monitoring Commission or JMC) is part of a political structure supported by an external mediator. More importantly, it implies from the outset the existence of a political process in which the parties to the conflict participate and in which they are committed. Recent ceasefire negotiation processes challenge the oft-accepted wisdom that local ceasefires can help change the perception and political will of the parties to the conflict, thus paving the way for a political process. Only when local ceasefires have been used as a tool for implementation as soon as a political agreement has been reached will they have an effect. The presence of several armed groups in a conflict poses particular challenges. This publication builds on the author`s previous work, which analyzes the ceasefires negotiated in Myanmar in the 1990s and contrasts with the ceasefires negotiated after 2011 in terms of process and effect. The ceasefires of the 1990s are an interesting example of how the government conducted bilateral negotiations and then used a “divide and rule” process as a very effective instrument for conflict management.
Parties to the conflict may consider ceasefires for tactical and strategic reasons. Understanding this reasoning is the key to understanding the political compromise that the parties might consider when negotiating the details of an agreement. The parties may need a pause to resupply their fighters, or see the leadership and control of the other side over their troops, if not their political will to negotiate. The question will arise as to whether the negotiators have sufficient firepower within their own party or whether they are able to take relevant decisions on behalf of the parties to the conflict they represent. Understanding who trading teams report to and how they are engaged is also key to guaranteeing buy-in. Colletta, Nat. (2011). Mediation of ceasefires and cessation of hostilities in the framework of peace processes. . . .