2021/11/10 by Stein Tønnesson, Min Zaw Oo, Ne Lynn Aung · 9 citations
Social Sciences · #Argument (complex analysis) #Armed conflict #Asian Geopolitics and Ethnography #Cambodian History and Society #Computer science #Criminology #Development economics #Economics #Law #Peacebuilding and International Security #Political economy #Political science #Sociology #State (computer science)
paper · pdf · doi:10.1080/09592318.2021.1991141
published in Small Wars and Insurgencies 33(3), 313-349 (Routledge)
crossref issued 2021/11/10 · crossref published 2021/11/10 · crossref published-online 2021/11/10 · openalex publication_date 2021/11/10 · crossref created 2021/11/11 · crossref published-print 2022/04/03 · crossref deposited 2022/04/19 · openalex created_date 2025/10/10 · crossref indexed 2026/08/06 · openalex updated_date 2026/08/06
Based on conflict data, interviews and media monitoring, this study of Myanmar’s non-inclusive ceasefires develops a four-step argument about the effect of ceasefires in complex conflict systems. First, non-state armed groups rarely co-ordinate their actions strategically. This makes it easy for governments to obtain ceasefires with some groups while fighting others. Second, when ceasefires ensure armed groups’ survival, they mostly hold. Third, non-inclusive ceasefires do not reduce a country’s overall level of violence, since fighting tends to escalate with excluded groups. On this basis we conclude that non-inclusive ceasefires do not present a viable alternative to an inclusive peace process.