Taxonomy of Peace Agreements

Michael MacArthur Bosack
Sep 2
7 min read

“It was determined by all that the best way to end the horrific war between Russia and Ukraine is to go directly to a Peace Agreement, which would end the war, not a mere Ceasefire Agreement, which often times do [sic] not hold up.”

President Donald Trump posted this comment on social media following his summit with Vladimir Putin in Alaska on 15 August 2025. But what does it mean to pursue a “Peace Agreement” instead of a “Ceasefire Agreement?” How many different types of agreements can there be that focus on ending hostilities?

The reality is that there are several different international instruments that fall under the broad banner of “peace agreements.” They vary in legal status, formality, and scope. Generally, the more formality, the greater the level of detail, and the broader the content, the more an agreement can offer in securing a durable peace. However, the negotiations to achieve those types of comprehensive agreements are typically longer and more contentious, sometimes with political obstacles that are impossible to overcome in the near term. Meanwhile, a shorter negotiation may be able to produce a partial agreement that still has some utility in a specific issue area but necessitates significant follow-on work to achieve a lasting cessation of hostilities.

There are certainly pros and cons to each type of peace agreement, and the decision on which to pursue changes what can be expected in terms of negotiation and implementation. Thus, it is useful to understand the taxonomy of peace agreements.

While there are some substantial differences between the types of peace agreements, there are three common threads across them all. First, they are meant to achieve or maintain a cessation of hostilities. Second, they are negotiated. Third, they are akin to contracts with expected tradeoffs and obligations, albeit with no higher enforcement authority.

Beyond that, peace agreements have several different practical characteristics. These are based on things such as whether or not they are ratified; whether they have a specified time limit before termination; and whether they are aspirational and pledge-focused or technical and implementation focused. Although there is no perfect taxonomy, these characteristics help to identify six categories of peace agreements: (1) peace treaties; (2) interim peace agreements; (3) temporary peace agreements; (4) bounded agreements; (5) framework agreements; and (6) joint declarations.

U.S. President Bill Clinton observes a signing ceremony between Jordanian King Hussein (left) and Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin (right) (photo via Israel’s Government Press Office)

Peace Treaties

A peace treaty is the most comprehensive type of peace agreement under international law. These treaties are diplomatic instruments that are not just signed but ratified by each party’s government institutions (e.g., their legislatures) to ensure they are enshrined in their respective legal systems. Peace treaties typically seek to address the political level sources of conflict and may include provisions that would normally exceed the scope of militarized hostilities, such as water rights, normalization of economic relations, or cultural considerations, among others.

Because of their political complexity and daunting legal requirements, peace treaties are increasingly rare in international relations. Rather, parties to conflict have tended to pursue other forms of peace agreements as a means of separating the harder-to-solve political issues from the practical ones in an effort to stop the bloodshed. When these treaties are achieved, it tends to happen after long and drawn out negotiations between the parties to conflict.

A relatively recent example of a peace treaty is the 1994 Treaty of Peace Between the State of Israel and the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan. This came decades after the original armistice agreement between the two countries and is a comprehensive, 75-page document. The treaty covers everything from territory and boundaries to water security and incorporation of Jordanian interests in decision-making vis-à-vis Jerusalem.

Interim peace agreements

Understanding that a full-fledged peace treaty may be unattainable in the near-term, parties to conflict may pursue an interim peace agreement. Typically called an armistice agreement or a cessation of hostilities agreement, these instruments are intended to establish a permanent end to the fighting and to give space for peacebuilding efforts. Although they often receive criticism from outside observers for failing to address all the root sources of conflict, these are useful tools for addressing all the issues fueling the present conflict while deferring the political level problems which may take years to solve.

Examples of interim peace agreements include the Korean Armistice Agreement signed in 1953 or Ethiopia’s Permanent Cessation of Hostilities Agreement signed in 2022.

The delegates from Ethiopia and the Tigray People’s Liberation Front conclude the permanent cessation of hostilities agreement, 2 November 2022 (photo via DIRCO South Africa)

Temporary peace agreements

Unlike interim peace agreements, temporary peace agreements have a specified deadline for implementation or a termination date. Typically called ceasefires or truces, they can be negotiated and implemented for several reasons besides an immediate and enduring end to hostilities. They could be humanitarian ceasefires to allow for the provision of aid or handling of displaced persons. They may be a temporary truce to give time for negotiations toward a more enduring peace agreement.

Because of the temporary nature of this form of peace agreement, the deals tend to be less comprehensive and more prone to violations. When kept small in scope, they can have great utility; however, they tend to lack the structural components necessary to make them durable and effective when there are further reaching ambitions. They also may not come with any formal signature, instead relying upon verbal agreements or public pronouncements. Violations of temporary ceasefires may end up spoiling the peace process more than aiding it if not handled appropriately by the parties to conflict.

Members of Israel’s cabinet vote on whether to accept the temporary ceasefire agreement with Hamas, 17 January 2025 (photo via Israel’s General Press Office)

Bounded agreements

Bounded agreements are less comprehensive peace agreements that focus on specific issues. These may settle some motivations for conflict, but not others. A common example of a bounded agreement is one that deals with territorial disputes. For example, China and India fought a brief border war in 1962 which, at the time, ended in disengagement rather than a negotiated peace agreement. Border skirmishes have occurred since then, so the two countries have negotiated and concluded four bounded agreements focused specifically on mitigating an outbreak of hostilities in their border areas.

Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh and Chinese Premier Li Keqiang look on as Defence Secretary R.K. Mathur and Deputy Chief of General Staff Sun Jianguo sign the Agreement on Border Defence Cooperation, 23 October 2013 (photo via India’s Prime Minister’s Office)

Framework agreements

Another type of peace agreement is a framework agreement, which establishes pledges and expectations for proceeding with negotiation and/or implementation of provisions related to peace processes. Importantly, framework agreements tend to leave out critical features of armistices or peace treaties, essentially putting off these elements for negotiation and implementation in future efforts. Often, peace agreements of this type are not termed “framework agreements”; rather, they may be characterized as “agreements for bringing peace” or “peace protocols.”

A useful example of this came in 2005 between Belize and Guatemala, who concluded a framework agreement that laid out the scope, protocols, and measures for proceeding with negotiations related to a permanent peace. The agreement included the important caveat that it did not “constitute a total or partial waiver of their rights or claims.”

Belize’s lead negotiator Assad Shoman, Guatemala’s lead negotiator Jorge Briz Abularach, and Secretary General of the Organization of American States José Miguel Insulza sign their “Agreement on a Framework for Negotiations and Confidence Building Measures,” 7 September 2005 (photo via OAS)

Joint Declarations

The least comprehensive but most ubiquitous form of peace agreement includes declarations, joint statements, or joint communiques. These tend to focus more on intentions and pledges between the two parties rather than formal, codified tradeoffs. While these documents may be recognized by the international community, they do not have the same international legal implications of a formal agreement. In that way, they tend to serve as statements of intent, rather than durable and implementable instruments.

The Democratic People’s Republic of Korea and Republic of Korea have several examples of these in their history following the Korean War. These include the South-North Joint Communique (1972), the South-North Joint Declaration (2000), the “Declaration on the Advancement of South-North Korean Relations, Peace and Prosperity” (2007), the “Panmunjom Declaration on Peace, Prosperity and Reunification of the Korean Peninsula” (April 2018) and the Pyongyang Joint Declaration (September 2018).

Kim Jong Un and Moon Jae-in join hands after signing the Panmunjom Declaration, April 2018 (photo via the Republic of Korea Presidential Office)

Categorizing peace agreements

With the various types of peace agreements, how does one categorize a particular peace agreement? More importantly, how does a practitioner decide which is the most appropriate type of peace agreement worth pursuing during a given conflict?

There are several questions that are useful for such analysis:

Does it call for achievement or maintenance of a cessation of hostilities?
Does the agreement require ratification?
Does it normalize relations between the parties to conflict?
Does it call for follow-on peace negotiations?
Does it establish a permanent or temporary cessation of hostilities?
Is the scope partial or comprehensive?
Is it pledge-focused or implementation-focused?
Are they signed?

These questions help determine the category of peace agreement, as shown in the table that follows:

Ultimately, the form of a peace agreement matters because it determines both the scope of commitments and the likelihood of durability. Policymakers and practitioners can break down each type of agreement to understand their respective advantages and limitations, noting that the most appropriate option depends on political will, timing, and context within the conflict. While no taxonomy is perfect, understanding the distinctions helps negotiators chart realistic pathways toward ending hostilities and, eventually, a lasting peace.

Michael MacArthur Bosack is a seasoned international negotiator and the founder of the Parley Policy Initiative. He is the Special Adviser for Government Relations at the Yokosuka Council on Asia-Pacific Studies. Michael is a former East-West Center Fellow, a military veteran, and the author of “Negotiate: A Primer for Practitioners.”