By Daw Hla Myet Chell (International Law)

 

Introduction

Peace treaties have been essential tools in global diploma­cy, marking the end of conflicts and establishing frameworks for reconciliation. Historically, these treaties shaped borders dictated terms of surrender, and laid the groundwork for rebuilding nations. However, the nature of peace trea­ties has evolved significantly in the 21st Century, reflecting changes in international law, geopolitics, and the complexity of modern warfare. This article explores the evolution of peace treaties in the 21st Centu­ry, focusing on the changing ac­tors, mechanisms, and challenges shaping these agreements.

 

The Historical Framework

Peace treaties in previous centuries often followed similar patterns. For instance, the Trea­ty of Westphalia (1648), which ended the Thirty Years’ War, es­tablished the modern concept of state sovereignty, emphasizing the principles of non-interference in internal affairs and the balance of power between European states. Similarly, the Treaty of Versailles (1919) concluded World War I by imposing heavy reparations on Germany, redrawing national bor­ders, and creating the League of Nations in an effort to prevent fu­ture global conflicts. The Cold War era added new dimensions, where ideological struggles and super­power rivalry influenced treaties, but the actors were still predomi­nantly nation-states. For example, military pacts like NATO and the Warsaw Pact reflected these rival­ries, serving as deterrents while promoting the interests of their respective blocs. Similarly, arms control treaties, such as the SALT agreements, were negotiated un­der pressure to limit nuclear pro­liferation amidst fears of mutual destruction.

 

With the end of the Cold War, peace processes took on new forms, focusing on the integration of former adversaries into interna­tional systems, as seen with trea­ties following the breakup of Yu­goslavia, most notably the Dayton Agreement (1995). However, the 21st Century has introduced unique geopolitical dynamics that have altered the way peace treaties are negotiated and implemented.

 

21st Century Peace Treaties: New Actors and Complexities

The 21st Century introduced new dimensions into the art of peacemaking, primarily due to the rise of non-state actors, glo­balization, and technological advancements. Unlike previous centuries, where peace treaties typically involved state actors, to­day’s agreements often need to ad­dress insurgent groups, terrorist organizations, and multinational corporations.

 

For example, the Afghanistan Peace Agreement of 2020 involved negotiations between the United States and the Taliban – an in­surgent group rather than a rec­ognized state government. The complexities of this agreement highlight the challenge of dealing with non-state actors whose moti­vations are often ideological or ex­tremist in nature. The inclusion of such groups in the peace process is a significant evolution in trea­ty-making and raises questions about legitimacy, enforcement, and compliance.

 

Additionally, peace treaties now have to consider global net­works. The use of cyber warfare, economic sanctions, and inter­national legal mechanisms can either enforce or undermine peace agreements. These factors add layers of complexity that make treaty enforcement more difficult than in the past.

 

The Role of International Or­ganizations

Another defining feature of modern peace treaties is the in­creasing involvement of interna­tional organizations like the United Nations and the European Union and regional bodies such as the Af­rican Union. The Colombian Peace Agreement of 2016, for instance, which ended a 50-year conflict with the FARC rebels (The Revolution­ary Armed Forces of Colombia), was brokered with significant in­ternational oversight, including the involvement of the UN and neighbouring countries.

 

These organizations now of­ten act as guarantors or mediators of peace agreements, providing neutral platforms and ensuring that the terms are monitored and adhered to. While this offers a higher chance of stability, it also requires multilateral cooperation, which is challenging to maintain in a geopolitically polarized world.

 

Geopolitical Influences and Major Powers

The influence of global powers continues to shape the nature of peace treaties. The 21st Century has seen a shift towards a multipo­lar world, where the dominance of the United States is being con­tested by rising powers such as China and Russia. This contest of­ten leads to proxy conflicts, where peace agreements become strate­gic tools in a broader geopolitical struggle.

 

For example, peace agree­ments in the Middle East, such as those involving Syria, have been heavily influenced by external powers like Russia, the US, and Iran. These agreements often re­flect the interests of these powers rather than the local populations, leading to fragile outcomes that are susceptible to collapse.

 

The Minsk Agreements (2014- 2015), designed to resolve the con­flict in Eastern Ukraine, show how peace treaties are often negotiated under the influence of great pow­er politics. Despite being signed, these agreements have largely failed to bring lasting peace, in part due to the competing interests of Russia and Western nations, illus­trating the challenges of reaching consensus in a fragmented world order.

 

The Role of Technology in Modern Peace Agreements

One of the most significant changes to peace treaties in the 21st Century is the role of tech­nology. Cybersecurity, disinforma­tion campaigns, and technological warfare are now central consider­ations in any peace process. Con­flicts no longer take place solely on the battlefield; they unfold in cyberspace, affecting the terms and conditions of modern treaties.

 

For instance, agreements now frequently contain clauses addressing the misuse of technol­ogy, ensuring the prevention of cyber attacks or regulating the use of social media to inflame tensions. The rise of autonomous drones, ar­tificial intelligence in warfare, and cyber sabotage has made peace treaties much more complex, as they now need to cover these tech­nological dimensions alongside traditional military terms.

 

Future Trends: What Lies Ahead for Peace Treaties?

Looking forward, peace trea­ties in the 21st Century will likely continue to evolve to meet new global challenges. Climate change, resource scarcity, and migration crises are likely to become focal points of future conflicts, influ­encing the nature of peace agree­ments. The South China Sea, for example, is becoming a strategic area of interest due to territorial disputes and natural resources, and future peace agreements may need to include clauses about re­source-sharing, navigation rights, and conflict resolution. Moreover, as the world becomes more inter­connected, peace processes will increasingly require cooperation across multiple sectors, from civil society to the private sector. Tech­nology companies, for instance, may play a role in ensuring that communication networks are not used to spread disinformation or incite violence during peace ne­gotiations.

 

Conclusion

The evolution of peace trea­ties in the 21st Century reflects the complexity of modern conflicts, the changing nature of global power dynamics, and the rise of new actors and technologies. While traditional treaties focus on land, sovereignty, and cease­fires, modern agreements must address a broader range of issues, from ideological insurgencies to cybersecurity. As the world contin­ues to shift towards multipolarity, the success of peace treaties will depend on the ability to adapt to these new challenges, ensuring that peace remains sustainable in an increasingly complex global landscape.

 

References;

1. C V (2020). The Peace of West­phalia and the Origins of Sov­ereignty. Journal of Interna­tional Law and Politics, 52 (1), 123-145.

2. MacMillan, M (2001). Par­is 1919: Six Months That Changed the World. New York: Random House.

3. Acharya, A (2001). Construct­ing a Security Community in Southeast Asia: ASEAN and the Problem of Regional Or­der. New York: Routledge.

4. Glaser, B S (2019). The South China Sea: A Battleground for International Law and Geo­political Rivalry. International Journal of Marine and Coastal Law, 34 (2), 1-25.

5. Reuveny, R. (2007). Climate Change and Conflict: The Se­curity Risks of Global Warm­ing. Social Forces, 85 (3), 1169- 1194.

6. Zartman, I W (2005). Peace­making in International Con­flict: Methods & Techniques. Washington, DC: United States Institute of Peace Press.