Peace Without Treaties

The common assumption is that the end of a war necessarily implies a certain degree of peace, generally formalized by the signing of a peace treaty. However, in recent decades, even as the phenomenon of war continues, the percentage of wars that have concluded with the signing of a treaty has decreased, according to the author of a new study. In “The Demise of Peace Treaties in Interstate War”, Tanisha Fazal suggests that this trend is due in part to the development of international laws regarding the conduct of war and the reluctance of states to open themselves up to possible culpability.

Fazal’s argument rests on the assumption that when belligerent nations enter into a formal peace treaty, they are officially admitting that they have been engaged in a war, thereby acknowledging the applicability of the laws of war (jus in bello). Given the tendency of nations to describe their military adventures in terms other than those of “war”, Fazal proposes that governments are highly aware of their obligations under international law and take great care to limit their liability.

Working from the Correlates of War list of wars from 1816 to 2007, Fazal tests a number of hypotheses regarding what factors have the greatest influence on the likelihood that a given war will be concluded with a peace treaty. The number of codified international laws of war and the number ratified by belligerents at the time of conflict are used as variables in measuring the correlation between the presence of such statutes and the likelihood of a peace treaty. In addition, Fazal’s regressions take into consideration characteristics of the belligerents (whether they are great powers and whether they are democracies), the presence or absence of a clear winner, and the nature of conflict. Finally, the year in which a conflict ends is used to control for other trends that may affect the popularity of peace treaties over time.

Fazal’s results do indeed show a correlation between the number of jus in bello statutes and the likelihood of a peace treaty. The author finds that wars that have been officially declared are 35 percent more likely to be concluded by treaty, evidence that she takes to support her theory that failure to sign a treaty in part reflects the dangers inherent in admitting the very existence of a war. While certain other variables demonstrate a statistically significant correlation with changes in the number of peace treaties (for instance, wars between great parties and those in which territory changes hands are more likely to result in peace treaties), Fazal does not give as much weight to these factors, noting that they are not associated with as large a change in the likelihood of a peace treaty.

The declining number of peace treaties during the latter half of the 20^th century raises several important questions. While Fazal seeks an explanation for this decline, she also raises the matter of the importance of peace treaties and the consequences of changes in ways in which wars are concluded. As Fazal notes, debate continues over the importance of treaties and their effectiveness in ending conflict and promoting lasting peace. If, as Fazal suggests, the expansion of laws governing actions taken during war leads to fewer peace treaties, the value of such laws must be weighed against the benefits of formalized pacts.

Feature Photo/cc: (MyTudut)