Search
Browse By Day
Browse By Time
Browse By Person
Browse By Mini-Conference
Browse By Division
Browse By Session or Event Type
Browse Sessions by Fields of Interest
Browse Papers by Fields of Interest
Search Tips
Conference
Location
About APSA
Personal Schedule
Change Preferences / Time Zone
Sign In
X (Twitter)
Ceasefire agreements are made after interstate wars to regulate belligerents' postwar commitments and terms. The primary purpose of ceasefire agreements is to prevent recurrent wars. However, whether or not this purpose is attained varies considerably across different cases. For example, the Korean Peninsula has remained peaceful for over half a century since the Armistice Agreement of 1953, whereas India and Pakistan plunged into war four times. My research question starts from this: Why do some ceasefire agreements last without the recurrence of war, while others fail to do so? In my paper, I investigate these divergent outcomes across different dyads of belligerents. I argue that the role of a great power alliance, supported by its specific security commitments such as tripwire forces, makes ceasefires more likely to last without recurrent wars. I test my hypothesis vis-à-vis previous explanations, using survival analysis based on the Cease Fire data sets.