One of the diplomatic elements that has been frequently observed in modern armed conflicts is the declaration of a ceasefire in front of the United Nations. States often make such declarations to stop hostilities, provide humanitarian access, and seek political remedies by making speeches in the General Assembly, debating in the Security Council, or by written communications to the Secretary-General. Such statements are usually masked as historic landmarks or humanitarian breaks. However, as practice has always shown, there is an unpleasant trend to it; such promises go hand in hand with the ongoing violence, territorial domination, humanitarian blockage, and political stalemate on the ground. This continued difference leads to serious doubts regarding the real purpose and validity of ceasefire promises clarified at the international levels. Even though the legal force is not binding in most cases, the UN declarations are not insignificant. They determine the expectations of the international community, diplomatic pressure, and formal documents, in which the state’s behavior is evaluated afterwards. They also play a role in normative guidelines to armed conflict, such as the idea of civilian protection, good faith, and peaceful resolution of disputes. With the increasing armed conflicts being played out on the international platform, states would need to use the UN platforms not only to negotiate de-escalation but also to control legitimacy and international image. The paper will take an opinion-based analytical perspective, drawing on academic literature, UN resolutions and reports, Security Council debates, and noted state practice. It contends that, as much as the declarations by states before the UN serve important normative and political purposes, the fact that there is an ongoing gap between ceasefire promises and the fact on the ground indicates that there are structural flaws in the international enforcement systems and challenge the principle of good faith in international law. This paper will move on to first explain the conceptual and legal framework of ceasefires and UN declarations, then discuss the value of ceasefire commitments, and finally explain the failure of these commitments to materialize in actual practice. It ends by evaluating the role of the UN and attempts to formulate probable avenues to reduce the disparity between the promise and accountability of the diplomacy.
CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK: CEASEFIRE & UN DECLARATIONS
In a general sense, the term ceasefire is defined as an agreement or a promise to put the active hostilities between sides in an armed conflict on hold. Ceasefires can be either temporary, humanitarian, or comprehensive. Temporary ceasefires are usually limited ceasefires, intended to cease or negotiate. Humanitarian ceasefires aim at enabling aid to be delivered, evacuation of civilians, or access to medical services, whereas comprehensive ceasefires are meant to be transitional programs towards political settlements or peace agreements. Contemporary ceasefires are not so much final and are intended to be pre-negotiation mechanisms that redirect parties off the battlefield reasoning. There are three main avenues through which state declarations are often passed in reference to ceasefires before the United Nations. To begin with, UN General Assembly statements have more to do with the political and declaratory roles, which are preoccupations with the position of the state before other states. Second, the debates and resolutions of UN Security Councils have a more normative weight especially where they are associated with binding mandates or enforcement. Third, the commitments are placed on record by formal letters to the Secretary-General, usually by appeal to the international law or the self-defence imperative. An important difference is found between political commitments and legal obligations. Political promises reflect the will, the policy course, or diplomatic stance, but do not in and of themselves make enforceable obligations. The legal obligations become effective only under certain conditions, such as the binding Security Council resolutions or any valid unilateral declaration with the purpose of being legally bound. Unilateral declarations have been recognised by the International Court of Justice as creating legal obligations when clear, specific, and publicly given with such intent, but this is very rare. The framework is based on such fundamental principles of the UN Charter as the peaceful resolution of conflicts and the duty of good faith. Although ceasefire declarations typically refer to these principles rhetorically, the legal impact of the declaration is a matter of fact, case-specific, and relies on what the declaration states and the ensuing actions. In this regard, this section would be neutral and explanatory in nature and would provide the conceptual tools that would be used to evaluate the gap between ceasefire commitments and ground realities in subsequent sections.
LEGAL VALUE OF STATE DECLARATIONS AT THE UN
Legally speaking, most of the state statements made in front of the United Nations do not have a binding effect. The words spoken on the debate floor or at press conferences are typically just considered to be policy statements and not obligatory. The international law does not assume that diplomatic statements obtain binding obligations except where the intention to be bound is demonstrated. As a result, cease-fire commitments declared in the UN are usually politically substantial but legally weak. Nevertheless, there are exceptional situations in which such statements can acquire legal validity under international law. First, a statement can be obligatory in case it conveys an expression of a definite and unambiguous intention to enter legal obligations that have been put forward in the ICJ jurisprudence of unilateral acts. Second, repetition and consistency of such declarations with time can increase their normative force, especially when a state must use them to justify behavior. Third, in cases where declarations are in association with resolutions of the Security Council, particularly those that have been passed under Chapter VII, this may add an element to the binding commitments in Article 25 of the UN Charter. In addition to direct obligations, state declarations are also significant in forming customary international law insofar as they add to the opinion juris, the view that some course of action is legally obligatory. The fact that, on numerous occasions, hostilities are pledged to be put on hold, civilians are to be safeguarded, or humanitarian access is to be granted reinforces expectations of what is regarded as lawful conduct in an armed conflict. In addition, they often recur in subsequent accountability procedures, such as UN fact-finding missions, commissions of inquiry, and international judicial proceedings, where they are incorporated to determine intent, credibility, and consistency of actions. The paper will argue that the legal validity of UN declarations is often overemphasized in diplomatic discourse and underemphasized in discussions of accountability. Although these statements do not often lead to immediate legal actions, they set standards, according to which transgressions are also evaluated. The declarations obtain an evidentiary value when states publicly declare ceasefires and act against them. In this way, they are not particularly significant in being enforced but in their accretive normative and accountability role within the international system of law.
GROUND REALITIES: WHY CEASEFIRE COMMITMENTS FAIL IN PRACTICE
Even with a regular series of ceasefire pledges, breaches of them are the order of the day rather than the exception. Numerous practical reasons are outlined in literature and in UN reporting as to the cause of this failure. The first one is the broken control of the armed forces. It is a common phenomenon that even with genuine political commitments, governments have ineffective control over all military forces, allied militia, or proxy forces. The existence of the non-state armed groups and proxy actors makes the implementation of the ceasefire even more complicated. These actors can turn down terms of ceasefire, use pauses to re-equip themselves, or sabotage negotiations to increase their bargaining power. When dealing with situations of more than two armed forces, states would declare a ceasefire, but the ceasefire would not be universally followed on the ground. Misuse of ceasefires by the strategy is another common occurrence. Ceasefire could be used as a tactical measure to lessen the pressure on the state by the international community, to restructure the military, or to handle humanitarian issues without modifying the underlying policies. Humanitarian pauses, especially, are occasionally instrumentalized, with the access to aid being conditional or applied selectively, strengthening the weakness of the civilians instead of weakening it. Weaknesses in institutions of the UN also add to the discrepancy between promise and reality. There are very few monitoring and verification mechanisms, delays, or simply denied access, and they cannot independently assess compliance. In the absence of verifiable confirmation, the acts of ceasefire violations are institutionalized and not discouraged. Moreover, non-compliance often goes unenforced or unpunished even where there is a well-documented violation because of political stalemate in the Security Council, especially where there is a veto politics. In a global report by UN Secretary-General, there are recurring reports of proclaimed ceasefires and escalating violence, limited humanitarian aid, and land grabbing. These trends demonstrate that it is not only a matter of individual non-compliance but it is a system of structural incentives. The cost of making declarative compliance to states is low and the advantage of making commitments to states on a public basis is high. Such an imbalance promotes imaginary compliance as opposed to actual behaviour modification. In line with this, this paper will argue that the failure of the ceasefire has more to do with political economy and less to do with the legal ambiguity. Pronouncements are diplomatic money, and they are also weak, partial, and partisan. The international response will continue to leave the divide between commitments of ceasefire and realities on the ground if the international response is concerned with statements rather than with lasting verification and accountability.
GOOD FAITH, CREDIBILITY & INTERNATIONAL TRUST
The good faith principle takes centre stage in international law and serves as the foundation of duties triggered by treaties, negotiations, and single acts. The declaration of ceasefire, even in a non-binding manner, in front of the UN is based on this principle implicitly. The problem of good faith will always come about when states announce ceasefires multiple times and, at the same time, conduct themselves in a way that is contrary to their promise. Recidivism after the promises to the population undermines the credibility of the respective states and the very structure of the UN-mediated ceasefire diplomacy as an institution. This phenomenon is increasingly being criticized by scholars as symbolic compliance, whereby the states adhere to international norms, but they do not change substantive behaviour. These actions destroy the confidence between the parties conducting negotiations, decrease the motivation to comply, and reduce the belief of civilians in international protection mechanisms. According to the normative view, the gap between statement and action cannot be considered a politically neutral issue. Although international law might not necessarily impose actual sanctions, the continued bad-faith conduct must have reputational and institutional costs. It influences the evaluation of state responsibility, affects the diplomatic relations, as well as predetermines the further negotiations. In this paper, the author claims that credibility is a legally relevant value in its own right. Also in cases where the state does not engage in formal liability, historical inconsistency in promises and actions must be identified as contributing to measuring the reliability and good faith of a state in the procedures of international relations. This twist should not be overlooked because it may lead to normalization of declarative politics that emaciate international norms and make ceasefire diplomacy a performance instead of protection.
ROLE OF THE UN: SYMBOLISM OR SUBSTANTIVE INFLUENCE?
The United Nations has a dubious role in the diplomacy of ceasefire. On the one hand, it is severely limited in terms of its structure, such as the absence of enforcement powers, the reliance on the consent of the states, and the politics of the veto by the Security Council. Such limitations frequently lead to the inability to take decisive measures even when it comes to the case of blatant non-conformance. The UN’s multifaceted involvement in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and others emphasize the limitations of peacekeeping missions in achieving permanent political resolutions. On the one hand, the UN still has a significant normative and evidentiary impact. It establishes binding documents of promises and actions through resolutions, debates, reports, and investigation mechanisms. UN documentation is important in naming the regime of sanctions, informing international courts, and assisting future accountability measures. Prior to the commissions of inquiry, human rights reporting and fact-finding missions, ceasefire declarations presented before the UN are often used as points of reference. The UN has institutional memory and continuity of evidence, even if enforcement is obstructed or delayed. To this extent, the UN role is not so coercive as cumulative. This paper assumes the stance of the UN as procedurally weak and evidencing strong. Its most significant input is not in its enforcement but in maintaining international scrutiny and normative pressure in the long term. This acknowledgement is useful in explaining why states still utilize UN forums to declare ceasefire even when there are habitual violations.
CONCLUSION & WAY FORWARD
The paper has discussed the incessant disparity between the commitments of ceasefire as made in the presence of the United Nations and the ongoing violence on the ground. It has been demonstrated that although such statements are hardly legally binding, they have important normative, political, and evidentiary consequences. The breakdown of ceasefires is not just an issue of non-observance but is also an element of structural incentives that reward declaratory conformity but are not subject to any meaningful penalty. It is emphasized that recurrence of non-adherence to commitments and non-adherence to conduct compromises the good faith, diminishes the international trust, and deteriorates the legitimacy of the ceasefire diplomacy. Simultaneously, the UN is an important documenting, norm articulation, and long-term responsibility venue, although it has a constrained enforcement capacity. To continue, the realistic enhancements should be the enhancement of monitoring and verification measures, clarity and less vagueness of ceasefire wording, and repetitive violations should be used as signs of bad faith in UN mechanisms. Instead of relying more on declarations, which are symbolic, international actors need to focus on consistency, transparency, and follow-through. Finally, diplomatic promises should be in line with accountability structures to ensure ceasefires are not used as delaying, legitimization, or humanitarian administration tools. Ceasefire diplomacy can only play a meaningful role in the protection of the lives of civilians and sustaining peace when this gap is reduced.
REFERENCES:
• The UNSC must transform the ceasefire into lasting peace. (n.d.). France ONU.(https://onu.delegfrance.org/france-is-concerned-about-the-acceleration-of-settlement-activity-settler ).
• Security Council must seize ‘moment of renewed hope’ in Gaza. (2025, November 25). UN News, ( https://news.un.org/en/story/2025/11/1166439 ).
• Staff, A. J. (2026, January 15). Gaza plan phase two: US to discuss Hamas disarmament, Israeli withdrawal. Al Jazeera,( https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2026/1/15/gaza-plan-phase-two-us-to-discuss-hamas-disarmament-israeli-withdrawal).
• Reuters. (2024, March 25). U.N. Security Council for the first time demands immediate ceasefire in Gaza. The Hindu,( https://www.thehindu.com/news/international/un-security-council-for-the-first-time-demands-immediate-ceasefire-in-gaza/article67991556.ece).
• Christine Bell, Ceasefire, Oxford Public International Law, OPIL, (https://opil.ouplaw.com/display/10.1093/law:epil/9780199231690/law-9780199231690-e263?d=%2F10.1093%2Flaw%3Aepil%2F9780199231690%2Flaw-9780199231690-e263&p=emailAEIxYNmt2YNBE&print ).
• Gaza: Security Council passes resolution demanding ‘an immediate ceasefire’ during Ramadan. (2024, March 26),(https://news.un.org/en/story/2024/03/1147931).
• Berg, B. R. (2024, March 25). UN Security Council passes resolution calling for Gaza ceasefire,( https://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-68658415).
• Id.,
• Clayton, G., Nathan, L., & Wiehler, C. (2021). Ceasefire Success: A Conceptual Framework. International Peacekeeping, 28(3), 341–365( https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/13533312.2021.1894934#d1e158).
• Puttick, M., Ceasefire Centre for Civilian Rights, & Minority Rights Group International. (2017). Eyes on the Ground: Realizing the potential of civilian-led monitoring in armed conflict. In Ceasefire Centre for Civilian Rights and Minority Rights Group,( https://www.ceasefire.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/08/EYES-ON-THE-GROUND-Realizing-the-potential-of-civilian-led-monitoring-Ceasefire-July-2017.pdf).
• Marko Divac Öberg, The Legal Effects of Resolutions of the UN Security Council and General Assembly in the Jurisprudence of the ICJ, European Journal of International Law, Volume 16, Issue 5, November 2005, Pages 879–906,(https://academic.oup.com/ejil/article/16/5/879/496072).
• Clayton, G., Nathan, L., & Wiehler, C. (2021). Ceasefire Success: A Conceptual Framework. International Peacekeeping, 28(3), 341–365( https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/13533312.2021.1894934#d1e158).
• The Middle East, including the Palestinian Question: Briefing and Consultations. (n.d.). Security Council Report,( https://www.securitycouncilreport.org/whatsinblue/2025/12/the-middle-east-including-the-palestinian-question-briefing-and-consultations-20.php).
• M.I. (2026, January 12). “The UN is doing its part to support the ceasefire and meet the staggering needs of the population.” Deputy Special Coordinator for the Middle East Peace Process tells the Security Council – Question of Palestine. Question of Palestine,(https://www.un.org/unispal/document/secretary-generals-quarterly-report-on-the-implementation-of-unscr-2334/ ).
• Mediating a ceasefire. (2024, November 15). OSCE,( https://www.osce.org/magazine/426329).
• The UNSC must transform the ceasefire into lasting peace. (n.d.-c). France ONU, (https://onu.delegfrance.org/france-is-concerned-about-the-acceleration-of-settlement-activity-settler ).
• CNN. (2025, October 8). Israel-Hamas-Gaza war — Live updates, CNN,( https://edition.cnn.com/world/live-news/israel-hamas-gaza-war-10-08-25 ).
• Sosnowski, M. (2020). ‘Not dead but sleeping’: Expanding international law to better regulate the diverse effects of ceasefire agreements. Leiden Journal of International Law, 33(3), 731–743, (https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/leiden-journal-of-international-law/article/not-dead-but-sleeping-expanding-international-law-to-better-regulate-the-diverse-effects-of-ceasefire-agreements/B1012FF18143446B1703CA7B5619CF25 ).
