Skip to content

Account For Armed Conflicts And Peace Agreements

In a non-governmental conflict, a dyad is built by at least two organized actors, none of whom is the government of a state that opposes each other with weapons. In non-state conflicts, it is possible for an alliance of non-state actors to enter into a dyad with an opposing group or an alliance of opposing groups. The cessation of the use of weapons is not coded for secondary belligerents. The reason for this is that secondary parts are not required to meet the same criteria as primary parts to be associated with them. During the years 2014-2015, a peace process took place with neighboring Algeria as the main mediator between the Malian government and about eight armed groups.3 These groups were brought together under the banners of the platform (as pro-government militias) or under the coordination of the Azawad movements, now coordinated (rebel groups against the state). The Bamako Agreement was signed in May and June 2015 – first through the platform and then through coordination – but its implementation has remained very slow.4 However, in recent years, the security situation has deteriorated and a large number of weak Malian groups and forces are fighting for control and legitimacy in the northern and central regions. The deliberate use of armed force by a state government or by an officially organized group against civilians, which kills at least 25 people in a year. A party to war is a government of a State, an opposition organization or an alliance of organizations that use armed force to promote their position of incompatibility in an internal or intergovernmental armed conflict. Commentary A peace agreement cannot survive from the UCDP`s point of view if the primary parties are no longer parties. If a party formally withdraws from a peace agreement, the agreement is deemed closed. It is sometimes difficult to know if a peace agreement is complete.

For example, a party may feel officially committed to the peace agreement, but secretly have war militias on the ground. In such a situation, the party should be judged on the sincerity of its commitment to the process. While the violence clearly shows that one of the parties has left the agreement, the Group does not seem sincere in its commitment to peace or the peace agreement; The agreement must therefore be interpreted as closed. About a third of the world`s Islamist armed conflicts take place in the Middle East and North Africa, a third in sub-Saharan Africa and the rest largely in Asia. In some cases, one can observe over time an escalation of not necessarily religious opposition to explicit Islamist abuses, followed by a transformation into transnational Islamist aspirations. . . .