Recent origin of s'ubject. A study on Contracts and Peace Treaties does not require a historical introduction because the problem is of a very recent origin. With regard to its present day importance it is remarkable that the subject found hardly ever expression in any Peace Treaty before 1919. One has only to go back to the Peace Treaties of World War I to find the first detailed provisions relating to contracts between enemies. The text of the relevant articles of the Treaties of the Versailles group is identical. Art. 299 Treaty of Versailles corresponds with art. 251 Treaty of St. Germain, with art. 180 Treaty of Neuilly, with art. 234 Treaty of Trianon. The Treaty of Lausanne of 1923 with Turkey which replaced the unratified Treaty of Sevres, was similar in outline but differed in some material aspects. Presently we shall see that the Treaty of Brest-Litowsk and the other eastern Peace Treaties did not prescribe any alterations in the municipal law of the Signatory Powers. The Peace Treaties of World War II concluded at Paris in 1947 with Italy, Roumania, Bulgaria, Hungary and Finland contain also a number of identical provisions on contracts. Annex XVI of the Treaty with Italy corresponds with Annex V of the other Treaties. Anglo-Saxon origin of Treaty provisions.

The “Joint Declaration of Twenty-two States,” signed in Paris on November 19, 1990 by the Chiefs of State or Government of all the countries which participated in World War Two in Europe, is the closest document we will ever have to a true “peace treaty” concluding World War II in Europe. In his new book, retired United States Ambassador John Maresca, who led the American participation in the negotiations, explains how this document was quietly negotiated following the reunification of Germany and in view of Soviet interest in normalizing their relations with Europe. With the reunification of Germany which had just taken place it was, for the first time since the end of the war, possible to have a formal agreement that the war was over, and the countries concerned were all gathering for a summit-level signing ceremony in Paris. With Gorbachev interested in more positive relations with Europe, and with the formal reunification of Germany, such an agreement was — for the first time — possible. All the leaders coming to the Paris summit had an interest in a formal conclusion to the War, and this gave impetus for the negotiators in Vienna to draft a document intended to normalize relations among them. The Joint Declaration was negotiated carefully, and privately, among the Ambassadors representing the countries which had participated, in one way or another, in World War Two in Europe, and the resulting document -- the “Joint Declaration” — was signed, at the summit level, at the Elysée Palace in Paris. But it was overshadowed at the time by the Treaty on Conventional Forces in Europe — signed at the same signature event — and has remained un-noticed since then. No one could possibly have foreseen that the USSR would be dissolved about one year later, making it impossible to negotiate a more formal treaty to close World War II in Europe. The “Joint Declaration” thus remains the closest document the world will ever see to a formal “Peace Treaty” concluding World War Two in Europe. It was signed by all the Chiefs of State or Government of all the countries which participated in World War II in Europe.

This book is the first systematic, interdisciplinary examination of the peace agreement signed between the Colombian Government and the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia to end one of the largest and most violent conflicts in the Western Hemisphere. It discusses the achievements, failures, and challenges of this innovative peace agreement and its implications for Colombia’s future. Contributors include negotiators of the Agreement, judges of the Special Jurisdiction for Peace, representatives of the civil society, and leading academic experts in peace studies, human rights, international law, criminal law, transitional justice, political science, and philosophy. Based on the premise that peace is a form of transferable social knowledge, and therefore necessitates transformative social learning, the volume also discusses what other countries can learn from the Colombian experience. This book will be of much interest to students of peace and conflict studies, transitional justice, Latin American politics, human rights, civil wars and International Relations.

In October 2020, the Juba Agreement for Peace in Sudan was signed by Sudan’s transitional government and by many of the country’s main warring factions. The Agreement is highly complex and covers a wide range of areas, including governance, security and transitional justice and is intended to inform the future constitutional negotiation process. This Summary and Analysis Paper focuses mainly on the Agreement’s impact on the future constitutional process. It summarises and analyses the Agreement’s power sharing elements, the federal arrangements that it establishes, and a range of other issues. This Summary and Analysis Paper will be a key resource for negotiators, advisers and observers.

The Sudanese peace agreement reached a crisis point in its final year. This book offers an analysis of the impact of the implementation of the agreement on different Sudanese communities and neighbouring regions. After a long process of peace negotiations the Comprehensive Peace Agreement (CPA) was signed on 9 January 2005 between the Government of Sudan (GOS) and the Sudan People's Liberation Movement/Army (SPLM/A). The CPA raised initialhopes that it would be the foundation block for lasting peace in Sudan. This book compiles scholarly analyses of the implementation of the power sharing agreement of the CPA, of ongoing conflicts with particular respect to land issues, of the challenges of the reintegration of internally displaced people and refugees, and of the repercussions of the CPA in other regions of Sudan as well as in neighbouring countries. Elke Grawert is SeniorLecturer at the Institute for Intercultural & International Studies (InIIS), Faculty of Social Sciences, University of Bremen, Germany.

Analyses why is it that the different actors hold different views about the CHT Peace Agreement and the question of its implementation Is based on a qualitative research study using methodological triangulation of both primary and secondary data Scrutinises the underlying facts regarding the implementation politics (or interest) of the CHT Peace Agreement

Recent origin of s'ubject. A study on Contracts and Peace Treaties does not require a historical introduction because the problem is of a very recent origin. With regard to its present day importance it is remarkable that the subject found hardly ever expression in any Peace Treaty before 1919. One has only to go back to the Peace Treaties of World War I to find the first detailed provisions relating to contracts between enemies. The text of the relevant articles of the Treaties of the Versailles group is identical. Art. 299 Treaty of Versailles corresponds with art. 251 Treaty of St. Germain, with art. 180 Treaty of Neuilly, with art. 234 Treaty of Trianon. The Treaty of Lausanne of 1923 with Turkey which replaced the unratified Treaty of Sevres, was similar in outline but differed in some material aspects. Presently we shall see that the Treaty of Brest-Litowsk and the other eastern Peace Treaties did not prescribe any alterations in the municipal law of the Signatory Powers. The Peace Treaties of World War II concluded at Paris in 1947 with Italy, Roumania, Bulgaria, Hungary and Finland contain also a number of identical provisions on contracts. Annex XVI of the Treaty with Italy corresponds with Annex V of the other Treaties. Anglo-Saxon origin of Treaty provisions.

The Dayton Peace Agreement, negotiated in November 1995 and formally signed in Paris on 14 December 1995, is widely credited for bringing an end to the 1992-1995 Bosnian war. However, together with its precursor, the Washington Agreement, it is also responsible for setting in place a legal, political and constitutional framework that has served to entrench ethnic divisions. Furthermore, while the constitutional system grants special privileges to the three main ethnic groups, members of minority communities are heavily disenfranchised as a result of their ethnicity. This particularly affects the country’s Roma population, as well as many returnees and de facto minorities who find themselves in areas dominated by other ethnic groups. Collateral Damage of the Dayton Peace Agreement: Discrimination Against Minorities in Bosnia and Herzegovina, Twenty Years On highlights the continued marginalization facing minorities and the limited opportunities available for political participation in this discriminatory context. As a result, besides a lack of political representation, these communities struggle to access many basic human rights, including adequate housing, health care, education and employment. Though the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) has affirmed that the Constitution of Bosnia and Herzegovina (BiH) violates fundamental human rights, so far reforming its provisions has not been a high priority for the country’s political leaders. This briefing highlights the need for a substantive overhaul of the current legal, institutional and political framework to address the systematic discrimination of minority communities in BiH, bringing it in line with international standards and laying the foundations for a more meaningful and durable peace in the years to come.