Protecting civilians through peace agreements

The author contends that sustainable peace and civilian protection in Africa require a differentiated strategic approach to security, linking short-term cessation of hostilities with long-term security sector transformation. Using the Darfur Peace Agreement (DPA) as a primary case study, the paper critiques 'deadline diplomacy' and the tendency of mediators to treat security arrangements as technical 'add-ons' rather than central strategic terrain. The author argues that the Abuja process failed because it forced a comprehensive political settlement on unwilling parties instead of first establishing an effective, enforceable ceasefire and civilian protection process to create the necessary political space and trust.

• Security arrangements are frequently undervalued by mediators and treated as technical 'add-ons' or 'quick-fix' solutions, whereas they are actually central to the success of any peace agreement.
• The failure of the Abuja peace talks on Darfur is attributed to the lack of a strategy for negotiating security arrangements and the use of 'deadline diplomacy' to force a comprehensive agreement on parties who were not ready for a settlement.
• The N’Djamena ceasefire agreements in Darfur were unworkable because they relied on vague, imprecise language, lacked implementation mechanisms, and contained contradictory clauses without verifiable benchmarks or mapping.
• The African Union Mission in Sudan (AMIS) struggled with its mandate because the underlying agreements that established its authority were overambitious and ambiguous, forcing the mission to adopt a 'protection by presence' strategy rather than focused mission tasking.
• A viable ceasefire strategy for Darfur was proposed by military advisors based on 'zoning,' which would involve the physical separation of forces, the establishment of demilitarised zones around vulnerable populations, and reciprocal security guarantees.
• The Darfur Peace Agreement (DPA) failed because it attempted to combine a truncated ceasefire with a far-reaching agreement on the final status of forces, skipping the essential transitional phase of stabilisation.
• Effective peace-building requires a sequential approach: first achieving a cessation of hostilities to build confidence and political space, followed by a transitional phase of security management, and finally a comprehensive agreement on the final status of forces.
• Many ceasefire negotiations fail due to a lack of technical capacity among the parties, particularly rebel groups, and a misconception among mediators that general military experience is sufficient for the specialised skills required for ceasefire planning.

APA

Brickhill, J. (2007). Protecting civilians through peace agreements. Institute for Security Studies. https://issafrica.s3.amazonaws.com/site/uploads/Paper138.pdf

Chicago

Brickhill, Jeremy. Protecting civilians through peace agreements. Institute for Security Studies, 2007. https://issafrica.s3.amazonaws.com/site/uploads/Paper138.pdf.

Wikipedia

{{cite report |last1=Brickhill |first1=Jeremy |title=Protecting civilians through peace agreements |publisher=Institute for Security Studies |date=May 2007 |url=https://issafrica.s3.amazonaws.com/site/uploads/Paper138.pdf |access-date=23 October 2026 |via=Climate Insights Directory}}

BibTeX

@techreport{brickhill2007protecting, author = {Brickhill, Jeremy}, title = {{Protecting civilians through peace agreements}}, institution = {Institute for Security Studies}, year = {2007}, month = may, url = {https://issafrica.s3.amazonaws.com/site/uploads/Paper138.pdf}, urldate = {2026-10-23}, note = {Indexed by Climate Insights Directory} }