by Alice Welland, Hebá Bawaieh, Tara Ohrtman, and Adrienne Fricke, PILPG, and Maria Sergeyeva, Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe
Since April 2023, Sudan has been embroiled in a violent power struggle between the country’s legacy military, the Sudanese Armed Forces (SAF), and the paramilitary Rapid Support Forces (RSF). Rooted in long-standing military and political rivalry, the RSF evolved from the Janjaweed militias, which the former dictator Omar al-Bashir employed to suppress rebellion in Darfur, where atrocities against civilians were rampant. Under Mohamed Hamdan Dagalo – or “Hemedti” – the RSF gained formal legal recognition, and financial autonomy, but technically remained under control of the government. Despite working in the service of President Omar al-Bashir both the SAF and the RSF backed the April 2019 civilian revolution that led to al-Bashir’s ouster. A subsequent power-sharing agreement created the Transitional Sovereignty Council, replacing the presidency as the executive, in which the leaders of the RSF and SAF held top positions. Subsequently, the RSF and the SAF staged a coup d’état on October 25, 2021, and took control of Sudan away from the transitional civilian government. This essentially ended the democratic transformation process and (re-)established an authoritarian government. Tensions mounted when a proposal to integrate the RSF into the SAF as part of a return to a democratic transition threatened the RSF’s autonomy, eventually leading to an armed conflict between the two forces in April 2023.
By September 2024, the toll of the conflict was staggering: the UN recorded an estimated 18,800 deaths, while other sources have reported up to 150,000. Over 10.9 million people faced displacement amid increasing violence, a healthcare collapse, rampant human rights abuses, and a growing risk of famine for over two million Sudanese. Efforts to negotiate peace have been hampered by the entrenched positions of both the SAF and the RSF, highlighting the challenges in establishing a meaningful ceasefire as a step towards stability.
This blogpost seeks to provide an overview of the key elements required to reach a lasting ceasefire in Sudan. It outlines the international and regional initiatives that have thus far shaped the global mediation efforts to reach a ceasefire, the key substantive and procedural features of a ceasefire, and past practice of Sudanese ceasefires. This blogpost also emphasizes the critical role that civilians play in establishing lasting peace, endorsing the need for civilian inclusion at all stages of ceasefire negotiation and implementation.
Ceasefire Efforts since 2023: International and Regional Initiatives
International actors, including the United States and Saudi Arabia, initiated peace talks in Jeddah in May 2023, resulting in a seven-day ceasefire agreement that was repeatedly violated. Further attempts in Jeddah resumed in October 2023 but failed to gain momentum, with both sides refusing direct negotiations. Regional organizations, such as the African Union (AU) and the Intergovernmental Authority on Development (IGAD), presented a Roadmap for the Resolution of the Crisis in Sudan, advocating humanitarian corridors and political dialogue. However, diverging goals among local and international stakeholders and Sudan’s suspension of its participation in IGAD in early 2024 have complicated progress.
Neighboring countries have also contributed to the negotiations, as well as the conflict itself. Historically supportive of the SAF, Egypt mediated talks in July 2023 and again in August 2024, while the United Arab Emirates, reportedly backing the RSF, has influenced dynamics on the ground. U.S.-led talks in Geneva aimed to establish aid corridors to improve humanitarian access but fell short amid continuing military offensives. The exclusion of civilian voices from ceasefire negotiations has further undercut their legitimacy in the context of the Sudanese public’s widespread call for a civilian-led transition as the foundation for sustainable peace.
The Sudanese Armed Forces and Rapid Support Forces are not currently engaging in direct talks, however, this is common during the early negotiation phases of a high-intensity conflict. Despite repeated failures to halt the conflict, hope for future ceasefire talks remains. For such talks to succeed, all stakeholders, including civilians, must clearly understand the essentials of a ceasefire, including its timing, sequencing, and the involvement of relevant actors.
Temporary Measures
The UN defines a ceasefire as a suspension of fighting agreed upon by the parties to a conflict, typically as part of a political process. It is a negotiated agreement to cease hostilities and de-escalate the conflict, often through weapons removal or imposition of demilitarized zones. Ceasefires are binding but do not formally end the conflict unless structured specifically as permanent ceasefires. Although they are often intended to be a long-term solution, they can also be negotiated as one of several temporary measures to halt violence during a conflict. Another temporary measure is a truce, an informal temporary halt in fighting, often arranged locally, not linked to a willingness to end the larger conflict. A truce may be used to evacuate casualties from the battlefield before fighting resumes. A cessation of hostilities is a broader and more formal agreement in which one or more sides agree to suspend overall fighting. Although cessations of hostilities may signal the start of a larger peace process, they are still provisional and non-binding.
Such temporary measures can offer short-term relief and protect civilians, opening avenues for future peace negotiations. A longer-term, permanent ceasefire, or armistice, offers a pathway to sustained peace. Article 36 of the 1907 Hague Conventions states that an armistice “suspends military operations by mutual agreement between the belligerent parties,” a formal agreement to permanently cease all military operations in a conflict. This often goes hand-in-hand with creating a broader peace agreement.
Steps to Establishing an Effective Ceasefire
A ceasefire can create space for dialogue and immediate humanitarian relief. Typically, a ceasefire process follows these steps:
1. Proposal: Conflict parties, often with third-party support, propose a ceasefire. For instance, in August 2024, the United States led peace talks in Geneva aimed at engaging the conflict parties in Sudan and co-hosted by Saudi Arabia, Switzerland, and third-party observers. However, poorly timed proposals can result in negotiations that leave critical issues unresolved.
2. Negotiations: After establishing communication channels, the parties discuss terms such as the duration and location of ceasefire zones and humanitarian access. International party participation can help build confidence and trust between the negotiating parties.
3. Agreement: With terms finalized, the parties sign a formal ceasefire agreement, outlining responsibilities and making a public announcement.
4. Implementation: Conflict parties cease hostilities while observers monitor compliance to ensure adherence. Observers can include local or international stakeholders or a mix of both. They regularly report on the status of the ceasefire, flagging concerns to the parties and international stakeholders.
Ceasefire Verification, Monitoring, and Enforcement
Verifying, monitoring, and enforcing ceasefires is critical to establishing lasting peace. Verification teams, typically composed of military experts, assess compliance with ceasefire terms, such as troop withdrawals and disarmament. Technology such as drones and satellite imagery aids in gathering unbiased data. Verification committees were used in prior Sudan peace agreements. For instance, the 2005 Comprehensive Peace Agreement to end the Second Sudanese Civil War, established a Ceasefire Joint Military Committee, one of several entities tasked with verifying and monitoring the implementation of the ceasefire terms. The Committee, composed of representatives from both conflict parties, received support from UNMIS, a peacekeeping operation created parallel to the 2005 Agreement.
Monitoring committees may function alongside, or instead of, verification committees to foster trust among parties. These committees, which do not require members to have military or technical expertise, can include representatives from the conflict parties, third-party observer states, and regional or international organizations. However, monitoring committees do not guarantee adherence to ceasefire terms; despite the establishment of a monitoring committee during the seven-day ceasefire between SAF and RSF in May 2023, which included representatives from the US, Saudi Arabia, SAF, and RSF, both parties violated the ceasefire just one day after its commencement. Observers have noted that the Jeddah ceasefire negotiations (in May and October 2023) did not provide any indication of how the monitoring would be organized, the absence of civilians from the Committee, and that there were no meaningful consequences or formal sanctions for violations.
Enforcing a ceasefire in a conflict zone is challenging. Article 40 of the UN Charter allows the UN Security Council to respond to threats to peace, breaches of peace, or acts of aggression by calling on the involved parties to comply with necessary provisional measures to prevent the situation from worsening. These may include the withdrawal of armed forces, cessation of hostilities, adherence to a ceasefire, or creating conditions for unimpeded humanitarian assistance. Scholars argue that these provisional measures, while temporary, are legally binding on the parties they target.
Article 41 enables the UN Security Council to direct member states to impose enforcement measures such as diplomatic pressure, economic sanctions, or political actions against parties that fail to comply with the provisional measures outlined in Article 40. A notable example in Sudan occurred during the Darfur conflict when the Security Council responded to repeated violations of the 2004 N’Djamena Ceasefire Agreement. In that case, the Council expanded an arms embargo to include all parties to the agreement that violated its terms rather than limiting it to the non-governmental entities and individuals named in its initial resolution.
Transitioning From a Temporary to a Permanent Ceasefire: Sudanese Examples
Temporary ceasefires often have no set duration; while some can evolve into lasting agreements, they often serve as part of broader diplomatic efforts to achieve a permanent resolution. Historical examples from Sudan illustrate how temporary ceasefires can contribute to larger peace processes. The willingness of the parties to negotiate, along with the influence of external stakeholders, plays a critical role in moving from a temporary ceasefire to a permanent solution.
The N’Djamena Ceasefire Agreement, effective April 11, 2004, was designed to halt the escalation of violence in Darfur by establishing a 45-day ceasefire between the Government of Sudan, the Sudanese Justice and Equality Movement, and the Sudan Liberation Movement/Army. Despite this effort, violence continued, with both parties repeatedly violating the ceasefire. Two years later, in response to increasing pressure from the UN and the AU to address the worsening humanitarian crisis, the Government of Sudan signed the 2006 Abuja Ceasefire Agreement with a faction of the Sudan Liberation Army (SLA/MM). While the Abuja Agreement included ceasefire provisions similar to the N’Djamena Agreement, it also introduced additional measures for power-sharing, wealth distribution, disarmament of rebel groups and the Janjaweed, and integrating rebel fighters into the Sudanese Armed Forces. However, many considered these new provisions inadequate, leading several armed factions to abandon the negotiations.
The Abuja Agreement faced criticism for being controversial and divisive, and ultimately unsuccessful in stopping hostilities, as well as exposing deep divisions among the negotiating parties. Nonetheless, it succeeded in building on the principles of the N’Djamena Agreement and addressed critical issues, such as Darfur’s economic development, which remain essential for achieving lasting peace. These agreements laid the groundwork for the 2011 Doha Agreement for Peace in Darfur, which, despite its flaws, was foundational for the 2020 Juba Peace Agreement – arguably the most enduring ceasefire in Darfur’s recent history. However, ongoing reports of ethnic cleansing and potential genocide against the same communities targeted in the early 2000s in the current conflict serve as stark reminders of the failures of these previous ceasefire efforts.
Achieving a Permanent Ceasefire in Sudan
Achieving a sustainable ceasefire in the ongoing conflict in Sudan requires addressing a complex mix of historical, political, social, economic, and humanitarian factors. Central issues include the historic rivalry and power struggle between the SAF and the RSF and underlying ethnic and regional tensions. Additionally, the involvement of external actors, such as neighboring countries and international powers, significantly influences the potential for a lasting ceasefire.
Sudan’s strategic geopolitical location, bordering Chad, Egypt, Libya, Ethiopia, Eritrea, and South Sudan, and situated by the Red Sea, has prompted various states to cultivate relationships with different armed factions to secure benefits, including advantageous trade routes and access to valuable mineral resources. Despite the many actors advocating for peace, this external involvement complicates the ceasefire and peace process.
For instance, Egypt has historically sought to maintain its influence in Sudan due to shared economic interests in the Nile River and security concerns regarding its southern border, positioning itself as a strong ally of the SAF. There is increasing evidence that the United Arab Emirates is funding and supplying the RSF, as reported by international media outlets and third states. Meanwhile, global powers are pursuing economic and political interests in Sudan. For example, it appears that Russia aims to establish a naval base in the Red Sea, while China is focused on Sudan’s oil sector to bolster its influence in Africa. The involvement of other states in Sudan – either to advance strategic geopolitical interests or to directly or indirectly impact hostilities – demonstrates the increasing ripple effect of Sudan’s current conflict. Russia’s recent exercise of its veto power to block the passing of a UN Security Council resolution aimed at strengthening measures to protect civilians and increase humanitarian aid access is a grave reminder of the power wielded by external states over Sudan’s stability. A lasting ceasefire is therefore imperative both for Sudan and for broader regional and international stability.
A Sudanese Ceasefire Inclusive of Civilians
A successful ceasefire must look beyond military objectives to consider the intricacies of Sudan’s diverse populace and the broader socioeconomic and geopolitical dynamics that have shaped its conflicts. The ongoing conflict between the SAF and the RSF continues despite numerous ceasefire attempts and international mediation efforts. Past ceasefire initiatives have failed to achieve sustainable peace because they focused narrowly on military disengagement without addressing the underlying socio-political issues or incorporating civilian perspectives.
Building trust in the peace process among civilians is essential for ensuring that any ceasefire is supported during implementation. Adopting an inclusive approach that fully engages marginalized and conflict-affected communities is essential for a successful ceasefire. Ignoring civilian voices will hinder efforts to address the root causes of the conflict, many of which extend back decades. Regional and international organizations must not only amplify civilian voices but also apply sustained pressure on the warring parties and third-party states exploiting Sudan’s conflict for their own interests.
The impact of the conflict on civilians, including mass displacement, casualties, and humanitarian crises, adds urgency to the need for a ceasefire. Traditionally viewed as a military concern, the negotiation process must now prioritize the voices of Sudanese civilians, particularly women, youth, marginalized groups, and communities from peripheral regions. Including civilians is vital for addressing the root causes of the conflict and enhancing the safety and protection of civilians. Any ceasefire in Sudan, whether temporary or permanent, must include civilians to promote the likelihood of success.
Conclusion
Sudan is at a catastrophic and pivotal moment in its history. Decades of unresolved domestic tensions sit underneath the devastating conflict that has swept the entire country, leaving no community unaffected. Past ceasefire attempts – both recent and historical – demonstrate the pressing need to address the myriad complexities that characterize the current conflict. The international community, many members of whom are now intrinsically tied to the conflict, holds a moral responsibility to leverage all means possible to encourage the conflict parties to negotiate, to integrate civilians within these processes, and to help establish a robust agreement grounded in clarity, consent, and effective monitoring. Various tools are at its disposal, including diplomatic dialogue, arms embargoes, and sanctions. Without a concerted effort that promotes Sudanese ownership and civilian inclusion, and which obtains and retains the legitimate support of international powers, the prospects for a lasting resolution to the violence remain bleak.