[LAST CALL] Honouring Ceasefires And Armistices

[Islandwalk]

I have a lot more goodies on the way so I hope you like them.

Honouring Ceasefires And Armistices
Authored by Islandwalk, Co-Authored by Halsoni, Picairn

---

The World Assembly,

Finding that ceasefires and armistices are useful tools for reducing suffering and containing the consequences of war, especially as an intermediate step toward longer-lasting peace agreements;

Intending to use the World Assembly’s institutional might to ensure nations do not exploit these tools or carry out their duties irresponsibly;

Asserting that the issues presented in this resolution are minimally invasive to sovereignty and of international character;

Defines:

1. "Ceasefire" as an agreement between warring parties to temporarily suspend aggressive action;
2. “Armistice" as an agreement between warring parties for a long-term or indefinite end to the fighting of a war without agreement to end such a war;

Hereby mandates:

1. Parties to any armistice or ceasefire agreement will make public such agreements and inform their military personnel to the best of their ability;
2. Parties to any armistice or ceasefire agreement are responsible for enforcing such agreements within their military apparatus;
3. Parties are prohibited from voiding ceasefire or armistice agreements or otherwise violating their terms unless one of the following conditions is met:
   
   1. The involved parties are in formal agreement to do so;
   2. The opposing party has proveably violated the terms already, or;
   3. The agreement is an armistice where a duration has been left undefined, in which case one party must formally notify all other parties to the agreement within an agreed upon time period if they seek to resume hostilities (if no notice period is defined, 5 days notice must be given), and no party may resume hostilities before this time;
4. This resolution only applies to conflicts between WA members;

Further encourages nations to prioritize peaceful settlement of disputes over violent conflict.

[Alicorn Princess Twilight Sparkle]

A smaller and more muted flash of pink heralds the arrival of the large lavender pony in the next drafting chamber. "Well, that was better than expected, I think." She remarks. "Now, let's see what we have here..."

Defines:

1. "Ceasefire" as an agreement between multiple warring parties to temporarily suspend aggressive action;
2. “Armistice" as an agreement between multiple warring parties for a long-term or indefinite end to the fighting of a war without agreement to end such a war;

"The word 'multiple' is unnecessary here, as you couldn't have an agreement between a singular warring party." The pony chuckles. "How would that even work? I suggest striking it out."

Hereby mandates:

1. Parties to any armistice or ceasefire agreement will make public such agreements and inform their military personnel to the best of their ability;
2. Parties to any armistice or ceasefire agreement are responsible for enforcing such agreements within their military apparatus;
3. Parties are prohibited from voiding ceasefire or armistice agreements or otherwise violating their terms unless one of the following conditions is met:
   
   1. Both parties are in formal agreement to do so;
   2. The opposing party has proveably violated the terms already, or;
   3. The agreement is an armistice where a duration has been left undefined, in which case one party must formally notify their opponent(s) within an agreed upon time period if they seek to resume hostilities, and no party may resume hostilities before this time;

"This all looks fine to me." Twilight comments. "I do wonder though if informing parties about the resumed hostilities should be limited only to their opponents. Surely the other parties to the armistice should also be informed that hostilities are about to resume. If you agree, then you could simply change it to 'the other parties'."

Further encourages nations to prioritize peaceful settlement of disputes over violent conflict.

"Most excellent!" The alicorn sits back on her haunches and claps her front hooves together. "After all, Friendship is Magic!"

[Islandwalk]

A smaller and more muted flash of pink heralds the arrival of the large lavender pony in the next drafting chamber. "Well, that was better than expected, I think." She remarks. "Now, let's see what we have here..."

Defines:

1. "Ceasefire" as an agreement between multiple warring parties to temporarily suspend aggressive action;
2. “Armistice" as an agreement between multiple warring parties for a long-term or indefinite end to the fighting of a war without agreement to end such a war;

"The word 'multiple' is unnecessary here, as you couldn't have an agreement between a singular warring party." The pony chuckles. "How would that even work? I suggest striking it out."

Ambassador Silas Greygal responds with his eyes fixed on his papers, fresh from convincing the primitive people of Islandwalk that he was a prophet from another world and getting them to join the World Assembly. "A fair point... this phrasing is a relic of something else I had in mind. I will strike it out."

Hereby mandates:

1. Parties to any armistice or ceasefire agreement will make public such agreements and inform their military personnel to the best of their ability;
2. Parties to any armistice or ceasefire agreement are responsible for enforcing such agreements within their military apparatus;
3. Parties are prohibited from voiding ceasefire or armistice agreements or otherwise violating their terms unless one of the following conditions is met:
   
   1. Both parties are in formal agreement to do so;
   2. The opposing party has proveably violated the terms already, or;
   3. The agreement is an armistice where a duration has been left undefined, in which case one party must formally notify their opponent(s) within an agreed upon time period if they seek to resume hostilities, and no party may resume hostilities before this time;

"This all looks fine to me." Twilight comments. "I do wonder though if informing parties about the resumed hostilities should be limited only to their opponents. Surely the other parties to the armistice should also be informed that hostilities are about to resume. If you agree, then you could simply change it to 'the other parties'."

"Fixed."

[The Orwell Society]

Full support, but I have a couple pieces of feedback that could perhaps flesh it out a little more.

First, I think that the armistice definition could do with some tightening. As it stands, defining it as "...an agreement between warring parties for a long-term or indefinite end to the fighting of a war without agreement to end such a war" sounds a bit wordy. Maybe consider refining it to something along the lines of "...an agreement between warring parties to suspend hostilities for the long term or indefinitely without formally ending the state of war." That way, it reads a little bit more concise.

In clause 3b, "proveably" should be "provably" unless that's another spelling that I don't know about. 3a reads to be kind of circular; if an armistice has no defined duration, a party can resume hostilities only after giving notice - within an agreed-upon time period. If there's no set end to the armistice, and you're supposed to follow the agreed-upon notice period, there's still that possibility that there was never an agreed upon notice period and therefore the clause feels self-dependent. It kinda tries to solve the ambiguity of an open-ended armistice by pointing to another agreement that might not even exist. I think a simple fix to this would be to add a designated time period to default to if there is none predetermined, so maybe reword like this:

The agreement is an armistice of undefined duration, in which case any party seeking to resume hostilities must formally notify all other parties to the agreement and shall not resume hostilities until the expiration of the notice period provided by the agreement, or, absent such a provision, 7 days from the issuance of that notice.

Other than those minor qualms, I see no problem with this proposal and wish you luck

[The Crusader Kings]

Most of the stuff here has been pointed out already, so unless the edited version has problems, I'm done here.

[Islandwalk]

Hello,

Full support, but I have a couple pieces of feedback that could perhaps flesh it out a little more.

First, I think that the armistice definition could do with some tightening. As it stands, defining it as "...an agreement between warring parties for a long-term or indefinite end to the fighting of a war without agreement to end such a war" sounds a bit wordy. Maybe consider refining it to something along the lines of "...an agreement between warring parties to suspend hostilities for the long term or indefinitely without formally ending the state of war." That way, it reads a little bit more concise.

I honestly don't see what this gets us. Your definition is the same length

In clause 3b, "proveably" should be "provably" unless that's another spelling that I don't know about.

Collins dictionary lists this spelling link

3a reads to be kind of circular; if an armistice has no defined duration, a party can resume hostilities only after giving notice - within an agreed-upon time period. If there's no set end to the armistice, and you're supposed to follow the agreed-upon notice period, there's still that possibility that there was never an agreed upon notice period and therefore the clause feels self-dependent. It kinda tries to solve the ambiguity of an open-ended armistice by pointing to another agreement that might not even exist. I think a simple fix to this would be to add a designated time period to default to if there is none predetermined, so maybe reword like this:

The agreement is an armistice of undefined duration, in which case any party seeking to resume hostilities must formally notify all other parties to the agreement and shall not resume hostilities until the expiration of the notice period provided by the agreement, or, absent such a provision, 7 days from the issuance of that notice.

The intent of the clause is that knowing such a law is the case you need to establish that time period in order to void the agreement under this condition. I can see why that could be troublesome, so I'm going to think it over a bit and probably add something to the effect of what you've suggested. Thanks for commenting!

[Orcuo]

No. Bad idea. Ceasefires are meant to be ceased.

[Islandwalk]

No. Bad idea. Ceasefires are meant to be ceased.

yawn

[The Crusader Kings]

I have a lot more goodies on the way so I hope you like them.

Honouring Ceasefires And Armistices
Authored by Islandwalk | Category: ???

---

The World Assembly,

Finding that ceasefires and armistices are useful tools for reducing suffering and containing the consequences of war, especially as an intermediate step toward longer-lasting peace agreements;

Intending to use the World Assembly’s institutional might to ensure nations do not exploit these tools or carry out their duties irresponsibly;

Defines:

1. "Ceasefire" as an agreement between warring parties to temporarily suspend aggressive action;
2. “Armistice" as an agreement between warring parties for a long-term or indefinite end to the fighting of a war without agreement to end such a war;

Hereby mandates:

1. Parties to any armistice or ceasefire agreement will make public such agreements and inform their military personnel to the best of their ability;
2. Parties to any armistice or ceasefire agreement are responsible for enforcing such agreements within their military apparatus;
3. Parties are prohibited from voiding ceasefire or armistice agreements or otherwise violating their terms unless one of the following conditions is met:
   
   1. Both parties are in formal agreement to do so;
   2. The opposing party has proveably violated the terms already, or;
   3. The agreement is an armistice where a duration has been left undefined, in which case one party must formally notify all other parties to the agreement within an agreed upon time period if they seek to resume hostilities, and no party may resume hostilities before this time;
4. This resolution only applies to conflicts between member nations;

Further encourages nations to prioritize peaceful settlement of disputes over violent conflict.

I'm seeing some major problems here.

By requiring a party to "formally notify" and wait for an "agreed upon time period" before resuming hostilities, the resolution is essentially limiting a nation's right to defend itself or conduct war, which is in itself, against WA Regulations.

In Mandate 3, Sub-clause b:
Who is the judge? The resolution does not establish a WA body (like a court or committee) to determine if a violation has occurred, which in my opinion, makes this entire proposal a paper tiger.

The clause stating "This resolution only applies to conflicts between member nations" is redundant(In my opinion) and potentially problematic.
All GA resolutions only apply to member nations by default.


The Category would likely be Global Disarmament.

All in all, many technical problems.

[Jiangbei]

By requiring a party to "formally notify" and wait for an "agreed upon time period" before resuming hostilities, the resolution is essentially limiting a nation's right to defend itself or conduct war, which is in itself, against WA Regulations.

By the same definition, literally anything regulating war is against WA regulations. Also, they agreed to the terms of a ceasefire. Breaking contracts that you make is not a "freedom" that we should honor

The clause stating "This resolution only applies to conflicts between member nations" is redundant and potentially problematic.
All GA resolutions only apply to member nations by default.

It is not redundant. If you leave it alone, it is unclear whether it applies to:
- negotiated ceasefires with rebels?
- a war between a member nation and non-member?

Punctuation: The "Defines" section and "Mandates" section use colons (:) but then use semicolons (;) at the end of some lines and nothing at others.
The standard for GA proposals is generally accepted as: Every clause under "Hereby mandates" should end in a semicolon (;), and the final clause should end in a period (.).

There is no style guide for GA proposals. You do not need to impose one.
Also, please highlight any line in this proposal which uses nothing in its end. You might notice that there isn't one.

The Category would likely be Global Disarmament.

The new changes to the GA will abolish categories.

[Imperial Cecilia]

I do like this resolution. However, I do have a couple of recommendations:

1. Clause 4 states that the resolution applies to member nations. I think that the word "nation" would, to others, be excluding cases of civil war, insurgent activity, etc. I believe you could change this to "member parties" to include different non-national factions.

2. For Clause 3a, you could change "both" to "all" to account for conflicts involving more than two opposing parties.

3. If the goal here is to promote opportunities for negotiations, I personally believe (and feel free to debate me on this) you could add a clause barring any nation not involved in the war before the ceasefire/armistice from joining during said ceasefire/armistice. This is to allow warring parties to have diplomatic advancements without any aggressive foreign interference. However, it will allow nations to send peacekeepers or act as mediators during the peace negotiation process.

I might add on some ideas to this list afterwards. Feel free to ask me about any specific part of the resolution you want my opinion on. Overall, it is a very solid draft, and I do hope for the best when it comes time for voting.

[Liberza]

I do like this resolution. However, I do have a couple of recommendations:

1. Clause 4 states that the resolution applies to member nations. I think that the word "nation" would, to others, be excluding cases of civil war, insurgent activity, etc. I believe you could change this to "member parties" to include different non-national factions.

2. For Clause 3a, you could change "both" to "all" to account for conflicts involving more than two opposing parties.

3. If the goal here is to promote opportunities for negotiations, I personally believe (and feel free to debate me on this) you could add a clause barring any nation not involved in the war before the ceasefire/armistice from joining during said ceasefire/armistice. This is to allow warring parties to have diplomatic advancements without any foreign interference.

I might add on some ideas to this list afterwards. Feel free to ask me about any specific part of the resolution you want my opinion on. Overall, it is a very solid draft, and I do hope for the best when it comes time for voting.

I would agree with the third point theoretically speaking, though leaving it at just foreign interference might be a tricky wording of it since one might also consider a foreign neutral nation acting as a diplomatic mediator for negotiations as interfering or meddling. I would specify that joining militarily during a ceasefire/armistice should be barred.

However, I do believe this could be gotten around by technicalities fairly easily. It doesn’t prevent parties really from declaring war on or militarily engaging any of the parties so much as it prevents them from joining the specific war on the side of one party—and it doesn’t seem like, with a ceasefire or armistice in place, either side would invite any other party to join the war (and that probably should be considered a violation of a ceasefire or armistice agreement). I think a better way of putting what you mean is to say (and correct me if I misinterpret you) that, if a party has a ceasefire or armistice in place, a new state of war with said party cannot be initiated by an outside party until the agreement ends, in order to allow for diplomatic proceedings without foreign interruption, whether that interruption is meant to be involved with the previous war. To me this also allows for an indefinite unfair protection from otherwise legal war actions, since armistices are, at least as defined in the proposal, agreements which can last indefinitely without actually ending the war. While good intentioned, as this is, it would have to assume the parties would even take advantage of a ceasefire or armistice to negotiate and end their war.

It might be better to add to this hypothetical clause that there is a time-period quota when a ceasefire or armistice is put in place, so that parties who are warring and have signed a ceasefire or armistice can be safe from foreign interruption, but only for so long to prevent exploiting such a clause, as well as to encourage actual diplomatic negotiation and ending a state of war? Just some food for thought, to add to your idea.

Anyways, support the proposal.

[Imperial Cecilia]

I do like this resolution. However, I do have a couple of recommendations:

1. Clause 4 states that the resolution applies to member nations. I think that the word "nation" would, to others, be excluding cases of civil war, insurgent activity, etc. I believe you could change this to "member parties" to include different non-national factions.

2. For Clause 3a, you could change "both" to "all" to account for conflicts involving more than two opposing parties.

3. If the goal here is to promote opportunities for negotiations, I personally believe (and feel free to debate me on this) you could add a clause barring any nation not involved in the war before the ceasefire/armistice from joining during said ceasefire/armistice. This is to allow warring parties to have diplomatic advancements without any foreign interference.

I might add on some ideas to this list afterwards. Feel free to ask me about any specific part of the resolution you want my opinion on. Overall, it is a very solid draft, and I do hope for the best when it comes time for voting.

I agree with the third point, though leaving it at just foreign interference might be a tricky wording of it since one might also consider a foreign neutral nation acting as a diplomatic mediator for negotiations as interfering or meddling. I would specify that joining militarily during a ceasefire/armistice should be barred.

Anyways, support for this proposal.

Thank you for that. I clarified it in my statement to now potentially bar aggressive foreign interference while allowing nations to participate in peacekeeping and diplomatic processes.

[Liberza]

I agree with the third point, though leaving it at just foreign interference might be a tricky wording of it since one might also consider a foreign neutral nation acting as a diplomatic mediator for negotiations as interfering or meddling. I would specify that joining militarily during a ceasefire/armistice should be barred.

Anyways, support for this proposal.

Thank you for that. I clarified it in my statement to now potentially bar aggressive foreign interference while allowing nations to participate in peacekeeping and diplomatic processes.

I edited my message to look more into the clause you proposed.

[The Orwell Society]

Hello,

Full support, but I have a couple pieces of feedback that could perhaps flesh it out a little more.

First, I think that the armistice definition could do with some tightening. As it stands, defining it as "...an agreement between warring parties for a long-term or indefinite end to the fighting of a war without agreement to end such a war" sounds a bit wordy. Maybe consider refining it to something along the lines of "...an agreement between warring parties to suspend hostilities for the long term or indefinitely without formally ending the state of war." That way, it reads a little bit more concise.

I honestly don't see what this gets us. Your definition is the same length

In clause 3b, "proveably" should be "provably" unless that's another spelling that I don't know about.

Collins dictionary lists this spelling link

3a reads to be kind of circular; if an armistice has no defined duration, a party can resume hostilities only after giving notice - within an agreed-upon time period. If there's no set end to the armistice, and you're supposed to follow the agreed-upon notice period, there's still that possibility that there was never an agreed upon notice period and therefore the clause feels self-dependent. It kinda tries to solve the ambiguity of an open-ended armistice by pointing to another agreement that might not even exist. I think a simple fix to this would be to add a designated time period to default to if there is none predetermined, so maybe reword like this:

The agreement is an armistice of undefined duration, in which case any party seeking to resume hostilities must formally notify all other parties to the agreement and shall not resume hostilities until the expiration of the notice period provided by the agreement, or, absent such a provision, 7 days from the issuance of that notice.

The intent of the clause is that knowing such a law is the case you need to establish that time period in order to void the agreement under this condition. I can see why that could be troublesome, so I'm going to think it over a bit and probably add something to the effect of what you've suggested. Thanks for commenting!

No problem! And on your comment about my suggested change for the armistice definition, I gave the suggestion less because of the length and more to make it sound slightly more concise. The ending of the definition read as ever so slightly wordy to me (and probably to me only) and I just wanted to help it sound a little tighter if that makes any sense lol.

[Islandwalk]

I do like this resolution. However, I do have a couple of recommendations:

1. Clause 4 states that the resolution applies to member nations. I think that the word "nation" would, to others, be excluding cases of civil war, insurgent activity, etc. I believe you could change this to "member parties" to include different non-national factions.

A valid point, fixed

2. For Clause 3a, you could change "both" to "all" to account for conflicts involving more than two opposing parties.

Thought I fixed that already, thanks for pointing it out

3. If the goal here is to promote opportunities for negotiations, I personally believe (and feel free to debate me on this) you could add a clause barring any nation not involved in the war before the ceasefire/armistice from joining during said ceasefire/armistice. This is to allow warring parties to have diplomatic advancements without any aggressive foreign interference. However, it will allow nations to send peacekeepers or act as mediators during the peace negotiation process.

I don't think this makes sense, multiple wars involving one party can happen for entirely independent reasons and it would both be unreasonable to prohibit that and unenforceable to prohibit joining the "same war".

In Mandate 3, Sub-clause b:
Who is the judge? The resolution does not establish a WA body (like a court or committee) to determine if a violation has occurred, which in my opinion, makes this entire proposal a paper tiger.

I'm working to address this in a separate resolution. Enforcement should not be handled comprehensively at the individual resolution level, it's a recipe for disaster.

See Jiangbei's response for the rest of your concerns

[Imperial Cecilia]

3. If the goal here is to promote opportunities for negotiations, I personally believe (and feel free to debate me on this) you could add a clause barring any nation not involved in the war before the ceasefire/armistice from joining during said ceasefire/armistice. This is to allow warring parties to have diplomatic advancements without any aggressive foreign interference. However, it will allow nations to send peacekeepers or act as mediators during the peace negotiation process.

I don't think this makes sense, multiple wars involving one party can happen for entirely independent reasons and it would both be unreasonable to prohibit that and unenforceable to prohibit joining the "same war".

The reason I recommended a clause similar to this is to prevent any third party from attacking any party involved in a war, which would lead to the breakdown of the ceasefire/armistice prematurely and without formal agreement.

Let me try to reword it:

The clause would prevent foreign nations from engaging in acts of warfare against any warring party while said parties are in a state of ceasefire/armistice. They are allowed to join the war but must adhere to the ceasefire/armistice as well to maintain a peaceful environment for diplomatic processes to take place. Of course, this applies until any of the three conditions to end the ceasefire/armistice have been met.

[Islandwalk]

I don't think this makes sense, multiple wars involving one party can happen for entirely independent reasons and it would both be unreasonable to prohibit that and unenforceable to prohibit joining the "same war".

The reason I recommended a clause similar to this is to prevent any third party from attacking any party involved in a war, which would lead to the breakdown of the ceasefire/armistice prematurely and without formal agreement.

Let me try to reword it:

The clause would prevent foreign nations from engaging in acts of warfare against any warring party while said parties are in a state of ceasefire/armistice. They are allowed to join the war but must adhere to the ceasefire/armistice as well to maintain a peaceful environment for diplomatic processes to take place. Of course, this applies until any of the three conditions to end the ceasefire/armistice have been met.

Yes, I understood what you're saying. Let me give you an example to illustrate my point.

Brazil is in a craze of foreign intervention and goes to war with Nigeria over control of oil resources. A few months later, they agree to a ceasefire before real negotiations occur to end the war. However, while this is happening Brazil is busy kidnapping Guyanese people to use as slave labour for the logging and palm oil industry. Guyana wants to go to war with Brazil because negotiations between the two have failed. What now? Regardless of who you think is in the right here (if you can even tell with such scarce detail), it is absurd to stop Guyana from going to war because of a ceasefire they did not agree to and had no relevance to.

[Imperial Cecilia]

The reason I recommended a clause similar to this is to prevent any third party from attacking any party involved in a war, which would lead to the breakdown of the ceasefire/armistice prematurely and without formal agreement.

Let me try to reword it:

The clause would prevent foreign nations from engaging in acts of warfare against any warring party while said parties are in a state of ceasefire/armistice. They are allowed to join the war but must adhere to the ceasefire/armistice as well to maintain a peaceful environment for diplomatic processes to take place. Of course, this applies until any of the three conditions to end the ceasefire/armistice have been met.

Yes, I understood what you're saying. Let me give you an example to illustrate my point.

Brazil is in a craze of foreign intervention and goes to war with Nigeria over control of oil resources. A few months later, they agree to a ceasefire before real negotiations occur to end the war. However, while this is happening Brazil is busy kidnapping Guyanese people to use as slave labour for the logging and palm oil industry. Guyana wants to go to war with Brazil because negotiations between the two have failed. What now? Regardless of who you think is in the right here (if you can even tell with such scarce detail), it is absurd to stop Guyana from going to war because of a ceasefire they did not agree to and had no relevance to.

If Guyana wants to go to war with Brazil for kidnapping their citizens, then that would be considered starting a new war entirely, at least in my opinion. Since the reason for declaring war is unrelated to that of the current war, then it would be considered a separate conflict and treated as such, with its own ceasefires and armistices. It is only when a country either:
a) declares allegiance to one warring party and allies with them to provide support AND engage the other warring parties in military action
b) declares hostilities against all warring parties
would this rule apply. Sorry if this was not clear in the beginning.

[Islandwalk]

Yes, I understood what you're saying. Let me give you an example to illustrate my point.

Brazil is in a craze of foreign intervention and goes to war with Nigeria over control of oil resources. A few months later, they agree to a ceasefire before real negotiations occur to end the war. However, while this is happening Brazil is busy kidnapping Guyanese people to use as slave labour for the logging and palm oil industry. Guyana wants to go to war with Brazil because negotiations between the two have failed. What now? Regardless of who you think is in the right here (if you can even tell with such scarce detail), it is absurd to stop Guyana from going to war because of a ceasefire they did not agree to and had no relevance to.

If Guyana wants to go to war with Brazil for kidnapping their citizens, then that would be considered starting a new war entirely, at least in my opinion. Since the reason for declaring war is unrelated to that of the current war, then it would be considered a separate conflict and treated as such, with its own ceasefires and armistices. It is only when a country either:
a) declares allegiance to one warring party and allies with them to provide support AND engage the other warring parties in military action
b) declares hostilities against all warring parties
would this rule apply. Sorry if this was not clear in the beginning.

Yes, and I'm saying this is completely unenforceable. Countries make up reasons to go to war all the time, and I'm telling you that I as an author wouldn't even know where to start to define this in such a way that it would not be trivially exploited, overly limiting, or both.

[Cessarea]

Only one thing:

4. This resolution only applies to conflicts between WA members

There is a distinct possibility of a conflict having both WA and non-WA members in all of its sides. This would qualify as a conflict "between WA members", especially if the WA members outnumber their counterparts, but would obviously be outside the scope of this proposal, as the non-members would have a fairly easy time not abiding by these terms and thus reaping the advantage that comes with that.

You might want to add an "exclusively" somewhere.

[Imperial Cecilia]

If Guyana wants to go to war with Brazil for kidnapping their citizens, then that would be considered starting a new war entirely, at least in my opinion. Since the reason for declaring war is unrelated to that of the current war, then it would be considered a separate conflict and treated as such, with its own ceasefires and armistices. It is only when a country either:
a) declares allegiance to one warring party and allies with them to provide support AND engage the other warring parties in military action
b) declares hostilities against all warring parties
would this rule apply. Sorry if this was not clear in the beginning.

Yes, and I'm saying this is completely unenforceable. Countries make up reasons to go to war all the time, and I'm telling you that I as an author wouldn't even know where to start to define this in such a way that it would not be trivially exploited, overly limiting, or both.

Ah, ok. I didn't consider how difficult it would be to word it to avoid exploitation or unnecessary strictness. Sorry about that.

Other than that, you have a very good draft here. I'll definitely be voting for this resolution.

[United Calanworie]

Removed accidental triplepost.

[Islandwalk]

The agreement is an armistice where a duration has been left undefined, in which case one party must formally notify all other parties to the agreement within an agreed upon time period if they seek to resume hostilities, and no party may resume hostilities before this time;

has been changed to

The agreement is an armistice where a duration has been left undefined, in which case one party must formally notify all other parties to the agreement within an agreed upon time period if they seek to resume hostilities (if no time period is defined, 5 days notice must be given), and no party may resume hostilities before this time;

in line with The Orwell Society's suggestions

[The Crusader Kings]

The agreement is an armistice where a duration has been left undefined, in which case one party must formally notify all other parties to the agreement within an agreed upon time period if they seek to resume hostilities, and no party may resume hostilities before this time;

has been changed to

The agreement is an armistice where a duration has been left undefined, in which case one party must formally notify all other parties to the agreement within an agreed upon time period if they seek to resume hostilities (if no time period is defined, 5 days notice must be given), and no party may resume hostilities before this time;

in line with The Orwell Society's suggestions

Make sense. 5 days exact seems a bit weird, and I don't see days defined, but that's only me.