From Treaty to MOUs: Analysis of the Eventuality of the 2018 Ethiopia-Eritrea Peace Agreement

摘要

This paper analyses the 2018 Ethiopia-Eritrea Peace Agreement, whether it is a memorandum of understanding (MOU) or a treaty, highlighting factors leading to the conflict and the peace agreement. It also highlights the previous peace accords and why even after the Agreements, the tensions remain/ed high. Most Peace Agreements are either MOU or Treaty. MOUs are non-legally binding, while treaties are legally binding. Unfortunately, there is no consensus on what constitutes a treaty or memorandum of understanding. However, the 1969 Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties guides on treaties formulation. This paper deployed in-depth desk review research, text analysis and interpretation, and official documents. In its theoretical and methodological approach, the paper adopted an interdisciplinary approach to understanding the eventuality of the 2018 Peace Agreement. In its analysis and findings, the paper found out that the 2018 Peace Agreement was an MOU. It also found out that the conflict is not only political and religious but also emotional, cognitive, and behavioral. The failure of arbitration and the Algiers Agreement, which were legally binding, prompted the parties to enter into the 2018 non-legally binding Peace Agreement. The previous dispute resolution mechanisms lacked a provision on enforcement mechanism and consequences of the breach, while the 2018 Peace Agreement specifies this provision. The prior Agreements also lacked political goodwill to implement the Commission’s Boundary Report. However, the 2018 Peace Agreement sets the enforcement mechanism. The paper, thus, concludes that MOUs, which are primarily for political and economic interests, unlike treaties which are for legal claims, have high chances of success for settling conflict and restoring peace. Due to the recent nature of the 2018 Peace Agreement, there is limited to no research on its progress, a potential area for future research.