Why Were These Agreements Made

However, the integration process has become controversial among former Maoist combatants, as the process has progressed in the same way as recruitment into the Nepal Army. As a result, former Maoist combatants asked the Maoist party and its leader to negotiate respectable integration with other political parties. Alternatively, the former combatants asked the Maoist party to take the decision to send all the fighters to voluntary retirement if the other parties remained inflexible.6 The reintegration process began in the second week of September. On 14 September 2012, among combatants willing to join the national army, only 1,647 were selected for integration, of whom 86 former Maoist combatants were selected for officer positions. The other combatants opted for voluntary retirement and received a reintegration program.7 The Prisioners were released in 2006. According to the U.S. State Department`s Human Rights Practices Report, there were political prisoners in Nepal earlier this year, but all were released at the end of the year.1 As of July 2012, about 16,000 Maoist fighters had chosen voluntary retirement at various stages. Those who opted for voluntary retirement received pension and rehabilitation programs to return to civilian life in their communities.1 In September, another 1,762 opted for voluntary retirement.2 They received their pensions and were being sent back to their communities. In the Constituent Assembly elected in 2008, 33 per cent of the elected members were women. Among other things, gender inequality has decreased. However, problems such as regional inequalities persist.1 Nepal will need international assistance for reconstruction, but there are already fierce debates about how funds should be channelled and what decisions are made. A side effect of the Nepalese peace process since 2006 is that the Nepalese establishment has become more confident with many of its donors. Relations between the Government and part of the international community, including the United Nations, are strained.

This is one of the reasons for the apparent slowness and inadequacy of aid measures and is a major problem for reconstruction. It could also be a factor behind the government`s inexplicable decision to claim that the emergency phase is now over. Although the PCA has called for the elaboration of a common development concept for the socio-economic transformation of the country, this has not been done. Similarly, the scientific program of land reform has now been neglected, even by the rebellious Maoists. The Maoist-led government in 2008 and the CPN-UML-led government in 2010 had established two separate high-level commissions for agrarian scientific reform. The two committees did not make a political recommendation.1 Madhav Kumar Nepal`s government resigned in May 2010 after the Constituent Assembly was extended for another year.1 Nevertheless, Nepal continued to work as interim Prime Minister until 3 February 2011, as the CA was unable to elect a new Prime Minister. Efforts have been made to form a consensus Government, but the parties have not been able to do so. What is a peace treaty? It is a legal agreement between two or more hostile parties, usually countries or governments, that formally ends a state of war between the two sides. Peace treaties differ from other international documents that control conflicts in that they are often the culmination of international discussions on peace and seek lasting solutions by creating the conditions for peace. A peace treaty is not the same as a capitulation in which one party agrees to renounce arms; or a ceasefire in which the parties agree to temporarily suspend hostilities; or a ceasefire agreement in which the parties commit to cease hostilities but do not agree on the long-term conditions for peace.

However, one or all of these documents may precede the signing of a peace treaty between two parties. Conflicts could initially end with the capitulation of one party or a compromised ceasefire agreement. This could be followed by an armistice agreement, as in the case of the Korean War in 1953. In such circumstances, the permanent conditions for the settlement of conflicts may be definitively laid down in a formal peace treaty. Peace treaties can also be distinguished from peace agreements. Peace treaties generally concern separate sovereign nation-states. In recent years, however, the international community has been forced to rethink how peace treaties could be used to resolve not only conflicts between nations, but also conflicts within nations. Peace agreements that perform legal functions similar to those of a peace treaty are often negotiated between warring parties within a nation. A peace treaty between the Hittites and the Egyptians after the Battle of Kadesh in 1274 BC.

J.-C.C is generally considered to be the first recorded. A copy of this Treaty shall be issued at United Nations Headquarters. Many nations formally resolve conflicts through peace treaties, with each treaty tailored to the conflict and the parties involved. Peace treaties have common objectives, provisions and formats. This allows us to analyze them as a kind of legal document. Progress has been made in ending caste and ethnic discrimination through state restructuring. The need to restructure the State to end structural discrimination has been recognized by the Transitional Constitution in the following provisions: In 2010, UNMIN was involved in a serious controversy. UNMIN expressed its disapproval when the Nepal Army announced a vacancy for 3,434 soldiers, including 250 officer positions, and invited eligible and interested Nepalese citizens to apply. UNMIN has been criticized for being too partisan towards the Maoists. In the past, UNMIN had taken a soft approach to maoists` non-compliance with the AMMAA agreement. This controversy led the NA to boycott a JMCC meeting that had put the NA`s recruitment on its agenda for August 26, 2010.5 While the Maoists wanted UNMIN to continue its work in Nepal, other political parties, including the government, concluded that the presence of UNMIN would create incentives for the Maoists.

delay the integration and rehabilitation of their ex-combatants. Although these tensions prevailed, the government and the Maoists sent a joint letter on 14 September requesting the seventh four-month extension of UNMIN.6 On 15 September 2010, the Security Council decided that the current mandate of UNMIN would end on 15 January 2011. On 29 November 2010, 254 of the Mission`s 278 authorized personnel were assigned.7 Significant progress was made on issues related to the establishment of a Truth and Reconciliation Commission. In January, Nepal`s Supreme Court ordered the government to form a Truth and Reconciliation Commission and another for disappearances. The court also called on the government, in consultation with victims and stakeholders, to draft a law and remove the provision for a general amnesty. On 7 April 2014, the main political parties reached an agreement on the establishment of two separate commissions.1 As a result, on 10 April, the government introduced two bills in Parliament to form the Truth and Reconciliation Commission (TRC) and the Commission of Inquiry into Enforced Disappearances.2. As the TRC law could allow amnesty for serious crimes, human rights groups and victims` groups rejected the bills.3 Despite these oppositions, Parliament passed the TRC laws on 26 April 2014. As provided for in the TRC Bill, a special court will be established to deal with wartime cases, and the government prosecutor will have to file cases referred by the TRC.4 and continue to review the agreement on a regular basis. The two sides met regularly and reviewed and revised the agreement. They also concluded an additional agreement to deal with the problems of the agreement.

Between 2006 and 2012, the Seven Political Parties and The Maoists (APC Parties) and the Government of Nepal and the Maoist Party, as well as the Maoist Party, the Nepali Congress and the Communist Party of Nepal – United Marxists and Leninists – concluded at least eight formal agreements in relation to the implementing provisions of the 2006 PCA, the revision of the PCA and the Interim Constitution. and the extension of the mandate of the Constituent Assembly. In fact, the parties reviewed and revised the PCA to align it with their strategic objectives, which hindered the implementation of the PCA. .