No war, no peace (alternatively, 'no peace, no war') is a phrase referring to a politico-military situation that is stable albeit marked by insecurity and low levels of violence that causes the persistence of a larger conflict.[1] This situation is a deadlock, and is guided by stationary strategies, perpetual hostility and can involve a huge amount of manpower and resources.[2] Proponents of no war no peace may prefer ceasefire as a conflict outcome, thus extending the duration and extent of the grey-zone.[3]
The 2000s have seen a number of countries (Cyprus, Ivory Coast, Moldova) and sovereign subdivisions (Assam, Abkhazia) in such an elongated state.[4] Russia and the United States lingered in a situation of no war no peace for decades.[5]
In a 'no war, no peace' situation, efforts towards peace following the war, usually following a peace accord, is of a compromised nature having characteristics resembling the war that preceded it.[6] While there may be national level chest beating, at a localised level the "win" or "peace accord" may mean that at localised levels, communities have to unwillingly accept to things such as living with those who were once their enemy.[7] To get out of a state of no war, no peace, the peace required must be "truly transformative" as in the case of Northern Ireland or Lebanon.[7] Here, peace could refer to personal well-being, shared practices, order, stability, justice and absence of war.[8] Peace that ends up fixing superficial wounds, tick marking a quantifiable checklist and that features human rights and democracy in the peace process in turn prolongs the no war no peace situation.[4] For the situation to persist the groups involved must also be continuously "energized and re-energized by new sets of grievances".[9]