• You are required to write ONE short analysis paper of a minimum of 1,200 words (maximum 1,500 words). The paper is worth 10% of the final grade.
• This paper is NOT meant to be a mere summary of the readings and materials for Module 5, but instead, you should critically analyze and synthesize the week’s materials (reading and videos), and should integrate the week’s readings within the broader sociopolitical and historical context. The paper should discuss ALL the assigned materials for the week the paper is due, i.e. Module 5.
• The paper is to be submitted on Canvas.
• The paper should pay particular attention to:

1. The authors’ central arguments—what are the questions, outcomes or puzzles the authors are directly or indirectly addressing?
2. What empirical evidence do the authors provide to support their arguments?
3. How do the readings/videos relate to the literature on international justice more broadly?
4. What are the key contributions of the works under review?
5. What are some of the potential shortcomings of the authors/commentators’ arguments?

The paper should be submitted as files and saved in the following format: 1. First name, underscore, last name, underscore, analysis, underscore, paper. For example: Arnaud_Kurze_Analysis_Paper

Module 5:
International Monitoring in Sudan and its Consequences

JUST 356

Dr. Arnaud Kurze

Historical Context
Since its independence in 1956, Sudan has been a fertile ground for sectarian pathologies
Dominated by North/South civil wars for most of its independent past (1955-1972) and (1983-2005)
Dafur crisis 2003 (genocide)
North consists of majority of Muslims
South is made up mostly Black African and more recently, as Christian
Competing economic interest across the region that only fuels conflict potential

The CPMT Founding Mandate
CPMT: Civilian Protection Monitoring Team created during peace negotiation process and phased out after the singing of the Comprehensive Peace Agreement in 2005
CPMT originally hailed as tremendous step forward
Through the CPMT the Sudanese government, NGOs and civilians in the South could voice their concerns
Authority of CPMT is undercut by two agreements that forced warring parties in Sudan to refrain from any offensive aggressive acts. Because there was no mapping of any armed forces and the CPMT was stopped from investigating, warring parties could claim self-defense as practice to further conduct offensive acts against civilians and opponents.

Overarching and Competing Political Agendas
US Department of State (DoS) also undercut the CPMT’s mandate
While DoS hoped to shield southern civilians from violence, it also wanted to avoid any further political fallouts that could potentially stymie the talks
The government in Khartoum, Sudan’s capital, saw CPMT’s mission as a direct intrusion into its state sovereignty
Wild cards in this context were regional militias that, while allied with the government, could not directly be controlled.

A Selection of Key Investigative Reports
CPMT first investigative report confirming government bombing in 2002 of civilians. Report, however, justified the intervention as militarily necessary (Mundri/Lui report)
Second CPMT report, major advance, as it documented long, and intense series of government troops and allied militia attacks. Main weakness: report overlooked that military advances occurred after the signing of the cease-fire in 2002
Third report modified by leading US official in the consulate in Khartoum.