Comprehensive Peace Agreement

The Comprehensive Peace Agreement (CPA) was a multilateral peace accord signed on 9 January 2005 in Nairobi, Kenya, between the Government of the Republic of Sudan, represented by the National Congress Party, and the Sudan People's Liberation Movement/Army (SPLM/A), formally concluding the Second Sudanese Civil War that had raged since 1983 and claimed approximately two million lives.^[1]^[2]^[3] The agreement, negotiated under the auspices of the Intergovernmental Authority on Development (IGAD) and comprising protocols on power-sharing, wealth-sharing, security arrangements, and resolution of conflicts in regions like Abyei, Nuba Mountains, and Blue Nile, established a six-year interim period beginning 9 July 2005 during which a Government of National Unity would operate, southern Sudan would enjoy autonomy, and oil revenues would be divided based on production-sharing formulas.^[4]^[5]^[6] Key provisions included democratic elections, constitutional reforms, and a referendum on self-determination for southern Sudan scheduled for 2011, which resulted in the region's overwhelming vote for independence and the birth of the Republic of South Sudan on 9 July 2011.^[7]^[6] The CPA's most notable achievement was halting the north-south conflict, enabling refugee returns, reconstruction efforts, and integration of southern forces into a unified army, though it did not address broader issues like the concurrent Darfur crisis.^[3]^[8] Implementation, however, encountered persistent challenges, including delays in demarcation of the north-south border, disputes over the oil-rich Abyei area requiring international arbitration, unequal distribution of petroleum wealth leading to military clashes in 2012, and failure to fully integrate security forces or conduct timely censuses, which undermined trust between Khartoum and Juba.^[8]^[9] These shortcomings contributed to post-independence hostilities and internal strife in South Sudan, revealing the CPA's limitations in fostering enduring national reconciliation or equitable resource governance despite its role in partitioning the state.^[3]^[6]

Historical Background

Second Sudanese Civil War

The Second Sudanese Civil War erupted on May 16, 1983, when southern Sudanese troops in Bor mutinied against the central government in Khartoum, protesting the imposition of Islamic Sharia law across the country and the revocation of southern regional autonomy established by the 1972 Addis Ababa Agreement.^[10] The conflict pitted the Sudanese Armed Forces, dominated by northern Arab-Muslim elites, against the newly formed Sudan People's Liberation Movement/Army (SPLM/A), led by John Garang, which sought greater autonomy or independence for the marginalized southern provinces.^[11] Rooted in longstanding north-south divisions exacerbated by British colonial policies that favored northern administration, the war intensified ethnic, religious, and economic grievances, including the southern population's exclusion from oil revenues discovered in their territories during the 1970s.^[12]^[13] The government's September 1983 laws under President Jaafar Nimeiri formalized Sharia punishments such as amputations and flogging nationwide, alienating the predominantly Christian and animist south, where such measures clashed with local customs and fueled recruitment for the SPLM/A.^[10] Economically, the north's control of refineries for southern oil fields, proposed in 1978, symbolized resource exploitation without equitable sharing, while droughts and government blockades induced famines that killed hundreds of thousands.^[13] The SPLM/A, initially supported by Ethiopia and later by Eritrea and Uganda, expanded operations into southern Blue Nile and Nuba Mountains regions, fragmenting into factions like the Nasir splinter group in 1991 over ideological differences between secular federalism and separatism.^[12] Government strategies included aerial bombings of civilian areas and arming militias, such as the Murahaliin, leading to widespread atrocities documented by human rights observers.^[14] Over 22 years, the war resulted in approximately 2 million deaths from direct combat, starvation, and disease, with over 4 million southerners displaced internally or as refugees.^[15]^[11] Both sides committed violations, including the SPLM/A's forced conscription and inter-ethnic clashes that accounted for significant internal casualties among southern groups like the Dinka and Nuer.^[14] The conflict's exhaustion, coupled with international pressure and shifts in Khartoum's alliances after the 1998 U.S. embassy bombings in Africa prompted Sudan's cooperation against terrorism, culminated in the 2005 Comprehensive Peace Agreement, which granted southern self-determination.^[12] This war's legacy underscored causal failures in equitable governance and resource allocation, setting the stage for South Sudan's 2011 independence referendum.^[15]

Roots of North-South Conflict

The North-South divide in Sudan originated from longstanding ethnic, cultural, and religious differences that predated colonial rule. The northern regions, influenced by centuries of Arab migration and Islamic expansion since the 15th century, developed a predominantly Arab-Muslim identity with centralized polities like the Funj Sultanate. In contrast, the southern regions remained dominated by diverse Nilotic and other African ethnic groups, such as the Dinka and Nuer, practicing animist traditions and organized in decentralized tribal structures with minimal Islamic penetration.^[16]^[17] These disparities fostered mutual perceptions of cultural superiority in the north and isolation in the south, setting the stage for future tensions.^[18] British colonial administration under the Anglo-Egyptian Condominium from 1899 to 1956 intensified these divides through deliberate segregationist policies. The "Southern Policy," formalized in the 1920s and reinforced by the Closed District Ordinance of 1930, restricted northern Arab and Muslim traders, administrators, and missionaries from the south while promoting English-language education, Christian missionary activity, and preservation of tribal customs there. This approach aimed to shield southern populations from northern influence but resulted in uneven development: the north integrated into Arab-Islamic networks with modern infrastructure and education in Arabic, while the south lagged economically and remained administratively distinct with minimal national cohesion. Critics, including Sudanese historians, argue this "divide and rule" strategy artificially entrenched ethnic and religious cleavages, though it built on pre-existing geographic and cultural barriers like the swampy Sudd region.^[19]^[20]^[21] Upon independence in 1956, the abrupt unification of these disparate regions without transitional safeguards fueled southern grievances over northern domination. Northern elites, representing about 70% of the population but controlling political and military institutions, pursued Arabization and centralization policies, sidelining southern representation and imposing Arabic as the official language. Economic disparities exacerbated resentment: the north held industrial and urban centers, while the resource-poor south feared exploitation of its untapped potential, including later-discovered oil reserves in Bentiu and Heglig. The Torit mutiny of southern soldiers on August 18, 1955—months before independence—symbolized these fears, erupting into the First Sudanese Civil War (1955–1972) that killed an estimated 500,000 people and displaced millions, driven by demands for autonomy amid perceived cultural erasure. Religious imposition, particularly Sharia elements in governance, further alienated the predominantly Christian and animist south.^[15]^[21]^[22] These roots persisted into the Second Civil War (1983–2005), as northern regimes under Jaafar Nimeiri and Omar al-Bashir revoked the 1972 Addis Ababa Accord's autonomy provisions, reimposed Islamic law in 1983, and militarized resource extraction in the south. Empirical analyses attribute the conflict's longevity to grievance-based factors like ethnic dominance and resource inequity, rather than solely ideological narratives, with southern groups viewing northern policies as existential threats to their identity and livelihoods.^[23]^[18]^[15]

Negotiation Process

Key Mediators and Parties

The primary belligerents in the negotiations leading to the Comprehensive Peace Agreement (CPA) were the Government of Sudan (GoS), dominated by the Islamist National Congress Party (NCP) under President Omar al-Bashir, and the Sudan People's Liberation Movement/Army (SPLM/A), the dominant southern rebel group led by John Garang. These two parties, representing the north-south divide, signed the CPA on January 9, 2005, in Naivasha, Kenya, after over two decades of civil war that had resulted in approximately 2 million deaths and 4 million displacements.^[24]^[25] The SPLM/A controlled much of southern Sudan and sought greater autonomy or independence, while the GoS aimed to maintain national unity under Sharia-influenced governance. Smaller southern factions, such as the National Democratic Alliance and certain SPLA splinter groups, were not initial signatories but were later incorporated through side agreements or incentives, reflecting the CPA's focus on the main protagonists while leaving peripheral armed groups to negotiate integration.^[26] Mediation was spearheaded by the Intergovernmental Authority on Development (IGAD), a regional body comprising Djibouti, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Kenya, Somalia, Sudan, and Uganda, which initiated formal talks in 1994 but intensified efforts from 2001 onward. Kenyan Lieutenant General Lazaro Sumbeiywo served as IGAD's chief mediator, facilitating shuttle diplomacy, protocol negotiations in Machakos (2002) and Naivasha (2004), and bridging impasses on power-sharing and security through persistent bilateral engagements with Garang and GoS officials like Ghazi Sala Eldin Atabani.^[27]^[28] Sumbeiywo's military background and neutrality as a Kenyan envoy enabled him to enforce ceasefires and technical working groups, though challenges arose from GoS reluctance and SPLM internal divisions. IGAD's framework emphasized African-led solutions, with logistical support from host Kenya under President Mwai Kibaki. International backing came primarily from the "Troika" of donor countries—the United States, United Kingdom, and Norway—which provided over $1 billion in aid, diplomatic pressure, and technical expertise without direct mediation. U.S. Special Envoy John Danforth, appointed in 2004, leveraged sanctions threats against the GoS to advance talks, while Norway funded civil society involvement and UK efforts focused on humanitarian access.^[29] The European Union, United Nations, and African Union observed and endorsed the process, but their roles were secondary to IGAD's, with the UN Security Council Resolution 1593 (2005) later authorizing monitoring. This multi-layered mediation architecture succeeded in securing the deal but highlighted dependencies on external leverage, as IGAD lacked independent enforcement capacity.^[1]

Major Protocols and Agreements

The Comprehensive Peace Agreement (CPA) between the Government of Sudan (GoS) and the Sudan People's Liberation Movement/Army (SPLM/A) incorporated several prior protocols negotiated from 2002 to 2004, which addressed core conflict issues including governance, security, resources, and disputed areas. These protocols, mediated primarily by the Intergovernmental Authority on Development (IGAD), formed the building blocks of the final accord signed on January 9, 2005, in Naivasha, Kenya.^[7] The Machakos Protocol, signed on July 20, 2002, in Machakos, Kenya, provided the foundational framework by affirming the SPLM/A's right to self-determination for southern Sudan via referendum after a six-year interim period, committing to democratic transformation, and establishing a secular state with religious safeguards. It also initiated an internationally monitored ceasefire effective from the signing date.^[30]^[31] Subsequent Naivasha protocols tackled operational details. The Protocol on Security Arrangements, signed on September 25, 2003, mandated the unification of forces under a national army, progressive demobilization of combatants, and integration of rebel militias, with Joint Integrated Units (JIUs) formed from both sides to symbolize unity during the interim period.^[32] The Protocol on Power Sharing, signed on May 26, 2004, delineated governance structures, allocating 57% of positions in the national executive to northern parties and 30% to southern representatives, while ensuring southern autonomy in regional administration and federalism principles.^[33]^[34] The Agreement on Wealth Sharing, signed on January 7, 2005, focused on equitable resource distribution, stipulating that southern Sudan receive 50% of net oil revenues from fields under its control post-1999 delineation, alongside national revenue sharing and debt management formulas.^[35] Protocols on special areas included the Agreement on the Resolution of Conflict in the Abyei Area (December 31, 2004), which established a special administrative status and provided for an Abyei referendum on resident choice to join north or south; and the Protocol on the Resolution of Conflicts in Southern Kordofan/Nuba Mountains and Blue Nile States (May 2004), granting these "Three Areas" popular consultations on autonomy rather than full self-determination.^[4] Finally, the Agreement on Permanent Ceasefire and Modalities for its Implementation, signed December 31, 2004, formalized the end to hostilities, redeployment of forces, and monitoring by the Ceasefire Commission and Assessment and Evaluation Commission. These elements collectively enabled the CPA's comprehensive approach to conflict resolution.^[36]

Core Provisions

The Protocol on Power Sharing, signed on 26 May 2004 and incorporated into the Comprehensive Peace Agreement (CPA), outlined the governance framework for Sudan's six-year interim period (2005–2011), emphasizing a federal structure with devolved powers to promote equitable representation between northern and southern entities.^[37] It divided authority into exclusive national powers (Schedule A, e.g., foreign affairs, defense), concurrent powers shared between national and subnational levels (Schedule D), southern-specific powers (Schedule B), and state-level powers (Schedule C), aiming to balance unity with regional autonomy.^[37] At the national level, the Government of National Unity (GNU) was established as the executive authority, comprising the Presidency—led by the President from the National Congress Party (NCP) of Omar al-Bashir—and the Council of Ministers.^[37] The First Vice President position was allocated to the Sudan People's Liberation Movement (SPLM), initially held by John Garang until his death on 30 July 2005, after which Salva Kiir assumed the role; a second Vice President represented northern parties.^[37] Pre-election power allocation in the Council of Ministers and National Assembly followed a fixed formula: 52% to the NCP, 28% to the SPLM, 14% to other northern political forces, and 6% to other southern political forces.^[37] The bicameral National Legislature included the National Assembly for general legislation and the Council of States (two representatives per state, totaling 50 members), which addressed federal-subnational disputes and required supermajorities (e.g., 75%) for constitutional amendments or budget approvals.^[37] The judiciary was structured for independence, with the National Supreme Court as the apex for non-constitutional matters and a new Constitutional Court to interpret the Interim National Constitution (promulgated 6 July 2005), resolve intergovernmental conflicts, and safeguard rights under a Bill of Rights.^[37] The Constitutional Court comprised nine members: four nominated by the President, three by the First Vice President, and two by an independent body designated in the protocol, ensuring balanced representation while its rulings remained final and binding.^[37] In Southern Sudan, the Government of Southern Sudan (GoSS) received semi-autonomous executive, legislative, and judicial powers over regional affairs, functioning as a conduit between southern states and the GNU.^[37] Pre-interim allocations granted the SPLM 70% of GoSS positions, the NCP 15%, and other southern forces 15%; southern states followed a similar distribution of 70% SPLM, 10% NCP, and 20% other southern forces.^[37] Northern states mirrored this asymmetry inversely, with 70% NCP, 10% SPLM, and 20% other northern forces.^[37] The GoSS adopted its own constitution via a two-thirds legislative majority, subordinating it to the national framework during the interim.^[37]

Level	NCP (%)	SPLM (%)	Other Northern (%)	Other Southern (%)
National Executive/Legislature (pre-elections)	52	28	14	6
GoSS (pre-interim)	15	70	-	15
Southern States (pre-elections)	10	70	-	20
Northern States (pre-elections)	70	10	20	-

This table summarizes pre-election/interim power allocations, which transitioned to elections by 2009 but often persisted due to delays.^[37] The framework marginalized non-signatory parties, contributing to implementation hurdles despite formal inclusivity goals.^[24]

Security and Military Arrangements

The Agreement on Security Arrangements, signed on 25 September 2003 in Machakos and Naivasha, Kenya, formed Chapter VI of the Comprehensive Peace Agreement and established the framework for military restructuring, including maintenance of separate commands for the Sudan Armed Forces (SAF) and Sudan People's Liberation Army (SPLA) during the six-year interim period.^[7]^[6] It affirmed the two armies as distinct entities under their respective political leadership, with the SAF reporting to the president of Sudan and the SPLA to the vice president and president of the Government of Southern Sudan.^[36]^[6] A permanent ceasefire took effect on 9 January 2005, prohibiting offensive actions, forced recruitment, and military flights over contested areas without notification; violations were to be investigated by joint teams.^[4]^[38] Force redeployment occurred in phased timelines tied to the interim period: SPLA units from eastern Sudan and northern areas were to withdraw south of the 1 January 1956 border within one year of CPA signature, while SAF forces in southern Sudan were required to complete redeployment northward by 9 July 2007, with provisions for transfers to JIUs counting toward targets.^[36]^[39] Both parties committed to disengaging forces along the 1956 line, supported by demobilization, disarmament, and reintegration programs targeting excess personnel beyond JIUs.^[40]^[6] To foster unity, Joint Integrated Units (JIUs) were mandated as a nucleus for a potential post-referendum national army, comprising equal numbers from SAF and SPLA with a total authorized strength of 39,000 troops—deployed primarily in southern Sudan (two divisions), Southern Blue Nile, and the Nuba Mountains.^[40]^[41] JIUs operated under joint command structures, with operational control shared and logistics unified, though personnel remained loyal to their original forces; incorporation of other armed groups into JIUs or national armies was required under Article 7(a).^[40]^[2] Verification and monitoring were assigned to the Ceasefire Joint Military Committee (CJMC), chaired by the UN Mission in Sudan (UNMIS) force commander, alongside Area Joint Military Committees for local oversight and the Joint Monitoring Coordination Office for technical support.^[41]^[40] UNMIS, authorized by UN Security Council Resolution 1590 on 24 March 2005, provided 10,715 military personnel to observe compliance, report violations, and facilitate DDR, though its mandate emphasized consent-based operations without Chapter VII enforcement powers. The arrangements also prohibited external military pacts threatening the other party and required transparency in arms procurement.^[36] The Protocol on Wealth Sharing, signed on 7 January 2004 in Naivasha, Kenya, established principles for the equitable distribution of Sudan's oil and non-oil resources between the Government of Sudan (GoS) and the Sudan People's Liberation Movement (SPLM), recognizing the disproportionate impact of the civil war on southern reconstruction needs while balancing national development.^[4] The agreement emphasized that oil resources in southern Sudan, which accounted for approximately 75% of the country's production by 2004, would be managed to ensure transparency, with subsurface rights vesting in the Government of Southern Sudan (GoSS) upon independence, subject to interim joint oversight.^[42] Guiding principles included promoting poverty eradication, equitable revenue sharing, and environmental protection, with specific provisions for debt relief where external oil-backed loans benefited both parties proportionally.^[43] Under the oil revenue formula, gross revenues from fields in southern Sudan were first reduced by verifiable production, operating, and transportation costs to derive net revenue; two percent of this net amount was allocated to the oil-producing state, with the remainder divided equally (50 percent each) between the GoS and GoSS.^[24]^[6] The National Petroleum Commission (NPC), comprising equal representatives from both parties plus independents, was tasked with approving development plans, monitoring production, and ensuring revenue transparency through an independent audit mechanism, though implementation relied on GoS-managed metering at export points.^[4] An Oil Revenue Stabilization Account and Reconstruction and Development Fund were mandated to buffer against price volatility and allocate two percent of national oil revenue for southern infrastructure, respectively.^[42] Non-oil resources fell under federal-state sharing, with personal and business income taxes collected by states retaining 50 percent after central allocations, while customs duties and VAT were divided based on derivation principles for border areas.^[43] Land ownership was affirmed as belonging to indigenous communities or states per customary rights, with the agreement prohibiting nationalization without compensation to address historical grievances over resource exploitation.^[4] These provisions aimed to mitigate conflict drivers rooted in resource inequity, though their design presupposed verifiable cost deductions and joint verification, which later proved contentious due to metering disputes.^[24]

Right to Self-Determination and Referendum

The Comprehensive Peace Agreement (CPA), signed on January 9, 2005, explicitly affirmed the right of the people of Southern Sudan to self-determination through a referendum at the end of a six-year interim period, as a core mechanism to resolve the North-South conflict. This provision built on the earlier Machakos Protocol of July 20, 2002, which first committed the Government of Sudan (GoS) to recognizing this right, subject to making unity attractive during the transition. Article 1.3 of the CPA's foundational principles states: "That the people of South Sudan have the right to self-determination, inter alia, through a referendum to determine their future status."^[2]^[36] The agreement emphasized that the interim period would prioritize conditions for viable unity, but secession remained a viable outcome if endorsed by voters.^[4] The referendum was scheduled no earlier than three months and no later than six months before the interim period's end in July 2011, offering Southern Sudanese voters two options: confirmation of unity with Sudan or independence.^[2] The CPA mandated the establishment of a Southern Sudan Referendum Commission (SSRC), operating under the National Elections Commission, to oversee voter registration, polling, and result certification, with international monitoring encouraged to ensure credibility.^[2] Validity required at least 75% turnout among registered voters in Southern Sudan, with secession prevailing by a simple majority (over 50%) of votes cast; the GoS pledged to accept and implement a pro-secession result, potentially leading to Southern Sudan's separation as a sovereign state.^[44] This framework addressed long-standing Southern demands for autonomy, stemming from perceived Arab-Islamic domination and resource inequities under Khartoum's rule since Sudan's 1956 independence.^[45] Implementation details were further elaborated in the Southern Sudan Referendum Act of 2009, which operationalized CPA commitments by defining eligibility (Southern Sudanese residents and diaspora), ballot secrecy, and dispute resolution, though the CPA itself focused on the principle and binding nature of the process. The provision's design reflected pragmatic concessions by the GoS to halt the Second Sudanese Civil War, which had claimed an estimated 2 million lives, while SPLM leaders viewed it as essential leverage against historical marginalization. No formal threshold for unity was imposed, prioritizing popular will over forced cohesion.^[2]^[46]

Special Areas: Abyei and Border Regions

The Abyei Area, an oil-rich territory of approximately 10,546 square kilometers straddling the North-South border, was granted special administrative status under the Presidency upon signing of the Comprehensive Peace Agreement on 9 January 2005.^[4] This status derived from the Protocol on the Resolution of the Conflict in Abyei Area, signed on 26 May 2004 and incorporated as Chapter IV of the CPA, which aimed to resolve longstanding disputes over the region's affiliation following its administrative transfer from southern Sudan to northern Kordofan Province in 1905.^[47] The protocol established joint administration by the Government of Sudan and the Sudan People's Liberation Movement/Army, with institutions including an Abyei Executive Council, Abyei Area Council, and Abyei Police Service to promote reconciliation among the Ngok Dinka residents and Misseriya nomadic herders.^[47] Central to the protocol was the formation of the Abyei Boundaries Commission (ABC), tasked with defining the area's borders based on the administrative boundaries as of 1 January 1956, encompassing the nine Ngok Dinka chiefdoms.^[47] The ABC, comprising two nominees each from the Government of Sudan and SPLM/A plus one from the President of the Southern Sudan Supreme Court, issued its final report on 22 July 2005, which expanded the territory to include areas claimed by the north; however, the Government of Sudan rejected the findings, prompting arbitration at the Permanent Court of Arbitration in The Hague.^[48] The PCA's 2009 delimitation reduced the area while affirming Ngok Dinka residency rights, but disputes persisted over resident eligibility for a promised referendum on joining the north or south, to be held simultaneously with the southern self-determination vote in 2011.^[6] This referendum has not occurred, with conflicts including the 2012 expulsion of southern forces exacerbating tensions.^[6] Regarding broader border regions, the CPA's Permanent Ceasefire and Security Arrangements protocol designated the 1 January 1956 borders as the North-South divide, establishing a Safe Demilitarized Border Zone (SDBZ) of 25 kilometers on each side, monitored by joint integrated units and the UN Advance Mission in Sudan (UNMIS).^[4] A Border Technical Committee, co-chaired by the respective military intelligence directors, was mandated to demarcate boundaries, identify fuzzy or contested areas, and facilitate safe civilian passage, with operations commencing in 2005 but facing delays due to logistical challenges and disagreements.^[4] Abyei's undefined status rendered it exempt from standard demarcation, treated instead as a special case outside the SDBZ framework, while other border regions like those in Southern Kordofan and Upper Nile saw intermittent violence violating ceasefire terms.^[40] The CPA emphasized redeployment of forces from these zones by March 2007, though incomplete implementation contributed to post-2011 clashes over oil fields such as Heglig.^[6]

Implementation Timeline

Interim Period (2005-2011)

The interim period commenced immediately following the signing of the Comprehensive Peace Agreement on January 9, 2005, which established a six-year transition framework for power-sharing, security arrangements, and preparation for national elections and a southern referendum on self-determination.^[40] The agreement mandated formation of a Government of National Unity (GNU) with the National Congress Party (NCP) allocated 52% of executive and legislative positions, the Sudan People's Liberation Movement (SPLM) 28%, southern and other parties 14%, and additional northern parties 6%.^[39] This structure aimed to integrate former adversaries into governance, including a presidency shared between an NCP president and SPLM first vice president, alongside creation of the semi-autonomous Government of Southern Sudan (GoSS) under SPLM leadership.^[2] The United Nations Mission in Sudan (UNMIS) was authorized by UN Security Council Resolution 1590 on March 24, 2005, to monitor the ceasefire, verify redeployments, and facilitate CPA implementation, deploying over 10,000 personnel to support joint mechanisms like the Assessment and Evaluation Commission.^[49] John Garang, SPLM chairman, was sworn in as first vice president on July 9, 2005, symbolizing initial integration, but his death in a helicopter crash on July 30, 2005, sparked widespread riots in Khartoum and Juba, killing at least 36 people and displacing thousands, primarily southerners.^[50] Salva Kiir succeeded Garang as SPLM chairman and first vice president on August 11, 2005, stabilizing the GNU but highlighting vulnerabilities in the fragile coalition.^[51] Security provisions required phased redeployment: Sudanese Armed Forces (SAF) from southern territories and Sudan People's Liberation Army (SPLA) from northern and eastern areas, with Joint Integrated Units (JIUs) formed as a bridging force totaling around 39,000 troops under national command.^[2] Phase I redeployments began in 2005-2006 but progressed slowly due to logistical issues and mistrust, leaving thousands of troops in contested zones; the Phase II deadline of July 9, 2007, for full SAF withdrawal from the south was missed, with only partial compliance verified by UNMIS.^[39] Demobilization efforts integrated some forces into the national army, but incomplete redeployments fueled tensions, including sporadic clashes in areas like Malakal and Abyei.^[6] National elections, held April 11-15, 2010, marked a key CPA milestone, with Omar al-Bashir re-elected president with 68.24% of the vote amid opposition withdrawals and fraud allegations noted by observers like the Carter Center.^[52]^[53] Kiir secured 92.99% as GoSS president, reflecting strong southern support but low northern turnout.^[54] Bashir was sworn in on May 27, 2010, and Kiir shortly after, enabling referendum preparations despite delays in census (conducted 2008 but disputed) and border demarcation.^[55] Oil revenue sharing at 50% to the south commenced but sparked disputes over production volumes and transit fees, with southern output averaging 450,000-500,000 barrels per day.^[24] Implementation faced systemic hurdles, including NCP reluctance on devolution and SPLM capacity gaps in administration, resulting in only partial fulfillment of benchmarks like equitable wealth distribution and rule-of-law reforms.^[6] By late 2010, UNMIS reported progress in infrastructure but persistent gaps in disarmament and Abyei resolution, setting the stage for the January 2011 referendum where 98.83% of southern voters chose independence.^[49] These dynamics underscored the CPA's conditional success, reliant on external monitoring amid domestic power asymmetries.^[56]

Ceasefire Enforcement and Demobilization

The Agreement on Permanent Ceasefire and Security Arrangements, incorporated into the Comprehensive Peace Agreement (CPA) on January 9, 2005, established a permanent ceasefire effective immediately upon signing, requiring both the Sudan Armed Forces (SAF) and the Sudan People's Liberation Movement/Army (SPLM/A) to cease hostilities, redeploy forces, and disarm militias allied with either party.^[57]^[4] Enforcement mechanisms included the Ceasefire Political Commission (CPC), tasked with supervising ceasefire implementation, investigating violations, and addressing security-related political disputes such as those in Abyei.^[26]^[40] The United Nations Mission in Sudan (UNMIS), deployed in 2005, supported monitoring through joint teams with SAF and SPLA personnel, though its mandate focused more on verification than direct enforcement.^[39] Ceasefire violations, including sporadic clashes over border areas and resource disputes, persisted intermittently during the interim period but were contained through CPC mediation and mutual incentives tied to the 2011 referendum, preventing escalation to full war.^[24] By 2011, the ceasefire had largely held, attributed to redeployment of northern forces north of the 1 January 1956 border and southern forces south of it, though incomplete demarcation fueled tensions.^[6]^[39] Demobilization formed a core component of security arrangements, mandating the integration of forces into Joint Integrated Units (JIUs) comprising 21,000 personnel—10,000 for national defense and the remainder for southern command—drawn equally from SAF and SPLA to symbolize unity during the interim period.^[6]^[2] The CPA outlined a phased process: pre-interim disarmament of militias, formation of JIUs by July 2005, and post-referendum redeployment with demobilization, reintegration, and rehabilitation (DDR) programs for excess forces.^[58]^[59] Implementation of demobilization lagged significantly; JIUs, legislated in 2007, suffered from command disputes, uneven pay, and divided loyalties, functioning more as parallel units than integrated ones, with only partial operationalization by 2008.^[60]^[39] The National Demobilization, Disarmament, and Reintegration (NDDR) program commenced in February 2009, demobilizing 12,428 combatants by August 2009, primarily from SAF, but covered less than 10% of eligible forces due to funding shortfalls and logistical issues.^[58]^[59] SPLA demobilization remained minimal, exacerbating post-2011 security challenges in South Sudan.^[59] Overall, enforcement succeeded in averting major breaches but demobilization fell short, with fewer than 20,000 total combatants processed by 2011 against estimates of over 200,000 excess troops, stemming from mistrust between parties and inadequate international support for DDR infrastructure.^[59]^[24] These gaps contributed to unresolved militia integration and armed group proliferation, undermining long-term stability.^[40]^[59]

2011 Referendum and South Sudan Independence

The referendum on self-determination for Southern Sudan, mandated by the 2005 Comprehensive Peace Agreement (CPA), was held from January 9 to 15, 2011, allowing voters to choose between unity with Sudan or secession.^[4]^[61] The Southern Sudan Referendum Commission oversaw the process, with approximately 3.94 million people registered to vote inside Sudan and an additional 70,000 eligible for out-of-country voting in eight nations.^[44] International observers from organizations including the Carter Center, European Union, and African Union deemed the voting largely peaceful and credible, despite minor logistical issues such as delays in ballot distribution and some reported intimidation in border areas.^[44]^[62] Voter turnout reached 97.45 percent, with final results certified by the Referendum Commission on February 14, 2011, after appeals were resolved.^[44] Of valid votes, 98.83 percent favored independence, while 1.17 percent supported unity, reflecting broad consensus among Southern Sudanese for separation following decades of conflict.^[63]^[64] The CPA's provisions required that a simple majority for secession trigger the establishment of an independent state by July 9, 2011, six months after the referendum's start date, provided preparatory mechanisms like citizenship and asset-sharing negotiations advanced.^[4]^[65] On July 9, 2011, the Republic of South Sudan formally declared independence, marking the partition of Sudan into two sovereign states and ending the interim period outlined in the CPA.^[61] The United States and numerous other nations recognized South Sudan immediately, with it admitted to the United Nations as its 193rd member state on July 14, 2011.^[66] Salva Kiir, president of the autonomous Government of Southern Sudan, became the first president, inheriting control over the southern armed forces, which dissolved joint integrated units as per CPA security protocols.^[40] The transition, while meeting the CPA's timeline, left unresolved issues like oil transit fees and border demarcation for post-independence bilateral talks.^[67]

Post-Independence Bilateral Relations

Following South Sudan's declaration of independence on July 9, 2011, the two states established formal diplomatic relations, with Sudan recognizing the new republic shortly thereafter. However, unresolved provisions of the 2005 Comprehensive Peace Agreement, particularly regarding border demarcation, oil revenue sharing, and the status of Abyei, quickly strained ties. South Sudan inherited approximately 75% of the former Sudan's proven oil reserves, but its landlocked fields relied on pipelines traversing Sudanese territory to Port Sudan for export. Disputes over transit fees and processing charges escalated, culminating in South Sudan's decision to shut down oil production on January 24, 2012, which reduced output from around 350,000 barrels per day to near zero and deepened economic hardships in both countries. Military tensions boiled over in early 2012, most notably during the Heglig crisis. Sudanese forces clashed with South Sudanese troops along the ill-defined border in Unity State, leading to South Sudan's capture of Heglig—known as Panthou in South Sudan—on April 10, 2012, a site producing about 45,000 barrels per day and vital to Sudan's economy. Sudan recaptured the area by April 20 after intense fighting that displaced thousands and caused civilian casualties, with the United Nations deeming South Sudan's initial seizure illegal under international law. These events prompted international mediation, resulting in the September 27, 2012, Cooperation Agreements brokered by the African Union, which established a demilitarized border zone, resumed oil flows with Sudan receiving a 3% transit fee plus variable processing payments from South Sudan (up to $11 per barrel depending on global prices), and outlined frameworks for debt settlement and citizenship status for border populations.^[68]^[69]^[70] The Abyei region, designated for a separate referendum under the CPA but never held due to disagreements over voter eligibility, remained a flashpoint. Sudanese forces occupied Abyei town in May 2011, displacing over 100,000 Ngok Dinka residents, prompting the UN Security Council's deployment of the United Nations Interim Security Force for Abyei (UNISFA) on June 27, 2011, to monitor a demilitarized zone. Intermittent violence persisted, including clashes in 2024 that killed dozens in Twic county and Abyei, often involving nomadic Misseriya herders and local militias, exacerbating humanitarian needs amid Sudan's broader civil war spillover.^[71]^[72] Bilateral relations have since oscillated between fragile pacts and breakdowns, hampered by non-compliance with buffer zone agreements and proxy support for militias. Oil exports partially recovered post-2012, averaging 125,000-150,000 barrels per day by 2023, but Sudan's 2023 civil war disrupted flows, prompting a October 9, 2025, bilateral deal to safeguard shared pipelines and infrastructure. Economic interdependence persists—South Sudan owes Sudan billions in arrears—yet trust deficits, evidenced by repeated border incursions and stalled Permanent Court of Arbitration rulings on boundaries, have prevented full normalization.^[73]

Challenges and Unresolved Issues

Border Disputes and Abyei Protocol Failures

The Abyei Protocol within the Comprehensive Peace Agreement (CPA), signed on January 9, 2005, mandated the establishment of the Abyei Boundary Commission (ABC) to determine Abyei's borders based on historical residency and administrative precedents, with its findings designated as final and binding.^[48] On July 14, 2005, the ABC ruled that Abyei encompassed the nine Ngok Dinka chiefdoms transferred to Kordofan in 1905, extending the northern boundary approximately 87 km north of Abyei town and including key grazing and settlement areas.^[74] The Government of Sudan, under the National Congress Party (NCP), rejected this delineation, refusing to accept the expanded territory or proceed to the subsequent resident referendum on Abyei's affiliation with northern or southern Sudan.^[75] Non-implementation of the ABC ruling fueled political deadlock and military posturing, culminating in widespread violence in May 2008. Clashes began on May 13 in Dokora village between Sudan Armed Forces (SAF) and Sudan People's Liberation Army (SPLA) elements, escalating to SAF bombardment, looting, and systematic destruction of Abyei town on May 14, which razed 25% of structures and displaced 90,000 to 106,500 civilians, primarily Ngok Dinka.^[76] Khartoum's mobilization of Misseriya Arab militias into Popular Defense Forces and the persistent illegal deployment of the SAF 31st Brigade exacerbated ethnic tensions over grazing rights and residency, directly stemming from the CPA's unfulfilled provisions.^[77] The parties referred the dispute to the Permanent Court of Arbitration (PCA) in The Hague under a 2008 agreement. The PCA's final award on July 22, 2009, affirmed much of the ABC's historical analysis but redrew boundaries to exclude the Diffra oil fields—granting them to Sudan—while confirming Ngok Dinka villages south of the Kiir/Bahr el Arab River as within Abyei and upholding resident rights for the referendum.^[78] Despite partial acceptance, Sudan continued to contest the award's implications, stalling demarcation and the referendum over voter criteria: southern-aligned Ngok Dinka insisted on permanent residency, while Khartoum demanded inclusion of seasonal Misseriya nomads, preventing the vote originally slated for January 9, 2011, alongside South Sudan's independence referendum.^[79] Beyond Abyei, the CPA's requirement for full North-South border demarcation—spanning 2,010 km—remained largely unfulfilled by South Sudan's secession on July 9, 2011, with only about 10% marked, leaving "contested areas" like Heglig (Pan Tal), the 14-Mile zone, and buffer regions in South Kordofan and Blue Nile vulnerable to clashes.^[80] In March 2012, SPLA forces occupied Heglig, Sudan's second-largest oil field, prompting SAF counteroffensives including airstrikes that displaced thousands and halted production until South Sudan's withdrawal in April, averting broader war but highlighting unresolved sovereignty claims tied to colonial-era lines and resource stakes.^[80] Recurrent incidents, including 2013-2014 violence over grazing and cattle raiding in the 14-Mile area and Abyei, reflect failures in establishing a Safe Demilitarized Border Zone (SDBZ) and the Joint Border Verification and Monitoring Mechanism (JBVMM), which lagged 15 months behind by 2014.^[80] As of 2023, demarcation efforts persist amid minimal progress, compounded by internal conflicts and proxy support, with the United Nations Interim Security Force for Abyei (UNISFA), authorized in June 2011, maintaining fragile ceasefires despite ongoing skirmishes.^[81]^[82] The Comprehensive Peace Agreement (CPA) established a framework for oil revenue sharing during the 2005–2011 interim period, allocating 50 percent of net revenues from oil produced in southern Sudan to the Government of Southern Sudan (GoSS), after deducting 2 percent for oil-producing states and an additional 2 percent for transportation costs via Sudanese pipelines.^[42]^[24] This mechanism aimed to equitably distribute Sudan's primary economic resource, with oil accounting for over 50 percent of the national budget at the time, though implementation faced delays due to opaque accounting and disputes over production figures verified by international auditors.^[42] Following South Sudan's independence on July 9, 2011, which granted it control over approximately 75 percent of former Sudan's oil fields producing around 350,000–500,000 barrels per day, the landlocked new state remained dependent on Sudanese pipelines and ports for exports, precipitating immediate economic tensions.^[83] Negotiations for post-secession arrangements faltered over transit fees, with Sudan demanding $32–$36 per barrel—far exceeding prior transport costs—and processing fees, while South Sudan offered $7.50 per barrel plus a fixed pipeline fee, accusing Khartoum of leveraging infrastructure monopoly to extract undue rents.^[84]^[85] Escalation peaked in late 2011 when Sudan confiscated approximately $815 million worth of South Sudanese crude from storage tanks at Port Sudan, prompting Juba to shut down all oil production on January 23, 2012, halting exports for 15 months and severing 98 percent of South Sudan's government revenue stream.^[85]^[86] The shutdown inflicted severe economic damage: South Sudan lost an estimated $8–10 billion in potential revenue, exacerbating budget shortfalls, inflation spikes above 40 percent, and delays in civil servant salaries, while Sudan forfeited $2–3 billion annually from transit fees and shared Heglig field output, contributing to a 20 percent GDP contraction and increased military spending amid border clashes.^[87]^[88]^[89] Partial resolution came via African Union-mediated talks, culminating in the August 2012 Oil Agreement, which set transit fees at $11 per barrel initially rising to $15, established a $3.028 billion delinking fund for South Sudan's arrears, and recommenced production in April 2013 at reduced levels of about 150,000–170,000 barrels per day due to deteriorated infrastructure.^[83]^[87] However, compliance eroded by 2015 amid non-payment disputes and Heglig/Heglig field contestation, intertwining oil conflicts with security issues like Sudan's alleged support for South Sudanese rebels and mutual accusations of pipeline sabotage.^[90]^[91] Persistent opacity in revenue transfers—despite National Petroleum Commission oversight—fueled mistrust, with independent audits revealing underreporting and corruption diverting funds from both governments' treasuries.^[92]

Security Incidents and Proxy Conflicts

Following South Sudan's independence in 2011, the dissolution of CPA-mandated joint security mechanisms led to recurrent border clashes and mutual accusations of proxy warfare, eroding the agreement's ceasefire provisions. Sudanese and South Sudanese forces engaged in skirmishes over disputed territories, with South Sudan halting oil exports in January 2012, prompting Sudanese airstrikes on Unity State border areas that killed civilians and escalated tensions. These incidents violated the CPA's emphasis on demilitarized zones and joint monitoring, as noted in UN Security Council resolutions condemning cross-border violence.^[93] The Heglig crisis exemplified direct confrontation, as South Sudanese People's Liberation Army (SPLA) forces seized the Heglig oil field—producing about 50% of Sudan's oil output—on April 10, 2012, claiming it as Panthou within their territory. Sudanese Armed Forces (SAF) responded with artillery and air strikes, recapturing the area by April 20 after intense fighting that displaced thousands and damaged infrastructure. The UN Secretary-General deemed South Sudan's initial seizure illegal under international law, urging withdrawal to avert broader war, while both sides reported dozens of casualties.^[68]^[94]^[69] In Abyei, designated a special administrative area under the CPA, clashes persisted due to un-demarcated boundaries and nomadic migrations. Sudanese forces invaded Abyei town in May 2011, displacing over 100,000 residents and looting property, prompting UN condemnation and the deployment of peacekeepers. Post-2011 violence included inter-communal fighting between Ngok Dinka and Misseriya, with a January 2024 offensive by Twic Dinka forces killing over 50, including UN peacekeepers, and displacing 60,000 amid militia involvement. These incidents highlighted failures in CPA protocols for joint administration and arbitration, perpetuating humanitarian crises.^[95]^[72] Proxy dynamics further destabilized relations, with Sudan providing logistical support and rear bases to South Sudanese rebels, including the Sudan People's Liberation Movement-in-Opposition (SPLM-IO) during its 2013-2018 civil war against Juba. In retaliation, South Sudan hosted and allegedly armed Sudan People's Liberation Movement-North (SPLM-N) fighters from Blue Nile and South Kordofan, who launched cross-border attacks on Sudanese positions starting in 2011, intertwining local insurgencies with interstate rivalry. Such mutual sponsorship of non-state actors, documented in arms flow analyses, undermined bilateral non-aggression pacts and fueled cycles of retaliation, as evidenced by UN reports on weapon smuggling across porous borders.^[96]

Criticisms and Controversies

Exclusion of Marginalized Groups

The Comprehensive Peace Agreement (CPA), signed on January 9, 2005, between the Government of Sudan and the Sudan People's Liberation Movement/Army (SPLM/A), primarily addressed the north-south civil war but systematically excluded non-signatory ethnic groups and peripheral regions, perpetuating their political and economic marginalization.^[8] This bilateral focus on power- and wealth-sharing between Khartoum and Juba overlooked grievances in areas like Darfur, eastern Sudan, and the Nuba Mountains, where non-Arab populations faced ongoing oppression, resource neglect, and lack of representation in the agreement's protocols.^[97] Critics, including analysts from the Council on Foreign Relations, noted that the CPA's narrow scope failed to incorporate armed factions or civil society from these regions, allowing the Sudanese government to intensify repression elsewhere during the interim period.^[8] In Darfur, where conflict erupted in 2003 involving non-Arab rebel groups like the Justice and Equality Movement (JEM) and Sudan Liberation Movement/Army (SLM/A), the CPA provided no mechanisms for inclusion, enabling the government's use of janjaweed militias to escalate ethnic cleansing against Fur, Zaghawa, and Masalit communities.^[98] By 2005, over 2 million Darfuris were displaced, yet the agreement's emphasis on north-south oil revenue splits—allocating 50% of southern-derived revenues to the south—ignored Darfur's resource disputes, contributing to the region's humanitarian crisis that persisted post-CPA.^[99] This exclusion stemmed from the Sudanese government's refusal to negotiate beyond the SPLM/A, as documented in reports highlighting how the deal incentivized sidelining peripheral conflicts to secure international support for the north-south truce. Eastern Sudan's Beja and Rashaida populations, represented by the Eastern Front, were similarly omitted, facing deepened economic neglect as CPA funds prioritized southern infrastructure over Red Sea ports and arid grazing lands vital to pastoralists.^[100] In the Nuba Mountains and Blue Nile, despite nominal SPLM/A involvement, marginalized Nuba farmers and Funj groups received inadequate safeguards against northern domination, leading to post-2011 clashes when popular consultations mandated by the CPA were undermined by electoral manipulations in 2010.^[101] These failures reflected a causal dynamic where elite pacts between Khartoum and Juba reinforced center-periphery divides, excluding over 40% of Sudan's non-Arab ethnic minorities from decision-making and exacerbating proxy wars.^[102] Human Rights Watch analyses underscored that this omission not only invalidated the "comprehensive" label but also sowed seeds for renewed insurgencies, as excluded groups viewed the CPA as a northern victory consolidating Arab hegemony.^[97]

Failures in National Integration

The Comprehensive Peace Agreement (CPA) of 2005 envisioned national integration through power-sharing mechanisms in the Government of National Unity (GNU), including allocation of ministerial positions to the Sudan People's Liberation Movement (SPLM) and provisions for a unified national army by integrating Sudan Armed Forces (SAF) and Sudan People's Liberation Army (SPLA) personnel during the 2005–2011 interim period.^[8] However, these efforts faltered due to mutual distrust between the National Congress Party (NCP)-dominated north and SPLM-led south, resulting in minimal joint military commands and only partial demobilization, with SPLA forces largely retaining autonomy in southern territories.^[103] Exclusion of non-signatory groups, such as those from Darfur, eastern Sudan, and the Beja Congress, undermined broader national cohesion, as the CPA's "comprehensive" framework prioritized North-South dynamics while sidelining peripheral ethnic grievances, leading to escalated rebellions in regions like South Kordofan and Blue Nile post-2011.^[97] Power-sharing arrangements reinforced ethnic cleavages rather than transcending them, with SPLM appointees facing administrative isolation in Khartoum and NCP resistance to equitable resource redistribution, exemplified by disputes over the 2008 census that inflated northern population figures to skew parliamentary seats.^[3]^[104] Security sector reforms intended to foster integration collapsed amid proxy conflicts and militia proliferation; by 2010, unified command structures remained nominal, with SAF and SPLA engaging in border skirmishes, such as the 2008 Abyei clashes that killed over 70 and displaced thousands, highlighting unaddressed Arab-African ethnic tensions.^[105] Economic marginalization persisted, as oil revenue sharing—50% to the south under CPA terms—failed to fund infrastructure in non-oil southern areas, perpetuating dependency and resentment, with southern GDP per capita lagging at under $200 annually by 2011 compared to northern averages exceeding $1,000.^[103] Ultimately, these shortcomings rendered "making unity attractive" a rhetorical failure, culminating in South Sudan's 98.83% referendum vote for independence on January 9, 2011, and leaving northern Sudan fractured, with renewed insurgencies in marginalized provinces underscoring the CPA's inability to cultivate a supra-ethnic national identity.^[106]^[107]

Long-Term Stability Outcomes

The Comprehensive Peace Agreement (CPA) of 2005 succeeded in halting the Second Sudanese Civil War and facilitating South Sudan's independence in 2011, yet it failed to deliver enduring stability in either Sudan or the newly formed state. Post-independence, Sudan experienced persistent internal conflicts, including the ongoing Darfur insurgency that predated the CPA but was not resolved by its provisions, leading to over 300,000 deaths by 2010 estimates and displacement of millions. The agreement's focus on north-south power-sharing overlooked broader national integration, allowing ethnic and regional grievances to fester, which contributed to the 2019 overthrow of Omar al-Bashir and the 2023 civil war between the Sudanese Armed Forces and Rapid Support Forces, displacing 10 million people by mid-2024.^[108] In South Sudan, the CPA's emphasis on autonomy masked underlying ethnic divisions within the Sudan People's Liberation Movement/Army (SPLM/A), erupting into civil war in December 2013 between President Salva Kiir and Vice President Riek Machar, resulting in over 383,000 deaths and 4 million displacements by 2018.^[109] Despite the 2018 Revitalized Agreement on the Resolution of the Conflict in South Sudan (R-ARCSS), implementation lagged, with security sector reforms stalling and inter-communal violence persisting, as evidenced by cattle raids and militia clashes killing thousands annually in regions like Jonglei and Unity states.^[109] Economic mismanagement, including corruption in oil revenues that constituted 98% of GDP pre-independence, exacerbated fragility, with GDP contracting 10.9% in 2017 amid conflict.^[110] Bilateral relations underscored the CPA's shortcomings, with unresolved border disputes—such as the 2012 Heglig occupation by South Sudanese forces and Abyei's contested status—triggering military clashes and a 2012 oil shutdown that halved South Sudan's production and deepened Sudan's fiscal crisis.^[6] These incidents, coupled with proxy influences and arms flows, perpetuated a cycle of insecurity, as proxy conflicts in shared border areas like South Kordofan and Blue Nile displaced hundreds of thousands post-2011.^[111] Empirical assessments indicate the CPA's institutional mechanisms, like the Joint Integrated Demining Office, demobilized only partial forces, leaving hybrid threats that undermined regional stability, with refugee flows impacting neighbors like Uganda and Ethiopia hosting over 1 million by 2023.^[40] Overall, the agreement's narrow scope prioritized separation over reconciliation, yielding short-term cessation of hostilities but long-term state fragility rooted in unaddressed power asymmetries and resource dependencies.^[112]

Long-Term Impacts

Effects on Sudan

The secession of South Sudan following the 2011 referendum, enabled by the CPA, resulted in Sudan losing approximately 75% of its proven oil reserves, which were concentrated in the southern fields.^[90]^[92] Prior to independence, oil accounted for over 50% of Sudan's export revenues and a significant share of government income; post-secession, Sudan relied on transit fees for southern oil passing through its pipelines, but disputes over these fees led to production shutdowns in 2012, exacerbating economic contraction.^[90] Sudan's crude oil exports declined by 84% between 2000 and 2023, with the loss of southern production contributing substantially alongside pipeline disruptions and global market factors.^[113] This revenue shortfall fueled inflation, increased external debt, and strained fiscal resources, prompting economic diversification efforts that yielded limited success due to infrastructure deficits and investor withdrawal.^[92] Politically, the CPA's power-sharing provisions established a Government of National Unity from 2005 to 2011, incorporating the Sudan People's Liberation Movement (SPLM) into Khartoum's structures, but this arrangement highlighted deep divisions rather than resolving them.^[114] The SPLM's focus on southern autonomy limited its influence on national policies addressing corruption, identity-based grievances, and democratic reforms, allowing the National Congress Party under Omar al-Bashir to retain dominance in northern affairs.^[114]^[115] By 2006, the CPA exhibited early strains, including non-compliance on key benchmarks like border demarcation and Abyei resolution, which eroded trust and failed to foster inclusive governance, contributing to Sudan's political fragmentation.^[26] The agreement's emphasis on north-south cessation over broader national integration left marginalized northern groups, such as those in Darfur and eastern Sudan, excluded, intensifying demands for federalism and fueling opposition to the central government.^[116] In terms of security, the CPA terminated the Second Sudanese Civil War, reducing active combat between northern forces and southern rebels, but its security arrangements—such as joint integrated units—dissolved post-independence without establishing lasting northern stability.^[40] Insurgencies persisted in peripheral regions, including Darfur (where conflict escalated during CPA implementation) and the "Two Areas" of Blue Nile and South Kordofan, where Sudan Liberation Army and Sudan People's Liberation Army-North factions challenged Khartoum, exploiting grievances unaddressed by the accord.^[8]^[28] A decade after the CPA, Sudan remained plagued by rebel violence and political tensions, with the agreement's failure to demilitarize or integrate opposition forces enabling proxy conflicts and undermining the Bashir regime's consolidation efforts.^[8] Overall, while providing temporary respite from southern threats, the CPA's incomplete implementation amplified internal vulnerabilities, setting the stage for economic desperation and governance crises that contributed to the 2019 overthrow of Bashir and subsequent instability.^[8]

Effects on South Sudan

The Comprehensive Peace Agreement (CPA), signed on January 9, 2005, ended the Second Sudanese Civil War (1983–2005) and established an interim period of power-sharing between the Government of Sudan and the Sudan People's Liberation Movement/Army (SPLM/A), granting the semi-autonomous Government of Southern Sudan (GoSS) significant administrative control.^[109] This framework enabled South Sudan to build rudimentary institutions, including the SPLM-dominated legislature and security forces, though implementation gaps in demobilization and army unification left fragmented militias and ongoing low-level violence.^[114] The agreement's provision for a 2011 referendum on self-determination culminated in South Sudan's independence on July 9, 2011, with 98.83% of voters approving secession, marking a pivotal shift from marginalization under Khartoum's rule to sovereign statehood.^[109] ^[6] Politically, the CPA fostered elite consolidation around SPLM leadership under John Garang and later Salva Kiir, but failed to reconcile ethnic divisions among South Sudan's diverse groups, such as Dinka, Nuer, and Equatorians, exacerbating patronage networks and zero-sum power struggles.^[117] Post-independence, these unresolved tensions erupted into civil war in December 2013 between Kiir and Riek Machar, resulting in over 383,000 deaths and 4 million displacements by 2020, as the CPA's north-south focus neglected internal cohesion mechanisms.^[118] Security arrangements, including the Joint Integrated Units, disintegrated after secession, leaving a national army prone to defections and proxy conflicts, with implementation of subsequent agreements like the 2018 Revitalized Agreement remaining stalled as of 2023.^[40] Economically, the CPA's wealth-sharing protocol allocated 50% of net oil revenues from southern fields to the GoSS (after 2% for producing states and transit costs), fueling a boom that increased southern budgets from negligible levels to billions annually by 2010, primarily from fields like those in Unity and Upper Nile states producing over 350,000 barrels per day.^[6] ^[24] However, this entrenched oil dependency—accounting for 98% of South Sudan's revenues post-2011—exposed the economy to vulnerabilities, including a 2012 shutdown amid transit fee disputes with Sudan that halved production and triggered hyperinflation exceeding 100% by 2016.^[119] ^[90] Corruption in oil management, amplified by CPA-era influxes, diverted funds from infrastructure, leaving South Sudan with minimal diversification and GDP per capita stagnating around $200–300 amid recurrent fiscal crises.^[120] Socially, the CPA reduced immediate war-related mortality and displacement in the south, allowing returns of over 2 million refugees and internally displaced persons by 2011, alongside basic service expansions like school enrollment rising from 500,000 in 2005 to 2 million by 2012.^[112] Yet, it did not mitigate underlying grievances, contributing to post-independence ethnic violence that displaced 2.2 million internally and created 2.3 million refugees by 2018, with famine declared in 2017 affecting 100,000 in Unity State due to conflict-blocked aid.^[118] Health and education indicators lagged, with maternal mortality at 789 per 100,000 births in 2010 and literacy below 30%, as CPA funds prioritized military spending over human development.^[121] Overall, while the CPA delivered formal independence, its narrow focus on north-south dynamics perpetuated fragility, necessitating repeated interventions and underscoring the limits of externally brokered accords without domestic buy-in.^[117]

Broader Regional and International Ramifications

The Comprehensive Peace Agreement (CPA), signed on January 9, 2005, shifted Sudan's internal dynamics but exacerbated regional tensions by sidelining concurrent conflicts like Darfur, where government resources were redirected southward, contributing to the proliferation of armed groups and prolonged violence that displaced over 2 million people by 2006.^[28] In the Horn of Africa, the agreement's facilitation by the Intergovernmental Authority on Development (IGAD)—involving Kenya and Ethiopia—initially stabilized north-south hostilities but enabled South Sudan's independence on July 9, 2011, which subsequently fueled civil war there, generating massive refugee outflows: by late 2024, Uganda hosted 975,000 South Sudanese refugees, Ethiopia 420,100, and Kenya significant numbers amid broader regional hosting of 4.4 million refugees and asylum seekers.^[6]^[122] These flows strained neighbors' resources, with Uganda and Ethiopia facing security risks from cross-border militias and proxy involvements, while Egypt expressed concerns over Nile water security and potential Islamist spillover from Sudan's unresolved peripheries.^[123] Internationally, the CPA marked a diplomatic success for mediators including the United States, United Kingdom, Norway, and Italy, who provided technical support and oversight, with the U.S. emerging as Sudan's largest donor—supplying 50% of UN World Food Programme aid in 2006 and over $450 million for Darfur-related peacekeeping by 2009.^[6]^[124]^[125] The United Nations deployed the UNMIS peacekeeping mission to monitor implementation, while the African Union transitioned to the UN-AU hybrid UNAMID force for Darfur, reflecting coordinated but limited enforcement amid Khartoum's resistance.^[34] However, the agreement's incomplete framework—failing to integrate marginalized groups or enforce democratic reforms—undermined long-term credibility, as evidenced by stalled referenda in Abyei and popular consultations in Southern Kordofan and Blue Nile, fostering skepticism toward international peace processes in fragile states.^[9]^[67] Economically, the CPA's oil revenue-sharing provisions (50-50 split post-2005) and South Sudan's secession led to Sudan losing 75% of its crude production, disrupting international markets and deterring foreign investment due to pipeline disputes and underinvestment, with global firms facing sanctions and operational risks that slowed regional energy development.^[92]^[126] This volatility compounded proxy conflicts in border areas like Abyei, indirectly affecting Chad and the Central African Republic through arms flows and militia spillovers, while highlighting the CPA's causal shortfall in prioritizing elite power-sharing over inclusive governance, which perpetuated instability exportable via refugees and resource contests.^[9]^[123]

Recent Developments

Ongoing Implementation Gaps

The Comprehensive Peace Agreement (CPA) of 2005 outlined post-referendum protocols to manage relations between Sudan and the newly independent South Sudan, including the demarcation of the 2,010 km border, resolution of disputed areas, and establishment of joint security mechanisms. However, as of 2025, border demarcation remains largely incomplete, with only provisional administrative lines established in select segments and vast stretches undefined, fueling recurrent clashes over resources and territory.^[127] This failure stems from mutual distrust and competing territorial claims, as evidenced by ongoing disputes in areas like the 14-Mile zone near Abyei, where Sudanese and South Sudanese forces have intermittently confronted each other despite international mediation efforts.^[128] The Abyei Area exemplifies a core implementation gap, where the CPA-mandated referendum on whether the oil-rich territory should integrate with South Sudan has not occurred since independence in 2011, primarily due to unresolved disagreements on voter eligibility between Ngok Dinka residents favoring South Sudan and Misseriya nomads aligned with Sudan.^[129] The 2009 Permanent Court of Arbitration ruling delimited Abyei's boundaries, but political impasse and intercommunal violence have prevented progress, with Sudan's civil war since 2023 causing spillover attacks that displaced over 50,000 people by early 2025 and heightened militia activities.^[130] The United Nations Interim Security Force for Abyei (UNISFA) mandate, renewed in November 2024 to extend through 2025, reflects the entrenched insecurity, as peacekeeping troops continue to patrol amid stalled bilateral talks.^[131] Popular consultations in South Kordofan and Blue Nile states, intended under the CPA to address grievances through participatory processes leading to potential autonomy or resource equity, were inadequately conducted or abandoned post-2011, contributing to the emergence of armed rebellions by the Sudan People's Liberation Movement-North (SPLM-N).^[105] These states, designated as "Two Areas" under CPA frameworks, experienced renewed conflict from 2011 onward, with SPLM-N forces controlling significant territories as of 2025 due to Khartoum's failure to integrate opposition voices or redistribute oil revenues equitably, exacerbating marginalization.^[103] Joint integrated units and demilitarization provisions along the border, meant to prevent escalation, have eroded without sustained verification, as evidenced by unauthorized troop movements and proxy militia engagements that violate CPA security annexes.^[40] Wealth-sharing mechanisms for cross-border oil infrastructure, including transit fees and debt apportionment, persist as flashpoints, with pipeline shutdowns in 2012-2013 and sporadic disputes thereafter underscoring enforcement deficits amid fluctuating production from fields like those in Heglig.^[98] These gaps have perpetuated economic interdependencies without institutional safeguards, hindering bilateral cooperation and amplifying vulnerabilities to external shocks like Sudan's 2023-2025 conflict.^[132]

Relation to Current Sudanese Conflicts

The civil war in Sudan, erupting on April 15, 2023, pits the Sudanese Armed Forces (SAF), commanded by General Abdel Fattah al-Burhan, against the Rapid Support Forces (RSF), headed by General Mohamed Hamdan Dagalo (Hemedti), over integration of the RSF into a unified army and dominance in the transitional regime established after the 2019 ouster of Omar al-Bashir.^[15] ^[133] Unlike the Second Sudanese Civil War (1983–2005), which the Comprehensive Peace Agreement (CPA) resolved through north-south power- and wealth-sharing protocols culminating in South Sudan's 2011 independence, the current conflict centers on elite rivalries within Khartoum's military establishment, unaddressed by the CPA's framework.^[108] Unresolved CPA elements, however, have amplified vulnerabilities exploited by the war. The Abyei Area's special administrative status and promised self-determination referendum—stipulated in the CPA's Abyei Protocol but stalled since 2005 over border delineations (partially arbitrated by the Permanent Court of Arbitration in 2009) and resident eligibility—remain contentious.^[78] The 2023 war's disruptions, including SAF redeployments and RSF advances westward, eroded local security, triggering intensified communal violence between Ngok Dinka (aligned with South Sudan) and Misseriya Arab nomads. Clashes from October 2023 onward killed over 300 and displaced thousands, with armed youth groups filling governance vacuums amid reduced UN Interim Security Force for Abyei (UNISFA) patrols and absent Joint Integrated Units.^[130] ^[15] The CPA's narrow geographic focus exacerbated internal northern fractures, sidelining conflicts in Darfur, South Kordofan, and Blue Nile, where grievances over marginalization persisted post-2005.^[134] This omission enabled Bashir's regime to rely on paramilitaries like the Janjaweed—precursors to the RSF—for counterinsurgency in Darfur (ignited in 2003, overlapping CPA talks), bypassing army reforms and entrenching parallel forces.^[135] The RSF's evolution into a autonomous entity, formalized in 2013 with gold-mining revenues funding expansion to 100,000 fighters by 2023, reflects this fragmented security inheritance, fueling the SAF-RSF schism when integration talks collapsed.^[133] South Sudan's CPA-enabled secession stripped Sudan of 75% of its oil production, slashing revenues from $8 billion annually pre-2011 to under $2 billion by 2012 due to pipeline disputes and shutdowns, which deepened economic woes, bread riots, and the 2018–2019 uprising that birthed the fragile civilian-military pact undermined by the 2021 coup and ensuing war.^[13] ^[136] Thus, while not causative, the CPA's incomplete national integration perpetuated a brittle state prone to factional implosion.^[134]