冷戰結束後，結束非國際型武裝衝突協議的重要性日增。本文希望在傳統武裝衝突法的架構下檢視此種協議的性質。導論之後，全文先說明國際法有關武裝衝突規範的演變，其次再介紹國際社會目前公認與接受的結束武裝衝突的方式，它們是停火、停戰協議、和平條約、與和平協議。第四部分並經由學者和國際法院在「關於剛果領土上的武裝活動案」意見，分析結束非國際性武裝衝突協議的性質，最後在結論中，本文主張雖然此種協議不是傳統國際法嚴格意義的「條約」，但是它的制訂與履行不可能排除國際法，故可以在尊重當事方意願與考量國際參與的情況下，被視為是有拘束力的國際法文件。

Since the end of the Cold War, importance of agreements to terminate non-international armed-conflict has been emphasized. This article explores the nature of such agreements under the laws of armed conflict. Part II introduces development of laws on armed conflict seeking to regulate the conduct of hostilities, and finds out the difference between international and non-international armed conflict has been breaking down in recent decades. Part III, then, reviews traditional and contemporary methods of termination of hostilities recognized by international community, i.e., cease-fire, armistice agreement, peace treaty and peace agreement. Addressing the International Court of Justice's judgment on the Armed Activities on the Territory of Congo and referring to authors analyzing effects of peace agreement, Part IV discuss the legal nature of agreements to terminate non-international armed conflicts. In conclusion, the article argues that these agreements are clearly legalized documents, and should be understood as binding international legal documents, as agreed by parties involved.