Many of the conflicts now called ‘new wars’ are intrastate, nonconventional, and culture-sensitive conflicts having their origins in domestic rather than systemic factors (Kaldor, 2007). Civil wars are nefarious to the extent that they always levy the heaviest toll on civilians leading to senseless deaths, internal and external displacement of citizens, and in some instances as Salehyan, and Gleditsch (2006) have argued, regional instability arising from the external displacement of citizens. The end of the Cold War signaled the beginning of a post interstate wars era, by and large and a focus instead on finding solutions to civil wars which were the major threats to security both state and human in the post-Cold War. However, as history has proven time and again, civil wars are susceptible to recidivism upon signing peace agreements and peace agreements are generally fragile peace achievements. Yet, war is often unacceptable (Licklider, 1995) and has to be stopped, which is why no effort should be spared to ensure that peace agreements hold upon their conclusion and signification and return enduring peace. Ever since shortly her independence in 2011, South Sudan has been embroiled in a civil war that has produced peace agreements that have thus far failed to yield lasting peace

The study was about assessing the effectiveness of peace agreements in conflict resolution in South Sudan based on the 2015 peace treaty. It was guided by three objectives namely: to investigate the root causes and drivers of the current conflict in South Sudan, to analyze the nature, mandate, and role of the peace agreement (2015 peace treaty) and to examine the challenge encountered in the implementation of the 2015 Peace treaty.