“Science speaks facts; diplomacy can make them travel.“

This simple yet powerful idea set the tone for ETH Zurich’s RETHINKING Science Diplomacy session last night during the World Economic Forum’s Annual Meeting in Davos. Moderated by Chris Luebkeman from ETH’s Foresight Hub, participants gathered to unpack an increasingly urgent question: how can science and diplomacy work together in a world marked by geopolitical tension, misinformation, and declining trust in institutions?

Following a number of notable statements by world leaders relating to the topic earlier that day and throughout the week, the context was very poignant. What became clear over the course of the evening’s discussion was that science diplomacy is no longer a niche concept, but a necessary practice, although it is under pressure from multiple sides.

When Facts Meet Friction

For ETH President, Joël Mesot, the urgency of science diplomacy became tangible during the Covid‑19 pandemic. Involved in setting up Switzerland’s national Covid Task Force, he witnessed first-hand how difficult it can be to translate scientific evidence into decisions that resonate with public administrations, policymakers, and the broader public.

The pandemic exposed a stark reality: knowing the science is not the same as ensuring it is understood, trusted, or acted upon. Louise Harra, host of the event as the Director of the PMOD/WRC, echoed this concern, emphasising that international collaboration only heightens the need to bridge this gap. In an interconnected world, the challenge is not merely generating knowledge, but ensuring it travels across borders, institutions, and audiences.

Defining Science Diplomacy: Why Language Matters

What exactly do we mean by science diplomacy?

For Marilyne Andersen of GESDA, it is fundamentally a mutually beneficial relationship: science and diplomacy need each other to function effectively. Scientific evidence requires political context to have impact, while diplomacy depends on credible knowledge to make informed decisions.

Effy Vayena, ETH’s new Vice President for Knowledge Transfer and Corporate Relations, added another layer, describing science diplomacy both as an aspiration — building bridges and shared goals — and the mechanism that make those goals achievable. While science diplomacy has existed in various forms for decades, she argued, we are now at a moment where its direction and future deserve renewed attention.

Ludwig Moeller of the European Space Policy Institute offered a compelling metaphor: science provides the destination, diplomacy the vehicle. Facts alone are not enough, especially in a landscape filled with noise, oversimplification, and at times, deliberate misuse of evidence. The challenge lies in communicating opportunities, not just problems, without losing nuance or credibility.

Trust as the Common Currency

If there was one word that surfaced repeatedly, it was trust.

Trust in institutions has eroded in recent years, partly because science and diplomacy have not always delivered solutions to pressing global problems, or because science has been selectively used to serve political agendas. As scientific knowledge becomes a driver of power and geopolitical tension, the risk of misuse only grows.

And yet, this is precisely why science diplomacy matters. Trust in science and in the values that underpin it, remains an asset. The task ahead is to ensure that science does not become merely transactional currency, but remains a shared enterprise aimed at the common good.

As one participant put it, trust often trumps evidence in relationship‑building. Narratives matter, and scientists are not always equipped or encouraged to tell their stories in ways that resonate with policymakers.

Building Bridges Deliberately

So how do we move forward?

Several practical steps emerged from the discussion:

• Prepare early, especially during moments of transition, when future directions are visible but not yet fixed.
• Create spaces and mechanisms for dialogue, building on successful examples of joint initiatives, such as was shown during the pandemic response.
• Stay close to decision-makers, understanding their needs, constraints, and incentives.
• Engage the public, recognising that public trust and science diplomacy are deeply intertwined.

Science diplomacy is not a nice-to-have. It is about shaping destinations — from digital sovereignty to security, sustainability, and global health — in ways that serve shared interests.

At ETH Zurich, with its strong scientific credibility and global networks, and its newly launched Einstein School of Public Policy, this responsibility is especially clear. As global challenges grow more complex, helping science travel wisely, responsibly, and with purpose, may be one of the most important roles we can play.

See all the pictures from the event here.

Check out the recording of the event below:

When violence starts between or within countries, one of the most important and most difficult questions is, how can it be stopped?

Peace mediators, humanitarian actors, peacekeeping forces, and governments face these types of questions almost every day. Despite the central role ceasefires play in ending wars and protecting affected civilians, practical knowledge of how to design, implement, and sustain them is not always available – or accessible – to all relevant actors.

Hence, the Ceasefire Project, a collaboration between the Center for Security Studies (CSS) at ETH Zurich and the Centre for Humanitarian Dialogue (HD Centre) in Geneva, was established. Supported by the European Union and complemented by partnerships with researchers from the Peace Research Institute Oslo (PRIO), Uppsala University, as well as experienced ceasefire experts and mediation practitioners from the Swiss Federal Department of Foreign Affairs (FDFA), the project aims to strengthen global capacity to design, negotiate and implement ceasefire efforts in ways that reduce violence and create space for negotiating lasting peace between conflict parties.

A recently published videos series conveys key messages from the extensive body of data, research and practical experience on ceasefires to make essential ceasefire knowledge accessible to mediators, peace experts, and peacemakers worldwide.

This blog provides you with a bird’s eye-view of the Ceasefire Project’s key insights captured in the form of the video series called “Understanding Ceasefires: A Practical Video Course”. Four of the eight videos are summarised below:

Eight Principles for Effective Ceasefires

The video series opens with, “Essential Ceasefire Principles,” which highlights eight building blocks that make ceasefire agreements realistic and durable. Rather than offering idealized solutions, the series underscores that ceasefires are effective only when they reflect the specific realities of a given conflict. Nevertheless, a number of core principles can serve as useful guidelines:

• Context matters: A ceasefire must reflect the political and military dynamics on the ground. There is no universal formula.
• Clarity prevents misunderstandings that can lead to escalation: Even small ambiguities in language can lead to misunderstandings that reignite violence.
• Inclusivity improves compliance: When local communities, women’s groups and civil society are meaningfully involved in shaping a ceasefire, the likelihood of sustained adherence to agreements increases.
• Ceasefires are not peace agreements: They create breathing space and reduce harm, yet they must be integrated into a broader political process if they are to lead to long-term stability.

The video explains that ceasefires may fail for two main reasons. First, conflict parties lack the will to stop fighting, or the power asymmetries between them may hinder negotiations. Second, agreements may fail because they overlook essential technical elements or rely on assumptions about conditions on the ground that do not actually exist.

Watch: Essential Ceasefire Principles

Humanitarian Pauses, Cessation of Hostilities, and Definitive Agreements: Understanding Ceasefire Types

Ceasefires are often spoken about as if they were all the same, yet the second video, “Types of Ceasefires,” demonstrates the opposite. It illustrates the spectrum of ceasefire arrangements, ranging from short humanitarian pauses designed to enable the delivery of aid or civilian evacuations, to preliminary ceasefires that can serve as stepping stones toward definitive ceasefires and formal peace deals.

The video highlights several essential distinctions between types of ceasefires:

• Declaration of intent: Often the first step, where parties express willingness to reduce violence even before violence reduction mechanisms are in place.
• Cessation of hostilities: A more formal commitment that begins to regulate conduct and restrict certain military actions, yet without clear monitoring and/or verification. An example is the UN-brokered nationwide truce in Yemen in 2022.
• Preliminary ceasefires: A more formalized cessation of hostilities that also has a clear timeline and monitoring and/or verification mechanisms. The idea is to pave the way for political negotiations. Examples include the Sudanese Nuba Mountain Ceasefire Agreement reached in Switzerland on the Bürgenstock in 2002.
• Definitive ceasefires: Detailed, negotiated agreements addressing core security questions and anchoring principles of later security transitions and disarmament processes. Examples include the security sections in the Sudan Comprehensive Peace Agreement in 2005, or in the Government of Colombia-FARC peace agreement in 2016.

Understanding these categories is vital because mediators must choose the right type of agreement for the specific moment and context. Attempting to negotiate a definitive ceasefire when the political environment only permits a limited humanitarian pause may undermine both.

Watch: Types of Ceasefires

The Art and Precision of Ceasefire Design

Another video in the series, “Ceasefire Design,” brings together the Ceasefire Project’s technical insights and illustrates the wide range of details that must be considered during ceasefire negotiations.

Key elements include:

• Clear definitions of prohibited actions, which can cover everything from troop movements to drone flights.
• Disengagement plans, specifying how and when forces withdraw or reposition to reduce accidental or intentional clashes.
• Threat reduction measures, including weapon cantonment, hotlines between commanders, and restrictions on heavy weaponry.
• Sequencing and timelines, ensuring that expectations are realistic and aligned with political and logistical conditions.

One of the video’s most striking points is how small technical oversights can have outsized effects. For example, a ceasefire that bans artillery shelling but does not address reconnaissance drones may quickly break down because one side interprets drone flights as preparation for attack.

Watch: Ceasefire Design

From Agreement to Reality: Making Ceasefires Work on the Ground

Designing a ceasefire is only part of the challenge. The video, “Ceasefire Implementation,” explores the complex procedures required to ensure that an agreement is translated into a lived reality for conflict-affected communities.

The video highlights several indispensable components:

• Interim security measures, such as the joint security management of demilitarised zones, help to stabilize volatile areas.
• Joint Ceasefire Commissions (JCC), which provide a forum for parties to address incidents, clarify rules, and adapt to new developments, with the aim of restoring compliance when parts of the agreement are violated.
• Monitoring and/or verification missions, which report to the JCC and can range from international observers collaborating with conflict parties to also include locally staffed monitoring networks, depending on what is feasible and trusted in a given context.

One of the video’s key messages is that implementation mechanisms are not add-ons. They are essential structural elements that determine whether a ceasefire will hold, especially in environments where trust between parties remains fragile.

Watch: Ceasefire Implementation

Importance of this Work

The Ceasefire Project is motivated by a simple yet urgent insight: armed conflicts across the globe are increasing in number and becoming more fragmented and complex, with civilians frequently caught between shifting frontlines. Effective ceasefire practice is therefore a critical tool for reducing violence and creating openings for diplomacy.

By bringing together the real-world experience of practitioners and rigorous academic research, the project bridges the gap between the field and the classroom. The resulting knowledge base supports mediators, conflict parties, and international organizations as they navigate the complex task of translating commitments to stop fighting into meaningful and sustainable change on the ground.

For ETH Zurich’s Centre for Security Studies, the project reflects a long-standing commitment to evidence-based research on peace and security. It also underscores a fundamental aspect of ETH’s global role: when expertise is combined with collaboration, knowledge becomes a tool for protecting lives.

Explore the full video series and learn more about the Ceasefire Project: Understanding Ceasefires – A Practical Video Series Produced by the Centre for Humanitarian Dialogue (HD) and the Centre for Security Studies (CSS) at ETH Zurich.

See also the recently published book on ceasefires: Ceasefires – Stopping the Violence and Negotiating Peace – Center for Security Studies | ETH Zurich

For more details see: Ceasefireproject.org