The questions says it all. What's the difference between a peace treaty and a non-aggression pact?

2 Answers 2


A peace treaty is a formal agreement to end an ongoing war. Note that a formal peace treaty is not the only way to do that (just like you don't need a formal declaration to start a war). The Second World War, for example, ended without there being an official peace treaty between Germany and the allied nations until 1990.

Non-aggression pacts are an agreement to not start a war to begin with. These were popular between world war 1 and the end of world war 2, but fell out of favor. The reason is that there are no real consequences for breaking a non-aggression pact between two countries. That means it doesn't provide any actual security against a war. For example, Nazi Germany and the USSR made a non-aggession pact in 1939 which was broken by Nazi Germany in 1941 as soon as they found it convenient. In fact, making a non-aggression pact is often considered a sign of aggression in the first place, as it implies that aggressions between two countries are not completely unthinkable.

Since the founding of the United Nations non-aggression pacts have become very rare in international politics, because the UN charter forbids aggression and thus puts the whole world into a non-aggression pact to begin with.

  • 2
    Clearly, the consequences to breaking a non-aggression pact are that the other country will use military force to enfor.... oh, wait. Nevermind.
    – Bobson
    Feb 11, 2016 at 16:33

A non-aggression pact says neither side will attack the other militarily. A peace treaty is done between two sides that are already at war, and ends the war that already exists.

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .