Al-Jazeera television has been focusing much of its coverage to the crisis situation in Aleppo. One question raised by commentators is why the February ceasefire agreement does not seem to apply to the situation in the city and surrounding countryside.

A look at the text of the ceasefire agreement shows that the largely U.S.-backed, armed opposition groups are accountable for their actions either to Russia or the United States, as they prefer. While on the other side, the Syrian Arab Republic is to report its activities under the ceasefire to the Russian Federation – an active belligerent in the conflict. More importantly: that the Russian Federation is entitled to report directly to itself regarding its own activities such as airstrikes, against the armed opposition.

The ceasefire covers proportional use of force in defence and the acquisition of new territory. This accountability arrangement gives at least one side in the conflict considerable latitude in interpretation of any breach; and fewer constraints to continuing hostilities.

U.S. forces are not referenced specifically as belligerents in the February ceasefire text. At the same time, there are reports that the United States has been conducting strikes against ISIS in the same geographic location at least until early April 2016. There is nothing to hinder further U.S. – led strikes in the city against ISIS. In other words, a seperate conflict can continue to take place within the geographic area of an other conflict.

Based on the text of the ceasefire agreement alone, it is unsurprising that the use of force and acquisition of new territory continues. The February ceasefire agreement was an important milestone in the conflict. Moving forward however, and in the absence of a neutral monitoring mechanism, potentially defencible exceptions to the ceasefire agreement can continue to arise.

Ceasefire agreement text, accessed 2/5/2016 http://www.state.gov/r/pa/prs/ps/2016/02/253115.htm).