In geo-political
denotation, an agreement that once signed, causes an end to hostilities PROVIDED that the conditions to the aforementioned agreemnet are met. Failure to
comply with the
accord conditions can result in the original action stopped by the
Accord to be carried out as if no agreement was ever effected.
Example:
Germany and Japan are still bound by Accords both signed in 1945, stating that if they ever became belligerents in their respective theatres again, the allies would crush them. These Accords are still in effect.
Saddam Hussein signed an
Accord in 1991 allowing him to retain power PROVIDED:
1.) He destroyed his WMD stockpiles and showed proof of their disposal.
2.) That he
stand down his military arm and cease to be a threat to the gulf region
3.) That he forfeit and
disavow all claims to Kuwait and other regions.
Said Accord trumped any other agreements that he had with such entities as the UN. When Saddam refused to comply with the Accord, Iraq was invaded (An action that was halted due to the 1991 Accord) and Saddam was removed as a leadership entity. It is interesting to note that the UN refused to enforce the Accord due to not only the UN profiting from trading with Saddam (
in violation of a
trade embargo) but France, Russia and Australia were also found complicit in this action.