To understand why Darfur is in its current state of chaos and bloodshed, it is necessary to first understand where the conflict began and what events led to the eventual mass murder of an estimated 300,000-400,000 Darfuri men, women, and children, and the displacement of millions more. Darfur is a region of Sudan roughly the size of France that neighbors Chad, Libya, and the Central African Republic. In southern Sudan, civil war has raged for decades between the northern, Arab-dominated government and Christian and animist black southerners; since the country’s independence from the United Kingdom in 1956 there have been only eleven years of peacetime. The most recent crisis however, is the current civil war waged between the national government and two rebel groups based in Darfur: the Sudan Liberation Army and the Justice and Equality Movement. Angered that the government was not protecting sedentary, non-Arab farmers from Arab nomad attacks, these rebel groups launched an offense on a Sudanese military air force base in 2003. The Islamist, Khartoum-based government responded by arming militia forces, known as the “Janjaweed,” and instructing them to eradicate the rebellion. However, what came next was not a quieting of the rebel groups, but mass violence, rape, and countless human rights violations against non-Arab civilians thought to be members of the same ethnicity as the rebel groups. While these African farmers and others in Darfur are being systematically displaced and murdered at the hands of the Janjaweed, the Sudanese government disputes the estimated number of deaths and internally displaced persons (IDP’s), and denies having any connection with the Janjaweed militias. On March 4, 2009 Sudanese President Omar al Bashir, became the first sitting president to be indicted by the International Criminal Court for directing a mass killing, rape, and pillage against civilians in Darfur. The following year in July, the ICC added genocide to the list of charges against al Bashir. The killing continues today, with an estimated 5,000 civilians dying every month according to the organization, World Without Genocide, while the Sudanese government denies any responsibility for the violence, displacements, and deaths. This paper will focus on the various treaties implemented or referenced during this conflict, such as the Darfur Peace Agreements, intergovernmental and international organizations involved, and the many issues of enforcement that have complicated the process of ending the genocide in Darfur. Part I: Treaties as a Source of Law There have been attempts at peaceful negotiations through treaties and ceasefire agreements between the Sudanese government and rebel groups, however none of these have yet to prove successful. An African Union-brokered ceasefire, the N’Djamena Ceasefire Agreement, is signed between rebels and the government in 2004, but is repeatedly violated by all sides. There can be no doubt that a clear lack of opinio juris by any group involved contributes to the repeated violation of agreements made, simply because following the treaty is not in their best interests. The 2006 peace deal – the Darfur Peace Agreement – was signed between the government and a faction of the Sudanese Liberation Army, which later abandoned it, and was rejected by other factions of the SLA and the Justice for Equality group. Although this peace deal was considered to be a turning point by many, the fighting that ensued thereafter shifted from a mainly two-way conflict between the national government and rebels to a much more complex war involving fighting between various rebel factions. Arab groups also began fighting the national government for the first time, as they felt betrayed and angry that their concerns were not addressed in the agreement. Even though the DPA was signed, it was never implemented. As will be discussed later, treaties that lack any methods of enforcement are likely to be violated at some point, or not signed at all for fear of that violation occurring. What’s more, some would suggest the label “genocide” itself has complicated these peace talks by raising the stakes and adding to the already intense power struggle. Limited progress toward stability came in 2011 with the Doha Document, a peace deal signed by the Sudanese government and the Liberation and Justice Movement. Since the signing, signatories to the agreement have been working towards implementing its provisions, which include reconstruction, development, permanent ceasefire, and the return of IDP’s. In May of 2014, the Darfur Internal Dialogue and Consultation (DIDC) was launched as was stipulated in the Doha Document. It was intended to promote unity and reconciliation, but despite this new element of the agreement there was a renewal of violence, and rumors of the government reinstating the Janjaweed militias. While these steps taken towards peaceful reconciliation are done with good inte