In the current situation, there are calls for a 'ceasefire' and calls for a 'pause'.
Humanitarian pauses and ceasefires – what are the differences?
But there exists a better word than 'pause' which I think is being wrongly used.
The word was used on Friday on 'Have I Got News for You', BBC 1, by Ian Hislop, the Editor of Private Eye. Mr Hislop used it in connection with the present situation and also related to the Day of celebration, yesterday.
Armistice, truce, and ceasefire have been used at different periods with varying degrees of overlap. In current international law, armistice is more narrowly defined than truce and ceasefire, in being a temporary (but total) suspension of hostilities by agreement between the governments of warring parties, normally (but not necessarily) for the purposes of negotiation. A total surrender may also be described as an armistice for legal purposes. Cf. ceasefire n. 2.
2009 Achieving an armistice was one thing; restoring peace was quite another. G. R. Berridge, British Diplomacy in Turkey vi. 128Citation details for G. R. Berridge, British Diplomacy in Turkey
Having just celebrated Armistice Day, should the word not be used as being better defined to the purpose than 'pause' . . . . . or even 'ceasefire' ?
It is an agreement to cease to be hostile to one another, at least until agreements can be negotiated towards a permanent solution.