usage note #2
“secession” vs. “cessation”
Observed:
“In these cases [the interveners] would be more interested in continuation, rather than secession, of hostilities, and the longer peace deals last the less successful their actions would actually be.”
The OED defines “secession” as:
1. a. The action or an act of going away from one’s accustomed neighbourhood, or of retiring from public view; the condition of living remote from one’s former home, or retired from public view; retirement. Obs.
3. a. The action of seceding or formally withdrawing from an alliance, a federation, a political or religious organization, or the like. Hence, a body of seceders.
Thus, the only way we might conceive of a “secession of hostilities” would be to imagine the ongoing conflict suddenly picking up shop and moving as a unit to an entirely different location. As this is an unlikely possibility, let us see if “cessation” makes any more sense. According to the OED, “cessation” means:
1. Ceasing, discontinuance, stoppage; either permanent or temporary.
b. Cessation of or from arms: suspension of hostilities; armistice, truce.
And we have a winner: the author of the example sentence wishes us to understand that ending a conflict — cessation of hostilities — is not necessarily a marker of success if the intervening state is uninterested in peace.
