This paper aims to answer the question Why do some ceasefires de-escalate conflict better than others? By applying a theory-driven empirical comparative approach, a theoretical argument focused on compliance provisions is presented. The argument holds that more comprehensive compliance provisions in ceasefire agreements are more likely to de-escalate conflict than limited ones. The causal mechanism argues that more comprehensive compliance provisions will increase transparency and raise costs for non-compliance. This will result in an increase of trust between conflict parties, leading to greater de-escalation. The thesis studies two ceasefires, one in Colombia from 2017, and one in Nicaragua from 1990. Through a structured focused comparison, the study finds that the Nicaraguan ceasefire, which has more comprehensive compliance provisions, de-escalated violence more compared to the Colombian case, which has limited compliance provisions. Therefore, the study finds support for the hypothesis with the caveat that compliance provisions do not appear to influence agreement resilience for long-term goals in the agreements.