The system of international conflict management is in deep crisis. Relevant instruments such as UN peace operations are being withdrawn, normative and power-political preconditions (for example, US-guaranteed international order) no longer apply and all too often agreements have led to the entrenchment of violent authoritarian systems rather than their transformation. This crisis is particularly evident in the Horn of Africa. Neither peace agreements concluded under significant international pressure (as in the case of South Sudan) nor those negotiated between armed actors with virtually no mediation (as in Sudan in 2020) have brought about stability. Rather, governments (such as that of Ethiopia) have regularly exploited peace processes to secure their own rule. More recent mediation processes have been primarily a function of regional rivalries and the diplomatic interests of the external actors involved (as has been the case in Sudan since the current war began in April 2023). If foreign support is available, the parties to the conflict have fewer incentives to make compromises. Because mechanisms for implementing agreements are poorly resourced and receive little political support, there is no inclusive political process following ceasefires to address the root causes of the conflict. Sooner or later, fighting flares up once again. As far as European contributions to conflict resolution in the Horn of Africa are concerned, there are lessons to be learned from this crisis. Europe should neither cling nostalgically to what is a largely defunct system of conflict management, nor should it, out of frustration, adopt approaches dominated solely by security considerations. Instead, it should support civilian peace initiatives, help political economies of violence die out and rethink its own cooperation with governments that exacerbate conflict (such as that of the United Arab Emirates).