Political philosophers in general and contemporary war ethicists have not given much attention to the ethics of peace agreements - even though wars typically end with the conclusion of peace treaties between belligerents (whether they negotiate directly with one another, or under the auspices of neutral third parties such as international organisations). The three key issues raised by peace agreements are the following: (1) on what grounds if any are signatories under a duty to comply? (2) Under what procedural conditions is a peace agreement binding on its signatories? (3) Under what substantive conditions is a peace agreement binding on its signatories? In this paper I focus on (1) and (2). Re (1): my justification for the obligation to comply will pay close scrutiny to the features of peace agreements. Re (2): the moral status of the war has a bearing on the procedural justness, or lack thereof, of a peace treaty, and by implication on its bindingness.