Edit: A bit of modern context.

In short, no.

In the era prior to instant telecommunications, ceasefires or even armistices (!!!) were agreed to by warring generals outside of their government consent, and would often be broken by a brush up along the pickets or foraging units, or torn to shreds by their respective governments if it didn't suit their needs.

A prime example is the ceasefire/armistice agreed to independently of Napoleon by his cavalry leader, Joachim Murat, during the pursuit to Vienna, 1805. The armistice, made wholly against Napoleon's intended wishes, allowed those not caught in the noose at Ulm to retreat further East and link up with arriving Russian divisions under Kutozov. Napoleon, upon hearing of this 'ceasefire' was naturally apoplectic and immediately ordered the advance to begin anew with gusto.

This is but one example I can give you out of a myriad of examples ranging from any period of warfare, but I think it will suffice.

EDIT: I'm assuming of course you refer to the constant breaking of ceasefires agreed to by a nation and a 'political party' e.g extremist or fighter group. Again, the political situation is different but the explanations are the same, subordinate leaders acting rashly or authorities not believing the ceasefire is to their favor can explain even modern breaches of ceasefires and neatly establish a link to an earlier era of warfare. The exact playing pieces have changed, but the very essence of the game remains the same.