Notes1 on:

Understanding ‘Conflict’

By:

Dr Syed Adnan Athar Bukhari,

Assistant Professor, DSS
Quaid-i-Azam University,
Islamabad
December 13, 2017
Updated on Feb, 2025.
Introduction

 Disagreement- leading to violence (tool), dispute- volatile situation.

 Even though conflicts are so common throughout human history,

thinking about conflict in theoretical terms only became a recognised
field of scholarship after the World War II.

 Some consider it as ‘an abnormal activity’ yet others consider it

indispensable reality of social life for the development of society.
Constructive conflict: violence. Civil war: Srilanka-LTTE
(1980s-2000s), US Civil War. Transformation of conflicts
Destructive conflicts: Germany, Ottomon, Austria

 Conflicts can occur ranging from intra personal settings to the

international situations.
 In contemporary era, the conflict studies or peace and conflict studies
have gained currency and are now recognised as independent field of
study/ discipline.

 The word “conflict” comes from the Latin word conflictus, which
means collision or clash.
 Defining conflict is matter of debate based on varied societal
arrangements, perceptions and thoughts.
 Conflict is commonly understood as:
o a form of opposition between parties;
o an absence of agreement between parties;
o a way to solve contradictions;
o a natural process.
 Significantly, distinction must be made between conflict and war
(armed conflict involving the use of force) by the nature of concept.
1
These notes have been mainly taken from a report of the Council of Europe, entitled,
Youth Transforming Conflict, edited by Yael Ohana, published in 2012 and from other web
sources. Students are encouraged to consult other recommended readings materials.
 Conflict is based on contradictions/disagreements/opposing views
between the parties involved whereas, war is the negative
consequence of conflict.

Definitions of Conflict:
1. “It is a struggle between opponents over values and claims to
scarce status, power and resources.” Coser (struggle for
ideological domination/power/dominance/ resources: US-SU; India-
Pakistan; North and South Korea; West-Iran; Iran-Saudia; Britain
and Germany; US-China; Israel-Palestine).
2. “It is a perceived divergence of interest, or a belief that the
parties’ current aspirations cannot be achieved
simultaneously.” Pruitt and Rubin
3. “It is the interaction of interdependent people who perceive
incompatible goals and interference from each other in
achieving those goals.” Folger, Poole and Stutman
4. “A disagreement through which the parties involved perceive
a threat to their needs, interests or concerns.” University of
Wisconsin
5. Hugh Miall, Oliver Ramsbotham and Tom Woodhouse define conflict:
“By conflict we mean the pursuit of incompatible goals by
different groups. This suggests a broader span of time and a wider
class of struggle than armed conflict. We intend our usage here to
apply to any political conflict whether it is pursued by peaceful
means or by the use of force. (Some theorists have distinguished
between disputes about negotiable interests that can be settled by
compromise, and more deep-seated conflicts that involve human needs
and can only be resolved by removing underlying causes.).”2
 Within conflict studies, ‘conflict analysis’ is significant.
 It is the systematic framework for gaining a deeper understanding of
the origin and nature of a conflict, by uncovering the core issues at
the root of it, its main actors, and the power they have or do not have
to influence what is happening and influencing the outcome of the
conflict.
 Conflict is an ever-changing process and has varied manifestations.
 Conflict also has temporal factor i.e. the stages of conflict (from
formation to end of conflict), and the steps in the escalation and de-
escalation of a conflict.
o Example: An ideological conflict between the capitalism and
communism started roughly between 1946-57 and ended in
1991 with dissolution of the Soviet Union.

 Conflict analysis identifies the following components of conflict:

2
Hugh Miall, Oliver Ramsbotham and Tom Woodhouse, Contemporary Conflict Resolution,
Fourth Edition (Cambridge: Polity, 2016).
 o What is the nature and type of the conflict? (Intra-state or inter-
state conflict)
o What are different actors involved in a conflict? (communal or
ethnic groups/ states, militant non-state actors)
o What are the reasons for the conflict? (Resource-based,
ideological, political or economic causes)
o What are the causes and consequences of the conflict? (causes
and consequences may be case-specific)
o What is/are the level/s at which the conflict takes place?
(Individual, state, regional or global level).

 Key questions for conflict analysis

o Profile
What is the political, economic, social and cultural
context?
What are emergent political, economic, social or cultural
issues?
Is there a history of conflict?
o Causes
What are the structural causes of the conflict?
What other issues can be considered causes of the
conflict?
What triggers could contribute to the outbreak/further
escalation of the conflict?
What new factors contribute to prolonging the conflict?
What factors can contribute to de-escalation or resolution
of the conflict?
o Actors
Who are the main actors?
What are their interests, goals, positions, capacities and
relationships?
What capacities for compromise and co-operation can be
identified?
What actors can be identified as spoilers? Why? Are they
intentional spoilers?
o Dynamics
How did/might the conflict develop?
What are windows of opportunity?
What scenarios can you imagine for changing the conflict
dynamics?
 Different Methods of Conflict analysis:
o Conflict mapping: This is a visual method to show the
relationships between conflict parties. It provides the
opportunity to identify real and potential allies and opponents.
(Actors involved)
 What are different actors involved in a conflict?
(communal or ethnic groups/ states, militant non-state
actors)
o ABC Triangle: It provides for the identification of three basic
components in conflicts: attitudes, behaviour and
contradiction:

The Conflict Triangle, Galtung J., Peace by Peaceful Means:

Peace and Conflict, Development and Civilization, Sage, London,
1997, p. 72

 Attitudes: This corner of the triangle consists of the

images we have of ourselves and the others involved in
the conflict, and of our thoughts, feelings and desires.
Attitudes also cover our presumptions and subjective
ideas. However, perceptions differ substantially. (India-
Pakistan competitive images).
 Behaviors: These are the actions the conflicting parties
take. They are divided into three categories:
o what is said; (rhetoric)
o what is done; and (any tangible action done): Cuban
blockade
o physical violence.
 Contradictions: The contradiction in a conflict is the core
and cause of the problem. It is the specific issue/(s) about
which the disagreement has taken place. The model
proposes that conflicts are usually about three basic types
of issues: distribution of resources, holding of position,
and claiming for order or rule.
 o Onion of positions, interests and needs: This is a visual
method using the metaphor of the onion for identifying the
positions of conflict parties (Stances of divergent parties) India
claims over Kashmir on the basis of instrument of accession by
Mahraja whereas Pakistan claims Kashmir as a disputed land
and calls for plebiscite based on the UNSC resolutions.
o Tree of Conflict: This is a visual method that likens a conflict to
a tree. The trunk of a tree represents the main problem, the
roots – its main or deeply laid causes, and the leaves – its
consequences (Main problem/Primary cause of conflict, then
secondary causes and then consequences)
o Pyramid of Conflict: Using the image of a pyramid, this
method is used to identify people or groups who have an
interest in the conflict and its eventual perpetuation. The upper
part of the pyramid is made up of people in key positions who
represent the top leadership in the conflict setting. The middle-
range leadership is found at the centre level. The bottom, and
the major part of the pyramid, is reserved for the grass roots,
meaning the largest number of people in the conflict setting.
(From whom the conflict generated to parties involved later).

 Types:
The criteria used for classification vary. Among others, they include:
o the conflict parties;
o the context of the conflict or the areas of social life in which the
conflict take place (for example, political, economic, cultural,
etc.);
o the motivations or needs behind the conflict;
 o the consequences of the conflict;
o the duration of the conflict;
o the intensity of the conflict;
o the absence or presence of violence in the conflict.

The types of conflict can be understood from the following figure:

If the context is taken as a basis for conflict classification, corresponding

conflict types are: political, cultural, ideological, economic, organisational
and so on.
 The motivation and needs criterion produces three main types of
conflict:
o conflicts based on material needs (resources);
o conflicts based on social needs (balance of power between
parties, status roles in a group);
o conflicts based on cultural and spiritual needs (values, ideas,
principles).
 In addition, many twin criteria are used in the classification of
conflicts, such as:
o duration (long-term and short-term);
o intensity (slow and rapid or impetuous);
 o display (manifest and latent, also known as hot/cold and
open/closed);
o consequences (constructive and destructive);
o scale (micro and macro).
 Four types of conflict are identified in which the use of violence
criterion is applied:
o non-violent,
o minor armed,
o major armed and
o war.

 As far as our course is concerned, we will take international/global

conflict for understanding the phenomenon of conflict resolution.
 International/global conflicts: These include conflicts between
nation states, global and regional competition over natural resources,
conflicts in various international organisations over political issues,
armed interventions involving significant loss of life, ethnic or
religious conflicts, wars for self-determination and/or the creation of
new nation states. They are also considered to be macro-level conflicts
 There is a difference between armed conflict and international
conflict. International conflict may not necessarily involve element of
violence i.e. international conflicts can be monetary/economic and/or
political. (US-SU Cold War; US-China Trade War; Britain-Germany
Economic competition before WWI).
Other Terminologies

 Armed conflict is a narrower category denoting conflicts where

parties on both sides resort to the use of force. It is notoriously
difficult to define, since it can encompass a continuum of situations
ranging from a military overflight or an attack on a civilian by a single
soldier to an all-out war with massive casualties. The research
community has identified a number of thresholds and rules for
deciding what to count (See Uppsala Conflict data base for further
categorization).
 Violent conflict or deadly conflict is similar to armed conflict, but
also includes one-sided violence such as genocides against
unarmed civilians (Israel’s genocide against Palestinians in
2023-24). We mean direct, physical violence. We acknowledge the
strong argument in peace research for broadening the concept of
violence to include exploitative social relations that cause
unnecessary suffering, but prefer to use the now well-known term
‘structural violence’ for this.
 By contemporary conflict we refer to the prevailing pattern of
political and violent conflicts in the post-cold war world, and by
contemporary armed conflicts, only those that involve the use of
force (9/11 and US 20 year War against Terrorism, US-Iraq War,
Russian-Ukraine War 2022-24, Israel-Hamas War 2023-24).
 Conflict settlement means the reaching of an agreement
between the parties which enables them to end an armed
conflict (Karachi Agreement, Tashkant Agreement, Simla Agreement
in India-Pak conflicts). It puts to an end the violent stage of conflict
behaviour. This suggests finality, but in practice conflicts that have
reached settlements are often re-opened later. Conflict attitudes
and underlying structural contradictions may not have been
addressed (Mistrust, suspicion, Kashmir issues, Terrorism, etc.).
 Conflict management, like the associated term 'conflict
regulation', is sometimes used as a generic term to cover the whole
gamut of positive conflict handling, but is used here to refer to the
limitation, mitigation and containment of violent conflict.
 Conflict resolution is a more comprehensive term which implies that
the deep-rooted sources of conflict are addressed, and resolved.
This implies that behaviour is no longer violent, attitudes are no
longer hostile, and the structure of the conflict has been
changed. It is difficult to avoid ambiguity since the term is used
to refer both to the process (or the intention) to bring about
these changes, and to the completion of the process. A further
ambiguity is that conflict resolution refers to a particular defined
specialist field (as in 'conflict resolution journals'), as well as to an
activity carried on by people who may or may not use the term or
 even be aware of it (as in 'conflict resolution in Central America').
Nevertheless, these two senses of the term are tending to merge.
 Conflict transformation is a term which for some analysts is a
significant step beyond conflict resolution, but which in our view is a
development of it. It has particular salience in asymmetric
conflicts, where the aim is to transform unjust social
relationships. It is also used in the understanding of peace
processes, where transformation denotes a sequence of necessary
transitional steps. It implies a deep transformation in the parties
and their relationships and in the situation that created the
conflict. We see conflict transformation as the deepest level of
change in the conflict resolution process.
 Negotiation is the process whereby the parties within the conflict
seek to settle or resolve their conflicts.
 Mediation involves the intervention of a third party; it is a
voluntary process in which the parties retain control over the
outcome (pure mediation), although it may include positive and
negative inducements (mediation with muscle).
 Conciliation or facilitation is close in meaning to pure mediation,
and refers to intermediary efforts to encourage the parties to
move towards negotiations, as does the more minimalist role of
providing good offices.
 Problem-solving is a more ambitious undertaking in which conflict
parties are invited to reconceptualise the conflict with a view to
finding creative, win-win outcomes.
 Reconciliation is a longer-term process of overcoming hostility
and mistrust between divided peoples (East and West Berlin-
Fall of Berlin Wall- reintegration/reunification of German
Democratic Republic into Federal Republic of Germany through
a unification treaty of 1990).
 Importantly, the understanding of conflict resolution cannot be
developed if we do not understand the concept of peace.
 So, the question is what is peace?
o Absence of conflict/disagreement at different levels
o Its opposite to conflict
o Absence of war
o Security at broader level.

Peace: Meaning and Concept

“There is no way to peace. Peace is the way.”

Mahatma Gandhi

 Since 1945 the world has only seen 26 days without war.
  Peace can most simply be described as the absence of violence/war.
Originating from the Latin word pax, the term traditionally equaled
absentia belli, which translates into an absence of war.
 Interestingly, the mere absence of war or violence may not entail
peace. (US facing threats from the Russian resurgence and Chinese
rise).
 The Norwegian peace researcher Johan Galtung suggests that the
underlying issues of conflict, namely, the structural conditions
such as the unequal distribution of resources, discrimination
and power imbalances, must be resolved in order to achieve true
peace/ positive peace.
 Jaltung has defined peace into two notions: negative peace (absence
of violence) and positive peace (absence of structural causes leading
to violence).

There are four terms associated with peace i.e.

Peace-making
We use peace-making in the sense of moving towards settlement of
armed conflict, where conflict parties are induced to reach
agreement voluntarily, for example as envisaged in Chapter VI of
the UN Charter on the 'Pacific Settlement of Disputes' (Article
33). (Tashkant agreement 1966 between India and Pakistan)

Peace-keeping
Peace-keeping (traditionally with the consent of the conflict
parties) refers to the interposition of international armed forces to
separate the armed forces of belligerents, often now associated
with civil tasks such as monitoring and policing and supporting
humanitarian intervention. (Examples: United Nations
Organisation Stabilisation Mission in the Democratic Republic of the
Congo (MONUSCO) 2010, United Nations Mission in the Republic of
South Sudan (UNMISS) 2011, United Nations Multidimensional
Integrated Stabilisation Mission in the Central African Republic
(MINUSCA) 2014.

Peace-enforcement
Peace-enforcement is the imposition of a settlement by a
powerful third party.

Peace-building
Peace-building underpins the work of peace-making and peace-
keeping by addressing structural issues and the long-term
relationships between conflictants.
 With reference to the conflict triangle, it can be suggested that
peace-making aims to change the attitudes of the main
protagonists, peace-keeping lowers the level of destructive
behaviour, and peace-building tries to overcome the
contradictions which lie at the root of the conflict (Galtung,
1996, 112).

Finally, it is worth noting that the aim of conflict resolution is not

the elimination of conflict, which would be both impossible.
Rather, the aim of conflict resolution is to transform actually or
potentially violent conflict into peaceful (non-violent) processes
of social and political change. This is an unending task as new
forms and sources of conflict arise.

 ABC Triangle of conflict by Galtung: It provides for the

identification of three basic components in conflicts: attitudes,
behaviour and contradiction:

The Conflict Triangle, Galtung J., Peace by Peaceful Means:

Peace and Conflict, Development and Civilization, Sage, London,
1997, p. 72

 Attitudes: This corner of the triangle consists of the

images we have of ourselves and the others involved in
the conflict, and of our thoughts, feelings and desires.
Attitudes also cover our presumptions and subjective
ideas. However, perceptions differ substantially. (India-
Pakistan competitive images of mutual suspicion and
mistrust).
 Behaviors: These are the actions the conflicting parties
undertake. They are divided into three categories:
o what is said; (rhetoric) / communicate/ statements
o what is done; and (any tangible action done): Cuban
blockade/ Brasstacks/ Iran’s firing of drones and
missiles in Apil 2024 against Israel and
 o Physical violence (actual use of force/ Russian attack
against Ukraine 2022-24, Israel attack against
Hamas and innocent Palestinians)
 Contradictions: The contradiction in a conflict is the
core and cause of the problem. It is the specific issue/(s)
about which the disagreement has taken place. A conflict
model proposes that conflicts are usually about three
basic types of issues: distribution of resources, holding of
position, and claiming for order or rule. (Kashmir issue
from Pak’s and Terrorism from Indian perspective).

Peace-making aims to change the attitudes of the main protagonists,

peace-keeping lowers the level of destructive behaviour, and peace-
building tries to overcome the contradictions which lie at the root of the
conflict (Galtung, 1996, 112).

Domain and Levels of Conflict

 Conflict resolution analysts have traditionally included all levels of
conflict from intrapersonal conflict through to international
conflict, and all stages of conflict escalation and deescalation.
 Our focus will restrict to actual or potentially violent conflicts, ranging
from domestic conflict situations which threaten to become militarised
beyond the capacity of domestic civil police to control, through to full-
scale interstate war.
Five Stages of Conflict:
 The Interdisciplinary Research Program on Causes of Human
Rights Violations (PIOOM) at Leiden University, Netherlands
identifies five 'stages of conflict'.
 (1) 'peaceful stable situations' which are defined as a 'high degree
of political stability and regime legitimacy', and move on to
 (2) 'political tension situations' defined as 'growing levels of
systemic strain and increasing social and political cleavages,
often along factional lines.' (Revelation of the deployment of the
Soviet missiles in Cuba by the US in early October, 1962 that raised
serious concerns and arouse tensions between the US and the SU/ the
revelation of insurgents/militants allegedly backed by Pakistan in
Kargil by India in May 1999).
 (3) 'violent political conflict', tension has escalated to 'political
crisis' in as much as there has been 'an erosion of political
legitimacy of the national government' and/or a 'rising
acceptance of violent factional politics' which is roughly
quantified in terms of the number of people killed in any one calendar
year up to but not including 100 (in 1996 PIOOM listed 74 such
 conflicts). (Takes crises situation between India and Pakistan in cases
of Indian parliament attack crisis 2001-02 and Pulwama crisis 2019).
 (4), 'low-intensity conflict', there is 'open hostility and armed
conflict among factional groups, regime repression and
insurgency' with 100 to 999 people killed in any one year (42
such conflicts listed for 1996). Examples include: (Kargil
conflict 1999, low-intensity conflict between India and Pakistan
between 2013-19 with intermittent firing across India-Pakistan
border, working boundary and line of control).
 (5), 'high-intensity conflict,' there is ‘open warfare among rival
groups and/or mass destruction and displacement of sectors of
the civilian population’ with 1,000 or more people killed (19
such conflicts listed for 1996) (Jongman and Schmid, 1997).
Examples: 1948, 1965 War, 1971 Wars between India and Pakistan,
Russian Ukrainian War, Israel-Hamas war.
 The striking assumption here is that contemporary conflict will be
mainly 'internally' generated and that interstate war of the
classic kind can be virtually ignored (however, the interstates
conflicts are very much part of contemporary conflicts see for instance
Russia-Ukraine war, Doklam conflict, Nagarno-Karabagh conflict
between Armenia and Azerbaijan.
 However, there has been a marked decline in major armed conflict
and war since 1945 statistically (particularly between inter-state
armed conflicts)
 One major trend, however, shows through in almost all accounts, and
that is a decline in the number of interstate wars. Over a longer-term
time-frame, according to Holsti, the number of interstate wars per
year per state has gone down from 0.036 for the period 1918-1941 to
0.005 for the period 1945-1995 (1996, 24).
 But intra-state and asymmetric conflicts has risen diametrically (See
cases of: Boko Haram in Africa, ISIS in Syria and Iraq, Syrian civil
war, Arab Spring, Crimean case 2014, and Lohansk and Dontesk case
2023-24).
 Why there has been a decline in interstate armed conflict?

Major Contemporary Armed Conflicts

 Afghanistan 1978: Rabbani vs Hekmatyar and Taleban vs

Dostum/Masood with 1-2 million deaths
 Bosnia- 1992 Govt. of B-H vs Herzegovina Bosnian Croats (Croatia) vs
Bosnian Serbs (FRY): >100,000 deaths
 Rwanda 1990 Govt. of Rwanda vs Hutu death squads > 800,000
deaths
 Sri Lanka 1983 Sri Lankan govt. vs LTTE (Tamils) > 35,000 deaths
 US-War against Terrorism NATO Vs Al-Qaeda and Talibans
'No-war zones' and 'Zones of war'

 Many commentators agree that, with the ending of the cold war,
regional patterns of conflict have become all the more significant.
There have, therefore, been efforts to compare characteristics of
conflict from region to region. At the heart of such studies lies the
attempt to provide a reliable statistical basis for distinctions such as
those between 'zones of peace' and 'zones of war' (Kacowicz, 1995).
There are many variations here. For example, Holsti (1996, chapter
7), following Deutsch (1954), Jervis (1982), Vayrynen (1984) and
Buzan (1983, 1991), distinguishes 'pluralistic security communities'
in which no serious provisions are made for war between member
states such as North America, the Antipodes, Western Europe; 'zones
of peace' between states such as the Caribbean and the South Pacific;
'no-war zones' such as Southeast Asia and (perhaps) East Asia; and
'zones of war' such as Africa, some former Soviet republics, the
Middle East, Central America, South Asia and the Balkans.

Cost of War

The material and human cost of contemporary violent conflict. Some 28

million people may have been killed in more than 150 major armed conflicts
fought mainly in the Third World since 1945 (IISS, 1997). According to
UNICEF figures, whereas only 5 per cent of the casualties in the First World
War were civilians, by the Second World War the proportion had risen to
50%, while 'as the century ends, the civilian share is normally about 80% -
most of them women and children' (Grant, 1992, 26). Others put the figure
as high as 90% (Lake, 1990, 4). This is a reversion to older types of warfare.
To this must be added UNHCR's estimate of the primary role of vicious
internal conflict in generating 18.2 million refugees and 24 million
internally displaced people in 1993 (Ogata, 1993, iii). In African countries
like Angola, Eritrea, Liberia, Mozambique, Rwanda, Somalia and Sudan, up
to half or more of the total population have been forced to flee at some
point. All of this is compounded by the length of time that certain classes of
conflict last - in some cases an average of 25 years (Gurr, 1995, 52). Whole
generations have no other experience than war. The resultant size of the
cumulative death toll is difficult to comprehend (see the figures under
'deaths' in
41
Box 14), while the overall tally of material destruction, psychological
suffering and human misery - what Michael Cranna calls 'the true cost of
conflict' (1995) - dwarfs any gains by particular conflict parties. This
provides the main impetus for the central aim of conflict resolution as
outlined in the previous section: to find alternative non-violent ways of
achieving structural and political goals.

International Efforts
 In the nineteenth century attempts were made to construct more
formal restraints on war, for example through the Congress system
and the Concert of Europe. In the twentieth century, in the aftermath
of the two world wars, these attempts were further systematised
through the League of Nations and the United Nations. Since 1945
under Chapter VI of its charter the United Nations has been provided
with a set of techniques which it can use in order to secure the
peaceful settlement of disputes, including fact-finding, good offices,
conciliation, mediation and negotiation. Under Chapter VII of the
charter, the Security Council was given power to use coercion and
armed force if necessary to maintain or restore international peace
and security.
 Under Chapter VIII of the charter regional organisations were
encouraged to play an active role in furthering its aims.
 Three Types of Orgs in Conflict Resolution
 Apart from states, three main types of agent now play an enhanced
role in the resolution of contemporary conflict: the United Nations,
regional organizations, and non-governmental organizations. Each
has strengths and weaknesses.
 The UN
 The United Nations and its agencies remain central to the
international community’s response to conflict. During the Cold War,
the overall effectiveness of the UN in managing settling international
disputes was mixed. The UN did, however, become a prime
instrument through which the international community attempted to
defuse crises and de-escalate disputes, arrange ceasefires, organize
peacekeeping, facilitate elections and monitor disengagement and
demilitarisation. It has an acknowledged corpus of knowledge and
experience in these fields. With the end of the Cold War, it was hoped
that the UN would for the first time be able to take up the role that
was intended for it. In practice the post-cold war experience, too, has
been mixed, with notable successes (Namibia, Cambodia, El Salvador,
Mozambique) alongside dismal failures (Somalia, Bosnia, Rwanda).
 Where parties have consented to a UN mandate and have wished to
settle, and where adequate finances and personnel have been
available, mandates have been clear and chains of command and
communication have been straightforward, the UN has been able to
play a remarkable and useful role; but when the parties have been
unwilling to accept a UN role, the UN has not been able to impose
settlements.
 In his ambitious Agenda for Peace, the UN Secretary General Boutros
Boutros-Ghali proposed that the UN should be involved in peace-
 keeping, peace-making and peace-building, from the earliest stage of
conflict prevention to the stage of post-conflict reconstruction. He
was forced to retract some of his proposals, notably his advocacy of
coercive peacemaking, one year later. Nevertheless, the scope of UN
action has certainly enlarged. It now ranges from conflict prevention,
peacekeeping and humanitarian action as well as crisis management
in warzones, conflict settlements to post-settlement peace-building.
 The principal agency of the UN is the office of the Secretary-General,
and his political arm, the Department of Political Affairs. The
Department of Peacekeeping Operations oversees the political and
operational side of peacekeeping. The Secretary General is assisted
by Special Representatives and Envoys, who frequently play an
important role in the UN’s practical conflict resolution activities.
 In addition, the UN is equipped with procedures and agencies in the
humanitarian and human rights fields which are now seen to be
increasingly relevant to conflict resolution. When it comes to the use
of coercion or force in responding to threats to international peace
and security, there are the Chapter VII powers available to the
Security Council.
 For all its weaknesses, the UN remains the 'only existing framework
for building the institutions of a global society' (Ogata and Volcker,
1993) and is thus the only institutional expression of the international
community in its conflict resolution capacity.
 Regional Organisations
 Regional organizations make up the second tier of external agents in
contemporary conflict resolution.
 They have developed widely varying mandates, which reflect the very
different characteristics and historical experience of states in the
different regions.
 Europe: The members of the Organization for Security and
Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) have gone farthest in accepting a
role for their regional organization in reviewing the human rights and
security practices of member states. They have accepted a common
set of wide-ranging norms affecting the human dimension, and have
created new institutions for conflict management (including the High
Commissioner on National Minorities, the Long Term Missions, the
Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights). Within Europe,
other regional organizations such as NATO, the Council of Europe,
and of course the European Union also play significant roles in
conflict management.
 The Organization of African Unity (OAU) was established in 1963
with the aim of preserving the territorial independence and sovereign
equality of the post-colonial African states. in 1993 it set up the OAU
Mechanism for Conflict Prevention, Management and Resolution
(MCPMR) to provide assistance to states affected by war. In practice
the most important interventions in Africa have generally been taken
 by leaders from neighbouring states (at sub-regional levels). Other
bodies with relevant roles include the Economic Community of West
African States (ECOWAS) which has had a role in dispute resolution
in West Africa, and the South African Development Community
(SADC) which has agreed a regional peacekeeping role. The
Commonwealth also plays a significant role in certain cases.
 The Organization of American States (OAS) also operates a norm
of non-interference in internal affairs. However, the member states
undertook to act against violations of democracy, through the
Santiago Commitment (1991), and have promoted conflict resolution
in partnership with the UN.
 The Association of Southeast Asian States (ASEAN) has been
concerned to avoid involvement in member states’ internal affairs;
indeed one of its main functions has been to regulate inter-state
disputes between the members lest they spill over into internal
challenges to regimes. The ASEAN Regional Forum has developed as
a means for building consensus over security challenges in the
region.
 Middle East and South Asia lack conflict resolution orgs
 One region which strikingly lacks a comprehensive organization is the
Middle East, where the Arab League and the Gulf Cooperation
Council represent the interests of their members, but no regional
organization spans the region’s political fault lines. South Asia also
lacks a forum similar to those mentioned above.
 NGOs
 Humanitarian agencies and non-governmental agencies play a larger
role in conflict resolution and peace-making. Agencies such as the
International Committee of the Red Cross have taken on an enhanced
profile in internal conflicts. Non-governmental organizations have
also become more important. The number of NGOs involved with
conflict resolution increased rapidly in the 1980s, as development
agencies, aid donors and governments became willing to fund their
activities. The European Centre for Conflict Prevention lists more
than 500 organizations which define themselves as being concerned
in some way with conflict prevention and management. ACCORD in
South Africa and CECORE in Uganda) are indigenous conflict
resolution organizations.
Stages of Armed Conflict

 When thinking about how conflicts operate (namely, how they escalate
and de-escalate), often the first thing that comes to mind is war
between countries or urban violence.
 However, a war is not a conflict, neither is the violence.
 Conflict is the ‘cause’ and not the effect. Effect/Consequence of a
conflict may turn into eruption of violence/war.
 According to the Uppsala University Conflict Database, an
internationally recognised tool that annually collects data on armed
conflicts,
“an armed conflict is … a contested incompatibility that
concerns government and/or territory where the use of armed
force between two parties, of which at least one is the
government of a state, results in at least 25 battle-related
deaths in one calendar year.”
 In armed conflicts, three chronologically ordered stages can be
identified. The stages are: pre-conflict, during-conflict and post-
conflict. In most international/global conflicts, interventions take
place during conflict. However, intervention may also take place in
the pre-conflict and post-conflict stages.
 Usually, interventions take place during the conflict in
international conflicts however; practice has shown the value of
intervention in the pre- and post-conflict phases.
Pre-Conflict
 Danger of violence always looms over conflicting parties.
 This phase can display every kind of conflict behaviour, from hostile
attitudes and prejudices towards certain groups to shootings by a
militia or brief skirmishes between rival gangs. The violence escalates
and de-escalates alternately.
 This stage is also known as negative peace: there may be an absence
of direct violence, but both structural and cultural violence are
present.
 The approach to intervention used at this stage is referred to as
‘Conflict Prevention’.
During Conflict
 At the peak of the conflict, known as the during-conflict phase,
violence takes place at its most intense form, and people on all sides
are being killed. Communications between the sides are disrupted.
 In the field of international relations and strategic studies, this phase
is also described as “armed conflict.”
 For example, a minor armed conflict is defined by at least 25, but
fewer than 1 000 battle-related deaths in a year. A major armed
conflict has the same number of annual deaths and in total, at
least 1 000 people killed in the conflict overall. So, in one year,
if one party/state loses at least 25 deaths and maximum 1000
 deaths, it will be considered an armed conflict. Example: Kargil
conflict 1999 between India and Pakistan.
 “War” refers to when at least 1,000 battle-related deaths have
occurred in a year
 One way or another, the crisis/armed conflict/war must come to
an end, because escalation cannot continue indefinitely.
 Internal or external actors play their role for ending a conflict.
Interventions can take the form of negotiations, mediation, boycotts
or even military strikes.
 The approach to intervention used at this stage is referred to as
‘Conflict Management’.

Post-conflict
 When the violence has come to an end, and an agreement has been
reached, the tension decreases and relationships can be re-
established between the parties. However, considerable work still
needs to be done. Resolving the major cause/s of conflict in this stage
would be conflict resolution whereas after conflict resolution, efforts
to achieve positive peace (a situation of justice and an improvement in
living conditions) would be conflict transformation.
 It is important to work on reintegration and the rebuilding of trust to
avoid the recurrence of violence. Peace-building efforts work to repair
damaged relationships with the long-term goal of reconciliation
between former conflicting parties.
 Two approaches of intervention may be employed at this stage i.e.
‘Conflict Resolution/ Conflict Tranformation.’
 Intervention in Conflicts

 Conflicts are always present in human settings. Whether we like it or

not, conflicts are an integral part of everyday life. Just as a room
needs to be cleaned regularly to prevent it from becoming dusty,
conflicts need to be worked on all the time.
 If intervention does not happen, there is a substantial risk that
conflicts will deepen, intensify and escalate.
 Therefore, there has been an increasing need for ‘intervention’ in the
conflict to prevent, manage and resolve it. Intervention has both
positive and negative consequences. Therefore, it needs delicate
handling.
 There are two main ways of looking at conflict, or paradigms,
representing two generations of thinking about conflict:
 Power paradigm (First Generation): Conflict is negative and,
therefore, that it should be prevented, or, if that is not possible,
resolved. Conflict takes place because of the competitive and
aggressive nature of human society. Power relations determine who
wins and who loses in this view.
 The Co-operation paradigm (Second Generation): It considers
conflict neither positively nor negatively, but acknowledges that its
consequences can be negative and/or positive. Conflicts are seen as
stemming from unfulfilled needs and an uneven distribution of
advantages. It proposes that conflicts can be managed to avoid
negative consequences, and transformed into positive opportunities
for development and growth for all the parties concerned through co-
operation.

Approaches to deal with Conflicts:

 There are four approaches commonly used in dealing with conflict:
1. Conflict Prevention
2. Conflict Management,
3. Conflict Resolution, and,
4. Conflict Transformation.

Conflict Prevention
 Conflict prevention is based on the assumption that conflicts are
violent and negative. Because they are negative, conflicts should be
avoided and prevented from taking place.
 In general, conflict prevention includes:
 steps for the careful monitoring of potentially violent disputes,
 the establishment of early warning mechanisms,
 using planned co-ordination to prevent conflict, and
 the institutionalisation of prevention mechanisms at the local,
regional and international levels.
 Active measures to prevent conflicts can be divided into two types.
 1. The first is aimed at preventing situations with a clear capacity
for conflict escalation. This is called “light prevention”.
Practitioners of conflict prevention are not necessarily
concerned with the root cause of the conflict. Their primary aim
is to prevent latent or cold conflicts from escalating into
violence.
2. The second type is called “deep prevention” and aims at
addressing the root causes of the conflict, including underlying
conflicts of interest or perceived incompatibilities in needs. It
can involve measures for dealing with an immediate crisis
(operational prevention) or measures taken before the conflict
escalates (structural prevention).
 Conflict prevention requires complex strategies: one-dimensional fixes
rarely work. It requires political will, strong leadership, resources,
and international co-operation, as well as effective institutional
structures.
 Conflict prevention is probably not a very accurate way of describing
this approach. Conflicts exist and are unavoidable. As there is a
potential of the destructive escalation of conflicts leading to physical
and psychological violence that should be prevented, “violence
prevention” is probably a more fitting term. However, we can assume
conflict prevention and violence prevention interchangeably.
 Examples:
 Macedonian Case 1995-99:
The United Nations Preventive Deployment Force (UNPREDEP) was
established on 31 March 1995 in Security Council Resolution 983 to replace
the United Nations Protection Force (UNPROFOR) in the Republic of
Macedonia. The mandate of UNPREDEP remained essentially the same: to
monitor and report any developments in the border areas which could
undermine confidence and stability in the country and threaten its territory.
It is widely considered to be an instance of a successful deployment of UN
peacekeeping forces in the prevention of conflict and violence against
civilians.

 Cuban Missile Crisis 1962

 Iran’s Nuclear Program and Conflict Prevention 2000-2015

 See if Libyan intervention 2011 and Iraq War 2003 comes under
conflict prevention or management.

Conflict Management
 Conflict management is based on the idea that the way in which we
manage a conflict may be negative or positive.
  Conflicts are neutral per se but their course and consequences are
determined by the actions of the parties, which can be negative and
destructive, or positive and productive.
 Conflict management involves taking action to keep a conflict from
escalating further. It does not necessarily aim at addressing the deep-
rooted and long-term issues that underlie the conflict.
 Conflict management implies the ability to control the intensity of a
conflict and, as a result, its effects through various methods such as
intervention, negotiation and traditional diplomatic efforts, as well as
institutional mechanisms.
 Mitigating the effects of escalation of a conflict rather than resolving
it.
 From this perspective, management could take the form of military
intervention to stop suspected genocide (in other words, it could
involve violence) as much as it can take the form of long-term
dialogue projects at the grass-roots level.
 Examples: UN peacekeeping missions in Cyprus, the Democratic
Republic of the Congo, and South Sudan; Arms Control efforts include
Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT) and the
Conventional Forces in Europe Treaty.

Conflict Resolution
 The aim of conflict resolution is to completely resolve the conflict so
that all the needs of the parties are met and the conflict disappears. In
order to do this, the behaviour, the conflicts of interest and the
underlying issues must all be addressed in depth, at the same time as
searching for a mutually satisfactory solution using a process that is
may be acceptable to all concerned.
 This approach assumes that the parties are willing to resolve the
conflict in a mutually acceptable way.
 It cannot, therefore, be applied to conflicts where any one party may
choose to exercise legal authority and/or force, rather than
negotiation, to overrule the other party.
 By its term, ‘conflict resolution’ it implies resolution or resolving of a
conflict.
It is important to explore if the conflict resolution takes place as a result of
negotiation or the use of threat, economic sanctions and even military
operation can be used to resolve a conflict?

 It is important to note that conflict resolution may be pacific (through

peaceful means) and coercive through either through short of war
such as blockade, retorison (cutting off diplomatic ties).

Conflict may result into different outcomes such as ‘avoidance,’ ‘conquest of

one party over the other’, ‘submission through deterrence (get into demand
of the opponent to avoid unnecessary/unavoidable damage), a compromise
through certain give & take and award by a mediator.

Conflict Transformation
 Conflict transformation aims at shifting how individuals and
communities see their differences away from win-lose (adversarial)
approaches towards win-win (collaborative) problem solving.
 Conflict is seen as a never-ending process, because the nature and
manifestations of conflict are ever changing. Hence, conflict
transformation engages with the conflict and its actors on multiple
levels over the long term in order to develop understanding and skills
that empower everyone involved to coexist peacefully.
 Overcoming fear and distrust, addressing stereotypes, deeply held
assumptions, false perceptions and learning how to communicate
effectively are important ingredients in redefining the relationships
amongst the parties in the conflict, contributing to the establishment
of justice and equality.
 Reference to conflict transformation has become increasingly popular
since the late 1990s. For some, it represents resolution at the deepest
level. For others, it is a significant step beyond even the resolution of
the conflict, as it reflects a more profound understanding of the
nature of conflict than any other approach, and works towards
sustainable positive peace on a permanent basis over the long term.
 The European integration model can be described as an example of
conflict transformation.
 Conflict Resolution

 The aim of conflict resolution is to resolve the conflict so that all the
needs of the parties are met and the conflict disappears. In order to
do this, the behaviour, the conflicts of interest and the underlying
issues must all be addressed in depth, at the same time as searching
for a mutually satisfactory solution using a process that is acceptable
to all concerned.
 To be effective, all needs must be met. This approach assumes that
the parties are willing to resolve the conflict in a mutually acceptable
way.
 It cannot, therefore, be applied to conflicts where any one party may
choose to exercise legal authority and/or force, rather than
negotiation, to overrule the other party.
 By its term, ‘conflict resolution’ it implies resolution or resolving of a
conflict in amicable way.
 Evolution of Conflict Resolution
 Conflict resolution as a specialist field has emerged in the post-Cold
war era.3
 However, its evolution can be traced back to in the 1950s and 1960s,
at the height of the Cold War, when the development of nuclear
weapons and the conflict between the superpowers seemed to
threaten human survival.
 A handful of people in North America and Europe began to establish
research groups to develop these new ideas. They were not taken very
seriously. Nevertheless, the new ideas attracted interest, and the field
began to grow and spread. Scholarly journals in conflict resolution
were created. Institutions to study the field were established, and
their number rapidly increased. The field developed its own
subdivisions, with different groups studying international crises,
internal wars, social conflicts and approaches ranging from
negotiations and mediation to experimental games.4
 By the 1980s, conflict resolution ideas were increasingly
making a difference in real conflicts. In South Africa, for example,
the Centre for Intergroup Studies was applying the approaches
that had developed in the field to the developing confrontation
between apartheid and its challengers, with impressive results. In
the Middle East, a peace process was getting under way in which
negotiators on both sides had gained experience of understanding
each other and of conflict resolution through problem-solving
workshops. In Northern Ireland, groups inspired by the new
approach had set up community relations initiatives that were not

3
Hugh Miall, Oliver Ramsbotham and Tom Woodhouse, Contemporary Conflict Resolution,
Fourth Edition (Cambridge: Polity, 2016).
4
Ibid.
 only reaching across community divides but were also becoming an
accepted responsibility of local government.5
 By the closing years of the Cold War, the climate for conflict
resolution was changing radically. With relations between the
superpowers improving, the ideological and military competition that
had fuelled many regional conflicts was fading away. Protracted
regional conflicts in southern Africa, Central America, and East
Asia moved towards settlements. It seemed that the UN could
return to play the role its founders expected.
 The dissolution of the Soviet Union brought to a close the long period
in which a single international conflict dominated the international
system. Instead, internal conflicts, ethnic conflicts, conflicts over
secession, power struggles within countries, became the norm.
 The conflict studies now focused more on fragmentation and
breakdown of state structures, economies and whole societies
than competition between different centers of power.
 In this new climate, the attention of scholars of international relations
and comparative politics turned to exactly the type of conflict that had
preoccupied the conflict resolution thinkers for many years.
 A richer cross-fertilisation of ideas developed between conflict
resolution and these traditional fields. At the same time, practitioners
from various backgrounds were attracted to conflict resolution.
International statesmen began to use the language,
international organizations set up Conflict Resolution
Mechanisms and Conflict Prevention Centres. A former President
of the United States, Jimmy Carter, became one of the most active
leaders of a conflict resolution NGO.
 Interestingly, how to achieve a 'peaceful settlement of
disputes?' between states was a major theme within the
international relations and strategic studies literature and had
always been part of the stock-in-trade of international
diplomacy.
 Critiques: Conflict resolution had always been controversial and thus
drew criticism as well. On the one hand, realists saw conflict
resolution as soft-headed and unrealistic, since in their view
international politics is a struggle between antagonistic and
irreconcilable groups, in which power and coercion was the only
ultimate currency. Might not lasting peace more often result
from decisive military victory than from negotiated settlement?
And might not third party intervention merely prolong the
misery?
 From a different angle, neo-Marxists and radical thinkers from
development studies saw the whole conflict resolution enterprise
as misconceived, since it attempted to reconcile interests that

5
Ibid.
 should not be reconciled, failed to take sides in unequal and
unjust struggles, and lacked an analysis within a properly
global perspective of the forces of exploitation and oppression.
 Others argue if methods developed within a western setting
could overcome their cultural boundaries and offer useful tools
in very different cultures and political systems. They also
questioned whether the models of conflict resolution that have
developed during the Cold War still have application to post-cold war
conflicts particularly in contemporary situations of neo-medieval
struggles between warlords, drug barons, mercenaries and militias
who benefit from war and have found it their only means of making a
living, what value will be efforts to resolve conflicts between them
peacefully?
 The authors believe that societies with institutions, rules or
norms for managing conflict and well-established traditions of
governance, are generally better able to accommodate
peacefully to change; those with weaker governance, fragile social
bonds and little consensus on values or traditions are more likely to
buckle.6

Conflict Resolution
 First we briefly introduce some of the classical ideas that have shaped
conflict resolution thinking and practice and are still foundations of
the field.
Classical Ideas
 Miall, Ramsbotham and Woodhouse view conflict as:
“Conflict is an intrinsic and inevitable aspect of social
change. It is an expression of the heterogenity of interests,
values and beliefs that arise as new formations generated by
social change come up against inherited constraints.”7
 But the way we deal with conflict is a matter of habit and choice. It is
possible to change habitual responses and exercise intelligent
choices.
 Conflict Approaches
 One typical habit in conflict is to give very high priority to defending
ones own interests. If Cain’s interests clash with Abel’s, Cain is
inclined to ignore Abel’s interests or actively to damage them.
Leaders of nations are expected to defend the national interest
and to defeat the interests of others if they come into conflict.
 But this is not the only possible response.
 Box 1 illustrates five approaches to conflict, distinguished by
whether concern for Self and concern for Other is high or low. Cain
has high concern for Self and low concern for Other: this is a

6
Ibid.
7
Ibid.
 ‘contending’ style. Another alternative is to yield: this implies more
concern for the interests of Other than Self. Another is to avoid
conflict and withdraw: this suggests low concern for both Self and
Other. Another is to balance concern for the interests of Self and
Other, leading to a search for accommodation and compromise. And
there is a fifth alternative, seen by many in the conflict resolution field
as the one to be recommended where possible - high regard for the
interests both of Self and Other. This implies strong assertion of one's
own interest, but equal awareness of the aspirations and needs of the
other, generating energy to search for a creative 'problem-solving'
outcome.
 Outcomes of Conflict: Win-lose, lose-lose, win-win outcomes
 What happens when the conflict approaches of two parties are
considered together? Parties to conflicts are usually inclined to see
their interests as diametrically opposed. The possible outcomes are
seen to be win-lose (one wins, the other loses) or compromise
(they split their difference). But there is a much more common
outcome in violent conflicts: both lose (mutual assured
destruction). If neither is able to impose an outcome or is prepared
to compromise, the conflictants may impose such massive costs on
each other that all of the parties end up worse off than they would
have been had another strategy been adopted. In conflict resolution
analysis this is found to be a much more common outcome than is
generally supposed. When this becomes clear to the parties
(often regrettably late in the day), there is a strong motive
based on self-interest for moving towards other outcomes, such
as compromise or 'win-win' (see Japanese surrender at the end
of the WWII and cooperating with the US and Egyptians losing
from Israel and making friendship thereafter). The spectrum of
such outcomes may well be wider than conflictants suppose.
 Traditionally, the task of conflict resolution has been seen as helping
parties who perceive their situation as zero-sumi (Self’s gain is
Other’s loss) to re-perceive it as a nonzero-sum conflict (in which
both may gain or both may lose), and then to assist parties to move in
the positive sum direction.

Positions, Interests and Needs

 How can the parties reframe their positions if they are diametrically
opposed, as they often are? One of the classical ideas in conflict
resolution is to distinguish between the positions held by the
parties and their underlying interests and needs. For example,
two neighbours quarrel over a tree. Each neighbour claims that
the tree is on his land. No compromise is possible: the tree
cannot be sawn in half. But it turns out that the interest of one
neighbour is in using the fruit of the tree, and the interest of
the other is in having the shade. So the interests are not
 irreconcilable after all. Interests are also often easier to reconcile
than positions, since there are usually several positions that might
satisfy them. Matters may be more difficult if the conflict is over
values (which are often non-negotiable) or relationships, which may
need to be changed to resolve the conflict, although the same
principle of looking for a deeper level of compatible underlying
motives applies. Some analysts take this to the limit by identifying
basic human needs (for example, identity, security, survival) as lying
at the roots of other motives. Intractable conflicts are seen to result
from the denial of such needs, and conflict can only be resolved when
such needs are satisfied.
 Third Party Intervention
 Where two parties are reacting to one another’s actions, it is easy for
a spiral of hostility and escalation to develop through positive
feedback. The entry of the third party changes the conflict structure
and allows a different pattern of communications, enabling the third
party to filter or reflect back the messages, attitudes and behaviour of
the conflictants. (Exp: the US brokering peace between India and
Pakistan in 1999, 2001-02 border stand-off and 2008 Mumbai attack
crisis: see Moeed Yusuf’s Brokering Peace)
 Three faces of Power: Hard Power, Exchange Power and
Integrative Power
 The term ‘power’ is ambiguous. On the one hand it means the power
to command, order, enforce—coercive or ‘hard’ power. On the other
it means the power to induce co-operation, to legimitimise, to inspire -
persuasive or ‘soft power’. Hard power has always been important in
violent conflict, but soft power may be more important in conflicts
managed peacefully. Kenneth Boulding (1989) calls the former 'threat
power' ('do what I want or I will do what you don't want').
 He then further distinguishes between two forms of soft power:
'exchange power', associated with bargaining and the compromising
approach ('do what I want and I will do what you want'), and
'integrative power' associated with persuasion and transformative
long-term problem-solving ('together we can do something that is
better for both of us'). Conflict resolvers try to shift emphasis away
from the use of threat power and towards the use of exchange and
integrative power.
 Third parties like politicians and governments may use all these forms
of power. In terms of third party intervention, it is helpful to
distinguish between powerful mediators, or ‘mediators with muscle’,
who bring their power resources to bear, and powerless mediators,
whose role is confined to communication and facilitation. ‘Track I’
diplomacy involves official governmental or intergovernmental
representatives, who may use good offices, mediation, and sticks and
carrots to seek or force an outcome, typically along the win-lose or
‘bargaining’ line. ‘Track II’ diplomacy in contrast involves unofficial
 mediators who do not have carrots or sticks. They work with the
parties or their constituencies to facilitate agreements, encouraging
the parties to see their predicament as lying along the lose-lose to
win-win line (between points 0, 3 and 4) and to find mutually
satisfactory outcomes.
 Symmetric and asymmetric conflicts
 So far we have been considering conflicts of interest between
relatively similar parties. These are examples of symmetric conflicts.
Conflict may also arise between dissimilar parties such as between a
majority and a minority, an established government and a group of
rebels, a master and his servant, an employer and her employees, a
publisher and his authors. These are asymmetric conflicts.
 Examples: Israel-Palestinians / Israel-Houthis/ Israel-Hezbollah; Govt
of Pakistan-TTP, Govt of Pak-BLA, Govt of Srilanka- LTTE, Govt of
India-Khalistan
 A diagram adapted from Adam Curle (1971), Box 7, illustrates how the
passage from unpeaceful to peaceful relationships may involve a
temporary increase in overt conflict as people become aware of
imbalances of power and injustice affecting them (stage 1, education
or 'conscientization'), organize themselves and articulate their
grievances (stage 2, confrontation), come to terms in a more equal
way with those who held a preponderance of power over them (stage
3, negotiation), and finally join in restructuring a more equitable and
just relationship (stage 4, resolution). There are many ways in which
this can be approached without using coercion. There is the Gandhian
tactic of 'speaking truth to power', influencing and persuading the
power-holders. Then there are the tactics of mobilising popular
movements, increasing solidarity, making demonstrations of resolve,
establishing a demand for change. Raising awareness of the conflict
among those who are external or internal supporters of the top-dog
may start to weaken the regime (as did for example the opponents of
apartheid in South Africa). The unequal power structure is
unbalanced; it is held up by props of various kinds; removing the
props may make the unbalanced structure collapse. Another tactic is
to strengthen and empower the under-dogs.
 Thirty years ago Johan Galtung (1969; 1996, 72) proposed an
influential model of conflict, that encompasses both symmetric and
asymmetric conflicts. He suggested that conflict could be viewed as a
triangle, with contradiction (C), attitude (A) and behaviour (B) at its
vertices (Box 8). Here the contradiction refers to the underlying
conflict situation, which includes the actual or perceived
'incompatibility of goals' between the conflict parties generated by
what Chris Mitchell calls a 'mis-match between social values and
social structure'. In a symmetric conflict, the contradiction is defined
by the parties, their interests, and the clash of interests between
them. In an asymmetric conflict, it is defined by the parties, their
 relationship and the conflict of interests inherent in the relationship.
Attitude includes the parties’ perceptions and misperceptions of each
other and of themselves. These can be positive or negative but in
violent conflicts parties tend to develop demeaning stereotypes of the
other, and attitudes are often influenced by emotions such as as fear,
anger, bitterness and hatred. 'Attitude' includes emotive (feeling),
cognitive (belief) and conative (will) elements. Analysts who
emphasise these 'subjective' aspects are said to have an 'expressive'
view of the sources of conflict. Behaviour is the third component. It
can include cooperation or coercion, gestures signifying conciliation
or hostility. Violent conflict behaviour is characterised by threats,
coercion and destructive attacks. Analysts who emphasise 'objective'
aspects such as structural relationships, competing material interests
or behaviours are said to have an 'instrumental' view of the sources of
[Link]
 Galtung argues that all three components have to be present together
in a full conflict. A conflict structure without conflictual attitudes or
behaviour is a latent (or ‘structural') conflict. Galtung sees conflict as
a dynamic process in which structure, attitudes and behaviour are
constantly changing and influencing one another. As a conflict
emerges, it becomes a conflict formation as parties’ interests come
into conflict or the relationship they are in becomes oppressive.
Conflict parties then organize around this structure, to pursue their
interests. They develop hostile attitudes and conflictual behaviour.
And so the conflict formation starts to grow and develop. As it does so,
it may widen, drawing in other parties, deepen, and spread,
generating secondary conflicts within the main parties or among
outsiders who get sucked in. This often considerably complicates the
task of addressing the original, core conflict. Eventually however,
resolving the conflict must involve a set of dynamic changes that
involve de-esclation of conflict behaviour, change in attitudes, and
transforming the relationships or clashing interests that are at the
core of the conflict structure.
 A related idea due to Galtung (1981) is the distinction between direct
violence (children are murdered), structural violence (children die
through poverty) and cultural violence (whatever blinds us to this or
seeks to justify it). We end direct violence by changing conflict
behaviours, structural violence by removing structural contradictions
and injustices, and cultural violence by changing attitudes.
 Post-Cold War conflict
 New developments in conflict resolution theory and practice
 A new pattern of conflicts is prevailing in the post-Cold War period,
which is evoking a new pattern of responses. The main focus used to
be on international wars, now it is on internal conflicts. Much of the
theory of conflict resolution developed in response to symmetric
conflicts, now asymmetric conflicts are dominant. International wars
 have typically been Clausewitzian affairs, fought out by power centres
which use organized force directed against enemy forces in order to
break the opponent’s will to continue. Now, many post-Cold War
conflicts are post-Clausewitzian, involving fragmented decision-
making and disorganized forces directed against civilian populations.
International conflicts were conducted between sovereign states;
internal conflicts reflect breakdowns in states.

Find and Differentiate between the following terms:

1. Crisis

Unstable situation

Abnormal order

2. Conflict
3. Peace
4. Conflict Prevention
5. Conflict Management
6. Conflict Resolution
7. War
8. Peacekeeping
9. Peacemaking
10. Peace building

The Camp David Accords of 1978