Basic Concepts of International Conflict Resolution

Conflict resolution is one of the most important modern social sciences that employs peaceful means and methods to assist individuals and groups in resolving and managing their disputes amicably. The field of conflict resolution consists of various intellectual schools, each differing in its orientations and views; some draw from psychology, while others stem from political science, law, education, and other disciplines. Though relatively modern, the study of conflict resolution is continuously evolving and adapting to international and local changes. This growth has involved various countries, with numerous organizations and specialists contributing to the development of this field by organizing seminars, lectures, and workshops to train individuals in conflict resolution and prepare trainers in this area.

Recently, social theories have emerged suggesting that destructive conflicts are not inevitable nor an inherent trait of human nature that cannot be managed. By applying various methods—many of which are already in practice in numerous daily conflicts, like family disputes—effective management of these conflicts can lead to satisfactory outcomes. Thus, the field of conflict resolution has arisen, garnering increasing interest in mediation, negotiation, and facilitation of problem-solving as alternatives for conflict resolution. Consequently, if these methods prove effective and enhance the process of addressing conflicts, there will likely be rational analyses of the reasons behind developing new tools for conflict resolution.

The primary application of conflict resolution lies in its relevance to individuals and communities emerging from wars and disputes seeking methods to restore unity among themselves, as well as in assisting parties in conflict that have reached an impasse to identify the causes of the disputes and engage in peaceful dialogues based on mutual respect, recognition of shared interests, and the establishment of constructive, cooperative relationships.

The philosophy of conflict resolution relies on the necessity to find common ground among different parties. It also hinges on the conviction of the need to seek peaceful solutions to conflicts that encourage cooperation and focus on building healthy relationships between parties. The study of conflict resolution is divided into several specializations centering on mediation among disputing parties, conflict analysis, direct negotiation, or dialogue management, among others.

The development of conflict resolution activities and their organization within institutions has led to some level of agreement among those working in this field. However, a significant number of conflicts targeted by conflict resolution efforts, along with the wide array of sources of conflict resolution ideas, makes a global consensus on the principles and techniques of conflict resolution unlikely.

Approaches to Conflict Resolution

How one understands the roots of conflict causation will largely determine the preferred theories and practices for resolving disputes. In this context, Kevin Avruch provides two definitions highlighting different root causes of conflict:

“Conflict…a struggle over values, power, or limited resources; or a struggle where the goals of the disputants are in equilibrium or opposition.” “Conflict means a perceived contradiction in interests; or a belief that the current aspirations of both parties cannot be realized simultaneously.”

These definitions suggest the existence of two fundamental approaches to conflict and thus to conflict resolution. The first definition emphasizes the idea of resource scarcity concerning the causes of conflict and places focus on the consequences of disputes: conflict inevitably involving the use of violence. Conversely, the second definition highlights beliefs, interpretations, and differing perceptions of these beliefs, suggesting the possibility of dialogue and negotiation.

Conflict resolution seems quite different depending on which definition of conflict is adopted. By combining the above definitions, one could argue that conflict arises when two or more parties find themselves divided over opposing interests or goals or competing for control over limited resources. This inclusive definition of conflict directly assumes the presence of three strategies for conflict resolution:

First, if conflict is a distinctive feature of the social relationship between the parties, one or both may sever the relationship and consequently end the conflict. Second, if conflict arises from opposing values or beliefs of the parties or due to resource limitations, it may be possible to demonstrate the invalidity of these values or beliefs (for instance, by proving that both parties actually share interests or goals but cannot identify them for some reason) or to prove that resources are indeed not limited. Finally, because it’s not always simple to sever all social relations or to prove the invalidity of all beliefs in the presence of conflicting values or scarcity of resources, the parties may move towards resolving their dispute through a type of contention described by some as a struggle where one party seeks to eliminate or dominate the other party and thereby gain control over the limited resources.

The question arises whether all these strategies are considered facets of “conflict resolution.” Does avoiding conflict by severing relations with the other party or completely yielding to their demands represent the same resolution achieved through negotiating an agreement to share resources, for example? War may be possible according to Coser’s concept of conflict. But is war, or any use of force generally, also a conflict resolution? Many early advocates of conflict resolution viewed the use of power as a tool to achieve social justice. This topic remains contentious among analysts and practitioners of conflict resolution, as they disagree on the importance assigned to coercion and violence in resolving disputes. On one hand, some analysts argue that reliance on coercion contradicts the problem-solving approach.

Traditional “realists,” on the other hand, tend to assume that all conflicts ultimately resolve through coercion. Many practitioners of conflict resolution, taking a middle ground, believe that the reality of divergences is an unavoidable fact in all relationships, emphasizing forms of power, such as the ability to impose positive or negative sanctions, persuasive incentives, altruism, and identity sharing. They highlight how to reshape conflicts and redefine the self-identities of the disputing parties within the context of conflict and efforts to resolve it.

Without considering the above perspectives, it must be acknowledged that to the extent that parties are unequal in status or power, the weaker party is inclined to relinquish many demands in a negotiated or mediated agreement. However, this is unlikely to be true if the conflict is approached with methods that genuinely constitute a real resolution. In light of this, what then is meant by “conflict resolution”?

Definition of Conflict Resolution

In this context, there are two meanings of “conflict resolution”: the first is general, reflecting common usage; it is broad, effectively encompassing any strategy or technique that leads to the end of a dispute or “disagreement” or even a cessation of violence. Under this meaning, the following are considered methods of conflict resolution: avoiding conflict or relinquishing demands (in both cases, one party withdraws from the dispute); negotiating the division of resources or compromise between positions; a third party intervening to propose or impose a resolution to the conflict; and decisively resolving the dispute by eliminating one party. Thus, conflict resolution, according to this understanding, aims to reduce the chances or possibilities of violence and supports the cessation of violent acts to prevent escalation of the conflict.

The second meaning of conflict resolution is narrower, arising from the formal emergence of the field itself; in contrast to the first meaning, it is specialized and not comprehensive, defining it in a constrained and precise manner to exclude withdrawal (even if voluntary) and coercion, and thus war as methods of conflict resolution. Some authors go so far as to exclude negotiations aimed merely at resource division—that is, to exclude compromise as a form of “genuine” resolution. According to these authors, “true” resolution is distinguished from “conflict management,” “conflict regulation,” “dispute settlement,” or “conflict alleviation.” Although each of these terms may indeed play a role in ceasing violence, the narrow meaning of conflict resolution aims to identify the roots of the causes of conflict and resolve the issues that initially led to its emergence, rather than merely addressing the manifestations of conflict or its catastrophic consequences. Thus, conflict resolution, according to this narrow definition, is a process aimed at transforming the conflict, not just reaching an agreement on disputes or putting an end to them, by identifying primary human needs and building supportive relationships between the conflicting parties through the creation of structural mechanisms that ensure equality among identity groups or among multicultural groups. Therefore, conflict resolution seeks to examine needs and options and to reach agreements that not only fulfill those needs but also have the potential to effect change in existing systems and patterns of relationships that led to the conflict in the first place.

Based on the above, the term “resolution,” according to the second meaning of conflict resolution, does not rightly apply to the overarching view of ending conflict, which consists of compromise, negotiation grounded in interests, mediation, good offices, and facilitation. These means may lead to signing an agreement, a ceasefire, the establishment of demilitarized zones, a truce, or even halting acts of violence; however, unless they address the diagnosis of the root causes of the conflict or identify the institutions that perpetrate oppression or the unequal distribution of resources, agreements are likely to be violated, ceasefires are unlikely to last, and truces will not lead to lasting peace, and undoubtedly, violence or killings will erupt again.

In fact, the narrow meaning of conflict resolution owes its distinction to Johan Galtung’s differentiation between “negative peace” (defined simply as the absence of war) and “positive peace” (defined as a social condition where structures of control and exploitation that lead to war are eliminated).

This latter understanding of resolution has been strongly advocated by two scholars: the first is John Burton, who called for using the term “conflict prevention” to refer to a type of resolution aimed at removing the roots of conflict causation or, as he put it, “solving the problems that lead to conflicting behaviors.” The second scholar is John Paul Lederach, who neglects the term “conflict resolution” in favor of “conflict transformation,” although he acknowledges that the first term carries many connotations of “management” and “settlement” associated with it.

Section Two: Terminological Distinction

It is worth noting that practitioners in the field of conflict resolution, including analysts and practitioners, differ in the importance assigned to conflicts versus disputes, and in their resolution versus settlement or transformation, which necessitates an exploration of the meanings of these terms.

Disputes sometimes refer to disagreements over interests, choices, or negotiable preferences that involve elements of reaching a compromise. According to some, the term dispute indicates a specific disagreement concerning claims of rights or interests demanded by both parties through means of claims or defenses or other similar methods. In other words, a dispute in the context of international relations implies a disagreement between states (or among groups or individuals within a state) that is serious enough to threaten international peace and security but has not yet escalated to hostile actions. Typically, issues addressed in disputes may include territorial claims, access to natural resources, access to transportation routes and ports, and other perceived threats to national economic interests. Disputes may also encompass deep ideological differences or issues relating to the treatment of ethnic groups.

Conversely, conflicts arise around issues related to fundamental or deeply-rooted human needs and involve two or more parties engaging in hostility or violence, willing to invest their capabilities in escalation for gain or to avoid loss. Conflicts typically involve competing goals leading to a general state of hostility or violence between parties or may involve the use of force. Conflicts are difficult to resolve simply through the settlement of disputes that appear to be their causes: feelings of animosity often persist even after disputes are settled. For example, the crisis that arose immediately following the hostage-taking of American diplomatic and consular staff in Tehran was resolved with the release of the hostages and concessions from the United States; however, animosity between the U.S. and Iran persisted for over a decade (and it still does). Thus, the dispute was settled, but the conflict remained unresolved.

There is an opinion based on a quantitative criterion to differentiate between disputes and conflicts. According to this view, conflicts that arise among a limited number of parties are typically referred to as disputes, which fundamentally differ from broader conflicts experienced across entire populations, such as among ethnic or religious groups.

The term “conflicts,” whether in United Nations documents or in international law, is often used to refer to violent and armed confrontations occurring either between states or within them. However, in the literature regarding conflict resolution, as well as in practical application, the term is often used in a broader sense to encompass both disputes and conflicts of concern between two or more parties; that is, instances that may lead to violence or armed confrontation or either, but often contain the potential for generating significant social tension preceding the outbreak of violence and the resort to arms, and/or contain the seeds of potential conflict that may erupt at any time due to long-simmering issues that have remained unresolved, possibly for centuries.

Based on the above, conflict resolution means addressing the problems that led to the conflict, whereas the settlement of conflicts refers to bringing an end to the conflict itself without tackling its causes. Conflict transformation refers to making fundamental changes in certain aspects of a conflict or in the socio-political system or altering the relationships between the conflicting parties. Not all analysts and practitioners of conflict resolution agree on such a stark distinction; they generally regard some types of disputes as being more specific than conflicts, but they acknowledge that disputes can be just as tragic as conflicts. Therefore, settling disputes can also contribute to changing relationships among the disputants and in the gradual transformation of their conflicts.

The lack of consensus among conflict resolution analysts and practitioners primarily stems from the reliance of the field on contributions from diverse and competing disciplines. This competition poses serious challenges to the advancement of this science. To illustrate, different academic institutions often study a particular conflict from various angles, such as a dispute over water rights between two neighboring tribes; the psychologist or sociologist primarily focuses on the characteristics of the parties, their past relationships, the strategies and tactics employed in the conflict, the needs of the parties relevant to the situation, the escalating dynamics of the conflict, and so on. In contrast, the legal expert in this domain is concerned with prior treaties or contracts, property rights, and the existence of case law. Meanwhile, the international relations specialist may focus on structural factors like the balance of power in the conflict, the national or regional causes of the conflict, and the consequences that arise from the conflict. Specialists in business, economics, and history may emphasize other aspects of the situation. Thus, the academic’s or practitioner’s primary focus or task dictates the strategy employed to resolve the conflict.

However, there is a general agreement, at least in principle, about specific strategies and tactics for certain types of conflict and their stages, where long-term strategies employing various methods are practically required to prevent the conflict from escalating or becoming more destructive. There is a dedicated focus on mediators who attempt to alleviate tensions at various stages of the conflict. Additionally, there is a general acknowledgment of the significant influence that disputants have on each other in either alleviating or escalating the conflict. Finally, there is growing recognition among conflict resolution practitioners that every social conflict encompasses multiple parties and issues.

While conflict resolution methods are useful human tools, they are characterized by limitations. These limitations can only be discovered by those who have employed these methods and experienced their constraints.

References

• The Global Cold War: Third World Interventions and the Making of Our Times, Author: Odd Arne Westad.
• The Tragedy of Great Power Politics, Author: John Mearsheimer.
• The Post-Cold War World: Turbulence and Change in World Politics Since 1989, Author: Michael Cox.
• War and Peace in International Relations: An Introduction to Strategic History, Author: Colin S. Gray.
• The Internationalists: How a Radical Plan to Outlaw War Remade the World, Authors: Oona A. Hathaway and Scott J. Shapiro.
• Diplomacy, Author: Henry Kissinger.
• Man, the State, and War: A Theoretical Analysis, Author: Kenneth N. Waltz.
• The Origins of War: An Introduction to the Theories of International Conflict, Author: Patrick M. Morgan.
• International Conflict Mediation: New Approaches and Findings, Editors: Jacob Bercovitch and Scott Sigmund Gartner.
• The Utility of Force: The Art of War in the Modern World, Author: Rupert Smith.