ULI451U-CONFLICT RESOLUTION
Chapter 3: Ending Conflicts and Building Peace: Main Concepts and Approaches
Conflict and Peace: Definitions and Types
The ontology and history of interpersonal and intragroup conflicts are long as the history of humanity. However, theory and empirical studies of conflict and peace, particularly from an international relations perspective, is relatively new and immature. Following the Second World War (1938-1945) and in its aftermath, namely the Cold War, more attention on Conflict and Peace Studies emerged across the world, endeavoring to understand the causes and motivations of conflict(s), and developing adequate methods and tools to manage and end them, while focusing on the ways to build and maintain peace (Ramsbotham et al., 2015: 4).
Conflict is an adversarial social action, involving two or more actors who show hostilities towards each other and have incompatibilities over sources and/or values (Jeong, 2010: 3). Galtung (1965) offered a quadruple classification for analyzing the conflicts. According to his framework, conflicts - which he labels as “action- systems”- may occur between individuals and collectivities and distinctively form “inter- and intra- systems” (Galtung, 1965: 348). While intra-system conflicts refer to those might occur in the “smallest sub- units of the system, down to the individual actor”, inter- system conflicts split in “the system in parts, each subsystem standing for its own goal-state”. Galtung defines “conflict management” as “the efforts to maintain the costs of conflicts below a maximum level become a necessity for a system” (Galtung, 1965: 350). In his subsequent work, Galtung (1969: 168) offers a novel perspective of peace, which corresponds to the “absence of violence”. According to his termes “negative peace” simply refers to the absence of direct violence, while “positive peace” should be understood in a broader sense that secures the equitable distribution of resources and values within a community (Galtung, 1969: 183). Galtung (1996: 265) delineates conflict transformation as a “never- ended process” while the peace is “what we have when creative conflict transformation takes place non- violently”. Ultimately, he defines the role of the global community to work for not only negative peace referring to the absence of war a fortiori for positive peace meaning that the absence of all forms of direct, cultural (internationalizing) and structural (indirect) violence, aiming to establish and promote development and civilization (Galtung, 1996: 265).
Basic Terms: Conflict Prevention, Conflict Management, Conflict Settlement, Conflict Resolution, and Conflict Transformation
Conflict prevention aims to avert the emergence of violent conflict. In this phase, conflict is aimed to be prevented by endeavoring to reach a compromise or minimize the differences and/or incompatibilities between the confronting sides. It is achieved through developing structural and interactive tools or strengthening the
capacities for a peaceful resolution and decreasing the causes of the conflict (Carment and Fischer, 2011: 170). On the otherhand conflict management/conflict regulation is implemented to minimize the effects of the confrontation and to take the necessary steps for restoring peace. Conflict management (and conflict regulation) is a generic term that covers a whole process. The concept can encompass constraining the conflict, mitigation, limitation, and decreasing of violence through negotiation, arbitration, or other methods and processes in order to create an environment in which reaching a peace agreement is attainable (Siniver, 2011: 187). The parties of the conflict are directed towards non-violent ways of communication, and preferably political instruments are employed to end the violence. The political instruments generally consist of territorial arrangements, institutional or administrative arrangements in the legislative, executive or jurisdiction and/or arrangements about rights of individuals and groups (Yakinthou and Wolff, 2012: 20).
The efforts to reach an agreement between the adverse parties are called conflict settlement, during which elites of the opposing sides take part in a negotiation process, probably through the mediation of a third party.
The conflict resolution phase refers to the endeavors to resolve the conflict by changing the underlying structural reasons of the conflict and to end the conflict terminally (Ramsbotham et al., 2015: 31). The first actor to come to mind when speaking about conflict resolution is the United Nations (UN) given that the organization has been playing a central role since 1945 trying to find peaceful solutions to conflicts through negotiation, mediation, arbitration, or conciliation. Methods to resolve conflicts have considerably developed in tandem with the significant increase in the number of conflicts in the aftermath of the Cold War. UN peacekeeping, peacemaking, and peacebuilding operations strived for being more “multilateral, multidimensional, multinational and multicultural”, giving weight not only to state security but also human security and more actors such as intergovernmental organizations, non-governmental organizations, regional organizations, have been incorporated in conflict resolution frameworks (Sobotka, 2011: 201).
Peacekeeping is a conflict resolution strategy that aims to contain violence and prevent it from turning to war; to limit the intensity, geographical spread and duration of the conflict if it started; and to consolidate a ceasefire and create an environment for reconciliation in the post-war period (Ramsbotham et al., 2015: 147). Peacekeeping traditionally refers to the deployment of lightly-armed military forces between the armed forces of belligerents in order to monitor a ceasefire or patrol a buffer zone. Peacemaking aims to change the attitudes of conflicting parties to reach a settlement while peacebuilding addresses structural causes which lie at the root of the
conflict in order to create a lasting peace (Ramsbotham et al., 2015: 32).
The final phase of the conflict resolution is the transformation. The success and ending of conflicts do not necessarily imply a stable and enduring peace. With these in mind, it is conflict transformation that builds peace in the cultural and structural spheres, with transforming both institutions and discourses of the conflicting parties so that the profound causes of the conflict are transformed, and sustainable peace is restored (Ramsbotham et al., 2015: 31).
Resolution of Inter-State Conflicts
During the Cold War, the resolution of inter-state conflicts was implemented through great power politics. The security alliances of two great powers, the United States (US) and the Soviet Union, effectively rendered the conflict prevention and resolution in the areas they de facto controlled along with the other parts of the World. Each world power endeavored to influence the conflict processes to transform the internal systems of the states in conflict compatible with theirs, namely capitalist democracy or communism. In this respect, both the US and the Soviet Union rarely got involved in the conflicts, but somewhat backed the confronting sides on the basis of shared views or probable consequences of victory that would facilitate their policies.
After the collapse of the Soviet Union, the territories formerly under its influence witnessed armed conflicts. The dissolution of Yugoslavia also turned into a series of inter-state conflicts eventually. In the post-Cold War international order, the resolution of these new conflicts generated questions around the US intervention and its legitimacy. The role and legitimacy of the new superpower were contested and criticized. Therefore, international and regional organizations, including the European Union (EU), North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) and the UN, inevitably undertook more responsibility and roles in the resolution of conflicts.
“The new world order” emerged in the 1990s prioritized resolving conflicts with strategies realized under an international organization or a coalition. Major human rights violations, including using chemical weapons against civilians, forceful change of borders, or developing nuclear weapons, have been condemned and confronted by the international community. The measurements now involve “intervention” to grant protection to civilians from aggressor authorities. The decision to intervene is either taken through the UN Security Council or an international coalition.
According to Wallensteen (2002: 95-96), the reasons for interstate conflicts can be divided into four categories as the following:
The first category includes Geopolitik reasons. That is, seeking control over certain territories can give rise to
interstate wars. The second is Realpolitik reasons. Seeking to maximize power and power capabilities-for example becoming regionally dominant-can lead to wars among states. The third is Kapitalpolitik reasons. Economic issues, such oil prices, pipelines, transportation routes, and relations between wealthy and poor countries, can play central roles in the emergence of interstate armed conflicts. The fourth category is Idealpolitik reasons. Ideological and legitimacy issues can cause a conflict between two states.
While some conflicts arise due to the existence of only one of these reasons, others can escalate with a constellation of two or more reasons. In conflicts that take place among at least two states, resolution may require the inclusion of a third party: a mediator, or an arbitration commission.
Resolution of Intra-State Conflicts
The negative methods to resolve the intra-state conflicts include:
• assimilation, • secession/partition, • population transfer.
Among negative conflict regulation methods, assimilation is the most common one. Assimilation aims to create a homogenous identity among the population of a state. To this end, different identities or cultures are obliged to disappear and melt into the identity of the state, which is the identity of a dominant group of the population or a newly-constructed identity of the state. Whichever it is, accepting one of these identities is mandatory, and if they wish to enjoy public life, every citizen is expected to abide by it. Speaking the formal language of the state and not any other, despite the existence of other native languages (which are generally forbidden), following the cultural traditions of the accepted identity, practicing the routine of a dominant religion are among the common traits (McGarry et al., 2008: 43).
A softer version of assimilation policy is integration which tolerates different identities but allows them only in the private lives of individuals, however, expecting every citizen to act in accordance with the state identity in public life. With this policy, ethnic or native tongue speakers are allowed to practice these languages in the private space. Nonetheless, the education system is built upon the official language of the state, which is also expected to be used in public life. This policy, ideally, facilitates the assimilation of minorities in the long-run and voluntarily, where harsher assimilation policy aims short-term outcomes and does it through force (Erkem Gulboy, 2015: 60).
The second negative method encompasses secession and partition.
Secession is the segregation of two or more entities that have been living as a seemingly homogenous unit despite
being separate in the beginning, whereas partition is a fresh-cut division or “tearing” of a unit which has been together from the beginning (O’Leary, 2007: 888). Secession/partition methods are not widely accepted strategies to regulate a conflict either. The sovereignty of a state is the central norm in the international system. Thus, the international community is highly reluctant to accept any secession/partition claims by the groups concerning a probable domino effect given that many other groups in other multinational states would be encouraged to claim independence.
The last negative regulation method is population transfer. The method is not widely preferred due to humanitarian consequences; however, typical cases are abundant in history, and even in the contemporary world. In many cases, where the state perceives one of the conflicting groups as a “security threat” or “enemy”, the authorities tend to overcome this menace by relocating the group (McGarry, 1998: 615). The relocation process itself might include delicate conditions such as environmental inconveniences or massive hunger, which threatens the existence of the group. With relocation, the authorities aim to remove the group from their historical lands, to prevent them from claiming sovereignty, and disseminate them to prevent their acts as a group.
Positive methods to regulate intrastate conflicts are based on accommodation of differences. These policies accept that identities are not malleable; once the identity of a group is solidified, negative policies can only suppress them but cannot change them either.
These positive methods, from the most representative to the less, are:
• consociational democracy, • federalism, and • control.
The most democratic and representative method of accommodation is consociational democracy. In this form, all major groups of the society are ideally recognized and provided with representation at the state level. It is achieved through the compromise of the elites of different groups.
The prerequisites of a consociational democracy are: grand coalition, autonomy, veto right (minority veto), and proportionality (Lijphart, 1977: 4).
Grand coalition is the embodiment of elite cooperation; it can be a presidential council, legislative council, coalition government, a commission, or a council. It is composed of the representatives of all the inherent major groups in the society, presenting their demands, discussing the issues from their angles, and trying to reach a compromise to run the state together.
Another principle, autonomy, is the right of a group to have an autonomous rule in their territory, which can contain rights to collect taxes, have legislative bodies, run
their education system, health or social justice systems, or cultural affairs. Autonomy is an essential feature for the groups as they value self-rule in their territory more than any other principle.
The last but not the least essential principle is proportionality, which means having proportional representation in government bodies, not only in legislatures but also in public services.
The most implemented accommodation method is federalism, which is basically a state system in which at least two sub-units within the state and sovereignty and authority are divided among the center and sub-units. However, not all federal states are multicultural or accommodationist. If the federal state is strictly central, it tends to give less authority to the federal units. In order to overcome conflicts, the federalist systems are expected to be pluralist. In this form, the authority of the state is devolved to self-governing units, which are autonomous and accountable to the citizens who elect them. The center cannot overrule any decisions of the autonomous units unless they are against the constitution, and it cannot be amended unilaterally by the central government. In some cases, more rights pertain to one sub-unit among many, as it has specific features as being a historical minority. In this pattern, that unit might exert more authority and rights compared to the other units of the federal state, and a formation called ‘asymmetric federalism’. As can be seen, different types of federalism exist rather than one. In order to regulate an intra-state conflict successfully and democratically, a pluralist version of federalism needs to be followed.
Control policy is on the most negative side of the accommodation methods. It recognizes the differences among groups and the identities of the minorities; however, that does not bring forward democratic and egalitarian approaches towards those groups. Control method is somewhat based on the hegemonic control of the dominant group over minority groups (Lustick, 1979: 328). The former restricts the political opportunities and activities of the other groups, controlling them, restricting their actions and freedoms. The stability is the primary concern of the state applying this method. Any restriction on the life of minority groups is legitimized via stability discourse. The apartheid regime (1948-1994) in South Africa and the status of Palestinian Arabs in Israel are clear examples of this implementation.
Main Techniques and Approaches of Conflict Resolution
Throughout the literature, conflict resolution mechanisms are classified as a distinct phenomenon. However, in practice, the implementation requires the use of a combination of some or most of these mechanisms together.
Various conflicts that occur among some groups in a state or the state versus sub-groups are caused by power and
security relations, such as problems prompted by the lack of representation and unrecognized rights. The basic human needs involve identity security, participation and survival, so that recognition of the ethnic identities of groups and providing their security are vital for the transformation of conflicts (Azar, 1990: 8). Therefore, for addressing the roots of the conflict through solution mechanisms, strategies, including power sharing and group rights, are the essential tools to resolve these conflicts.
Conflict resolution aims to bring a new structure of relations to the conflict with long-term perspectives rather than short-term agreements. These include changing the political system from a majoritarian system to power- sharing or strengthening the rights of minority groups. The system change might be realized through establishing consociational democracy or federalism, whether in the whole state or a part of it.
Power sharing “is a term used to describe a system of governance in which all major segments of society are provided a permanent share of power; this system is often contrasted with government vs. opposition systems in which ruling coalitions rotate among various social groups over time” (Sisk, 2003) The main principles of power sharing includes the following: grand coalition governments in which nearly all political parties have appointments; protection of minority rights for groups; decentralization of power; and decision making by consensus.
Establishing inter-communal communication and mutual understanding is the key to a successful resolution of the conflicts and building durable peace. Through institutional arrangements, sound governance systems can be founded, or power-sharing constitutions can be written. However, without transforming the perceptions of conflicting groups towards each other in a peaceful way, it is not rare that conflicts flare up within a short period with another excuse. Mutual trust problems can only be overcome through strengthened communication, which can help to decrease prejudices against the members of other groups.