YOLANDA MORAN.

1) ‘What should be the scope of conflict prevention?’ (Ackermann, 2003, p.341).

The dissussion around the subject can arise from the mere definition of what a conflict is.
According to Galtung, a conflict is defined as “actors in pursuit of incompatible goals,
remembering that as limiting case actors may be parties, goals may be interests, incompatibilities
may never be brought into the open, and the pursuit may be steered by the structure. This
“limiting case” must be given much prominence.” Galtung, theories of conflict.

Within the last years a surge has been experienced on the field of conflict analysis and conflict
resolution, specially in the number of treaties and bodies dedicated to the resolution and
prevention of conflicts. Despite the growing interest on the subject, violent conflict remains a
characteristic feature of International Relations (Alice Ackerman, 2013). A strong background
that appeals for conflict resolution steams from the Congress of Viena that took place in 1815.

While there is a consensus on the need to prevent conflict and its violent expressions, there still
exists a wide debate on the subject, this debate revolves around its effectivenesss, the time frame
where it should be implemented, the actors that should be involved and its scope.

The main category of the debate is centered on the objectives of conflict prevention. Two trends
can be identified: a) Structural prevention. The conflict prevention that acts on root causes, b) the
conflict prevention that acts on immediate causes of the conflict.

The first category includes actions related to promoting long term governance, adherence to
human rights, and the promotion of economic and social stability. The second category has been
privileged by the international community and has focused heavily on the immediate side of
conflict prevention- the tools used for this type of conflict prevention range from mediation to
good offices to prevent the imminent breakout or intensification of conflict. On structural
prevention, more attention is given to a longer-term view and corresponding policy approaches
that enhance the long term management of conflict. Measures as confidence building, fact
finding, creation of early warning networks, preventive deployment, demilitarized zones- are all
part of the array of actions that can be counted as conflict prevention.

Another subject that fuels the debate around conflict prevention, relates to the timing when
conflict prevention actions should be implemented. Is conflict prevention limited to the early
stages of a conflict, or should its measures also be implemented during escalation and post
conflict? The answer will always depend on the vision of conflict prevention being privileged.

The conceptual approach for conflict prevention, distinguishes between underlying or root causes
of conflict, and more immediate disputes and escalation dynamics that can erupt in armed
violence.
The current wave of protracted armed conflicts, characterized by their longevity, intractability
and mutability—is becoming more common for several reasons, not only due to the lack of
respect for international humanitarian law, but also because the root causes of conflict are not
being properly addressed. In this sense, conflict prevention measures might provide the
combined set of tools, actions and approaches designed to prevent the onset of armed conflict,
and/or its recurrence by tackling both the root causes of conflict and its immediate triggers, both
endemic and external to that setting. In a protracted crisis, conflict prevention has relied on three
main pillars: operational, structural, and transnational.

The United Nations has also showed different angles when regarding to conflict prevention: the
latest statement on the subject was portrayed on the report titled Pathways for Peace: Inclusive
Approaches to Preventing Violent Conflict. This report was launched in September 2017, marks
partnership between the United Nations and the World Bank. This partnership seeks to prevent
conflict- through avoiding the outbreak or recurrence of armed conflict. Pathways for Peace
clearly establishes a link between conflict and development, arguing that development processes
must be better articulated with traditional conflict prevention mechanisms like diplomacy,
mediation, security, and other tools designed to prevent conflict from becoming violent.

Within the UN these links can be established easily, since both peace and security, and
development, are tacked by the organization. The UN development system and humanitarian
agencies also carry out a broad array of activities related to conflict prevention- these have
allowed for a more comprehensive approach for conflict prevention- based on the peace and
development link. The African Union has also provided with models of structural conflict
prevention; tackling both operational components to address imminent or escalating conflict and
to address structural components, to respond to deeper causes of conflict. Conflict prevention at
the AU has both operational components, meant to address imminent or escalating conflict, and
structural components, designed to tackle deeper causes of conflict.

Academic studies define conflict prevention as a set of instruments used to prevent or solve
disputes before they have developed into active conflicts; this concept would limit the
implementation of conflict prevention activities to early stages of conflict- leaving out options
for later stage interventions in stabilization or peacebuilding. (Sophia Clément, Conflict
Prevention in the Balkans: Case Studies of the Fyr Macedonia (Alencon: Institute for Security
Studies of WEU, 1997) The conceptualization on the subject has created the traditional
separation of conflict prevention: management and resolution not only treat them as different
concepts, but also as separate processes, where in reality the three stages are intertwined
together and might happen on paralallel moments.

There is a wide range of definitions, ranging from more narrow ones focusing on limited ways of
prevention such as Michael Lund’s definition of preventive diplomacy, to broad ones such as
David Carment and Albrecht Schnabel’s definition of conflict prevention. Among the more
inclusive definitions is David Carment and Albrecht Schnabel’s definition of conflict prevention
as “a medium and long-term proactive operational or structural strategy undertaken by a variety
of actors, intended to identify and create the enabling conditions for a stable and more
predictable international security environment.” Gabriel Munuera’s take on conflict prevention
entails the application of non-constraining measures that are primarily diplomatic in nature- these
are described as non coercive and depend on the goodwill of the parties involved. The definition
created by Michael Lund has also suggested a wider definition: “any structural or intercessory
means to keep intrastate or interstate tension and disputes from escalating into significant
violence and use of armed forces, to strengthen the capabilities of potential parties to violent
conflict for resolving such disputes peacefully, and to progressively reduce the underlying
problems that produce these issues and disputes”- This definition clearly refers to the two
different kind of measures, operational and structural and takes into consideration any measures
that prevent violent conflicts and strengthen the capacity of concerned actors to act structurally to
reduce the possibility of conflict.

Instititutions as the Swedish Foreign Affairs Ministry, for example, have emphasized the
importance of a broad definition of conflict prevention, on all its actions promotes a definition
that takes a holistic view on conflict prevention and human security and includes both
individuals and states. The international arena has already showed examples of conflict
prevention adopted. Most of the short and medium term actions used to prevent imminent war
are economic sanctions, preventive diplomacy, and—in some cases—preventive deployments
of military force. While these actions are successful in avoiding the eruption of conflict, they do
little to none, in action on the structural causes of conflict, however, it is a relation that is hard to
measure. On the current International Relations context, at least three cases are used to portray
the the inadequacy and indispensability of conflict prevention (Myanmar, North Korea and
Venezuela). The current political conditions seem averse for the promotion of conflict
prevention mechanisms, mainly because of the requirement of unanimity at the Security Council
and discord among the permanent members. Despite systemic adverse conditions, contexts like
Venezuela, still seem to have a window of opportunity for a deeper conflict prevention concept.

References

- The Idea and Practice of Conflict Prevention, Alice Ackermann, Journal of

Peace Research, Vol. 40, No. 3 (May, 2003), pp. 339-347
- This year in conflict prevention. Brookings Institution, December 2017.

- United Nations Conflict Prevention and Preventive Diplomacy In Action, 2017.