Conflict Studies Notes WS2017-18

Readings
12. októbra 2017 9:35
- The concept of security has been undergoing great transformations - it is getting deeper (includes more areas of
security, outlined below), as well as wider (includes more actors than just another state - e.g. non state actors from
outside or within a state)
- Nowe we understand security as not just theabsence of military threat / war, but also the absence of threats in all
forms, like pandemics, environmental degradation, terrorism, etc.
- The state = the thing to be secured = the referent object
Conflict Studies Page 1

1. Intro
5. októbra 2017 9:18
Week 13 (exam period) - test in essay form (2 questions)

Literature - not linked to individual lectures, but recommended for the final exam

1. The Concept of Security & its Development
5. októbra 2017 9:45
Security as a concept
- Has a wide range of possible definitions, from simple mantras to deep philosophical and meta-theoretical reflections
○ = military security, social security... = many forms
- Security is a term that is emotionally-loaded - it is an essential part of how it works in practice
- Security studies are actually concerned more with insecurity than security
○ = an analysis of insecurity is a feature that characterizes security studies
○ Many symbols / pillars of security, in order to enforce it, are agens of insecurity -- e.g. a policeman / soldier is expected to
maintain security, but often does it by harming / killing people
- There are dangers in the concept of security - e.g. dangerous application of the security logic (nuclear deterrence, state coercion...)
○ The securitization of a problem might lead to negative consequences
○ e.g. the holocaust was based on a sick idea of "securitization" - cleansing the society of some of its members will help make it
more secure
○ = it is necessary to look "behind" the language of security. We should try to look deeper and find the reason behind the
language / securitizing action
The development of understanding security

1. State vs. another State
a. The basic understanding of security is that is deployed in order to protect a state from another state / group of state
b. = realism, liberalism
2. Groups within a state
a. Academics began looking at how a state is divided, what it is composed of
b. These divisions / groups might also pose a threat to one another, so security may be deployed to protect one group from
another / the whole state from a group inside it that may endanger it
c. = constructivist theories
3. Underlying processes, distribution of power in the international system
a. More focus on non-state actors, on how the whole system is set
b. A threat does not need to come only from another state, or from within a state, but may be connected to something that states
have internally, as a result of how the international system works
c. = Marxism
4. Identities
a. How outside threats are used to transform the political system inside a country
- The Copenhagen school of security studies sees the development of security / security studies as both widening and deepening:
- There is also a notion of negative vs positive security --- is security only used as a tool to keep something bad away from us (negative),
or does it have some positive "externalities" (positive)

Widening of the concept of security
- Beyond the traditional things and tools we often attribute to security - e.g. military and the physical security they protect -, new
sectors and protected values have entered the study of security
- Security does not only relate to the military, but also to the security of the economic prosperity, social system, environment...
- The sectors that this "wider" understanding of security contains are:
○ Military (the protection of our territory, protection against physical harm)
○ Political (the protection of state sovereignty; maintaining the feeling of political security)
▪ contrary to the defense of territory, sovereignty is immaterial and harder to measure
▪ e.g. China claims sovereignty over Taiwan, even though "physically", Taiwan is sovereign on its own
▪ The words "threat to sovereignty" are often (mis)used in politics -- for example, if a politician disagrees with certain
policies of the EU, they say it is a threat to our sovereignty, making it sound stronger and more urgent than it really is
○ Societal (the protection of identity)
▪ Related mostly to intra-state problems - e.g. states killing certain ethinc groups living within it, or these groups within a
state killing each other
▪ It is concerned with how to maintain the identity of my social group - a nationality / clan / ethnicity
▪ The threat can come in the form of physical liquidation (genocide in Rwanda, wars in the Balkans), but also in less violent
ways - not accepting migrants, being latently racist etc. (e.g. Czech republic in relation to migration)
○ Economic (the protection of welfare)
▪ During the 2008 crisis, many economic relations have been "securitized"
▪ Can be linked to other issues, like human security -- a poor economic situation breeds social discontent
○ Environment (the protection of sustainability)
▪ Represents a great transcendence of the field beyond its original boundaries and perceptions
▪ In come cases it can be linked to direct, physical threats -- e.g. hurricanes and other natural disasters, volcanos, sinking...
▪ However, at the core of this threat stands the assumptions that humans pose a threat to nature and the environment, not
that the environment poses a threat to us
- In the past few years, even more sectors were added (though they are not part of the original "Copenhagen school" view):
○ Energy security -- especially strong in Central Europe
○ Cybersecurity (cyber warfare, cyber espionage, cyber terrorism)
○ Biosecurity (altering of human DNA...)
○ Food / water security
Deepening of the concept of security

- Addition of new reference objects
○ State -- the traditional object that has been the focus of Security Studies since their commencement as a discipline
○ Political regimes -- certain political systems are more unstable, inflict harm on their own population, pose a threat to their
neighbors (e.g. North Korea)...
○ Social groups -- intra-state violence between social / ethnic / religious groups, or these groups / insurgencies fighting with the
central government
○ Economy
○ (International) institutions -- how they can be subject to attacks, how their legitimacy may be threatened...
○ Environment / ecosystem -- how a certain species poses a threat to another species / ecosystem; how humans damage
ecosystem
○ Mankind -- for example the threat of illnesses that could wipe us all out, or the misuse of the tools we have created that have
the potential to destroy the world (nuclear weapons etc.)
○ Human being -- an individual should also be treated as a subject of security; an idea that a state cannot be secure if the
individuals living within are not secure (at an international level); also connected to economic and social security that the state
should provide to its inhabitants
▪ Dilemmas of human security:
□ "freedom from fear" vs "freadom from want"
Objective vs Intersubjective understanding of security

- Objective
○ A realist perspective - security as defense (= being secure means having an effective army capable of protecting the state and its
inhabitants), security as stability (= maintaining the balance of power)
○ A liberalist perspective - security as interdependence (= the more connected we are, the less we fight / we do not fight with our
partners or allies), security as communication (= the more we talk, the less we want to fight), security as institutionalization (´the
mroe regulated the system is / the more space and institutions we have to share our problems and frustrations and solve them
together, the less likely we are to escalate conflicts)
- Intersubjective construction of security
○ A constructivist view
Security is not something we either "have" or "do not have". It all depends on how we see it and how we construct it. A threat

○ Security is not something we either "have" or "do not have". It all depends on how we see it and how we construct it. A threat
exists only if we perceive it as a threat
○ = security as a product of discourse (Copenhagen school) / political-buerocratic practice (Paris school)
▪ Important role of the media and politicians - of what they present as a threat, what they put emphasis on (not only
towards the public, but also among each other, within the sectors of the government / state apparatus)
Negative vs Positive understanding of security

- = security as survival vs security as emancipation
- Negative
○ The vision of security as survival
○ Typical for realism
- Positive
○ Connected to the concept of positive peace (Johan Galtung)
○ Peace is not just the absence of war, but something much more complex - an environment where people and institutions can
flourish economically, socially...
○ This view is typical for critical security studies (e.g. the Welsh school - Ken Booth)
○ Similar accents also appear in other theories - liberalist concept of positive security, common security in 1980s, sustainability in
environmentalist approaches

2 & 3. Between war and peace
12. októbra 2017 9:26
= theoretical reflection of conflict and peaceful coexistence
- War and peace are not just elements of IR / security studies, but also two deifning categorie of what we may call "the Human
Condition"; they are the two extremes / poles, which we may use to describe our individual state / societal state
- = these words are not invented just as parts of science or research, but are a part of our lives - situations that people live in /
face
- Both of these terms have been / are widely misused
- The term "war" is also often used to securitize an issue -- e.g. the "War on drugs" -- the word war turns this fight against
drugs into a battlefield; the "war on Terror" suffers to a similar problem
○ If I am a politician who wants to draw attention to something, I call it a war on something (war on child abuse / terror /
drugs / poverty...). By doing this, I am opening the solution of the conflict to means used in conventional wars
Philosophical perspective
- Different concepts of the state of nature (the original state that mankind existed in):
○ We have two competing view on how this state of nature looks / looked like
1. A "paradise-like" state of nature -- a golden age, supported by Plato and Rousseau -- Plato: the theology of human
development is a development from the golden age, to the more detrimental stages of human civilization; Rousseau: a
state where people were free of the dictate of property and materialism, which ended with the introduction of
"ownership"
i. This seems to have lost its potency on contemporary political philosophy, as it was sort of "disorganized", with
no "ruler"
ii. For realists, the Cold War was something like a paradise-like state of nature, because it was something that they
could perfectly apply their vision to
2. Homo homini lupus -- Hobbes -- the state of nature is close to a state of chaos; ungoverned state with relationships
dominated by brutality and instability. This is what happens when
i. In this view, a failed state, whose institutions have fallen, returns to this basal state of nature from whence it
came, and people start beghaving like animals to one another
ii. The existence of institutions and rules is what keeps people "out" from this state
○ No matter how positive or negative these theories are towards the development / state of the society, pretty much all
include the idea that societies should try to evolve from their natural state, as it is seen as something dangerous
/unhealthy
- Conceptualization of theory (how human history develops)
1. Cyclical -- typical for realism -- a society does not really evolve lineailry / exponentially, it does not get better, but just
sort of "repeats itself". Nothing really changes in how states interact with each other. The danger of the state of war is
always implicitly present
2. Teleological -- marxism, liberalism, critical theory -- they assume that history develops from a certain stage to another
state, and the final stat eof human development - "telos" - can be something better. There are different conceptions of
what telos actually is and how to get to it, but the general idea for all these theories is the same: we can expect that
societies will, after a few stages of development, reach its final "goal"
○ = all theories except for realism thus believe that there is a development in IR / in the states. For these theories, the
history of human devleopment is a journey from a state of war to a state of peace.
Peace / conflict and the basic levels of analysis:

- Individual, state and system
- There is an implicit tension between these groups, and thus roots for a potential conflict (e.g. when individuals are oppressed
/ neglected by the state; or when a state is shunned / discriminated by the system)
- That means, we may get "revisionist" units that challenge the situation - either in the individual, state or systemic level
- Even if we look into the Bible, the story of Kain and Abel is already an example of the human society exiting its "golden age" -
its original state of nature according to some - and start commiting crimes against other individuals
- Of course, for the international level, the conflicts between two or more states are more important than the conflicts
between individuals
- However, it is not about the dichotomies - the individual-individual or state-state relationship. These conflicts may actually
be embedded in the actors of IR - they stem from the fact that there is a multitude of units with interests. However, there is
another view - we may alo tkae into consideration another condition - that the conflict stems from how these units are

another view - we may alo tkae into consideration another condition - that the conflict stems from how these units are
constituted, that we, as humans, simply have the innate ability to harm and kill. Same for the states - how much the
coposition of a states determines the amount of violence it perpetrates? (theories linked to this - e.g. theory of democratic
peace, etc.)
- Then we have theories that contribute wars / peace simply to the way the system is made or set. It is not the constitution or
interactions of the units that are the source of the conflict - it is the system itself.
- What concrete parts of the individual units can be contributed to peace / conflict?
○ Elements contributing to peaceful relationships. What may prevent us from engaging in a war?:
○ INDIVIDUAL
▪ The human nature -- we are still here as a species, we have managed to survive and even thrive throughout
history. We could conclude that we are naturally inclide towards cooperation. In our nature, there is something
that makes it possible for us to live in peace.
□ On the other hand, sometimes we refuse to cooperate, refuse to be peaceful, and that is also part of our
nature
▪ Socialization -- it is now a pretty-much wideaspread norm to socialize people towards cooperation and mutual
understanding. It is now very rare to have societies, where people are directly raised to be conflictual with other
societies
□ However, this was not always true / does not always have to be true. If we look just a couple decades into
the past, at nazim or then communism in Europe, we were lead towards a much less peaceful form of
socialization / a violent form of development on a pretty massive scale.
▪ Rationality -- we have something special that no other creature posesses, at least in the scope like humans
posess, and that is rationality. This element appears in multiple theories, especially in idealism / liberalism, which
basically says: It is stupid to be violent - it does not pay off; wars are irrational, why should we wage them?
□ There may, however, be a problem with this, as sometimes, the most rational option leads to violence. It
was definitely a huge aprt of the human / state environment in the past -- war and conquests were
considered completely regular methods of foregin policy; pillaging, stealing etc. of human behvaior on the
individual level
▪ Perception -- a possibility to be empathic - to think about others, about what they want, what they feel, what are
their ideas / values, etc., and taking that into account when making decisions. We are capable of respecting the
others via perceiving their preferences. On the other hand, this may also be seen as a cause for violent purposes.
□ There is something as "misperception" - we see people with a certain "optic". We may see people in a
skewed way, influenced by our cultural / ethnic / religious background, or misinterpret their actions.
○ STATE
▪ Elements contributing to peaceful relationships
□ Institutions -- in most theories, there is a prevalent idea that institutions are a basis for cooperation and
peaceful coexistence, which help hold the system together
□ Democracy -- of course, not all states are demoracies. But there is a strong notion that democracies are
much less likely to wage wars than non-democratic states. So the promotion and spread of democracy,
which also happens to be one of the goals of the UN and other intergovenrmental organizations, is seen as
the best way for conflict prevention / overcoming conflictual conditions (because empirical data shows
that democracies are very unlikely to go into wars with each other).
□ Wealth -- societies which are richer tend to behave less violently. This claim has many holes in it, but
generally speaking, wealth and welfare helps prevent conflicts (out of fear of losing it)
□ Communication -- the mroe we communicate, the more we know about each other, the more
understanding adn open we are, and thus the less likely we are to engage in armed conflicts
▪ Elements hampering peaceful relationships (-- opposite terms to the ones outlined above)
□ Manipulation by elites -- the state can be manipulated by its leaders / elites to enter a war, either internally
or externally
□ Ideology -- can be dangerous especially in connection with elite manipulation
□ Control of resources -- the crux of the matter is who controls resources. If this distribution is largely
unequal, it may be a source of conflict
□ Identity politics -- when identity politics become part of the communication, we may not be reaching
proper results. People often fail to look at issues from standpoints other than their own; this may lead to
communication of false news, propaganda, racist ideas etc.
○ SYSTEM
▪ Elements contributing to peaceful relationships
□ International trade -- it is helpful to prevent conflict; countries that do business together are not likely to
disrupt that business over a small quarrel

disrupt that business over a small quarrel
□ Mutual interdependence -- the more countries are linked, the more interdependen they are
□ Integration / global governance -- an idea that the system needs a more structured approach above state
level. There are or course many different ideas about how this can / should be achieved and how it should
look.
□ Discourse transformation -- a largely constructivis view. An idea that discourse moves from violent towards
peaceful, in spite of the fact that the system is anarchic, or full of inequalitites, etc. States nowadays talk
and act differently -- their discourse has changed for the better.
▪ Elements hampering peaceful relationships (-- opposite terms to the ones outlined above)
□ Global inequality -- internaitonal trade has actually even widened the gap between some countries
□ Dependence -- mutual independence may be a stabilizing force, but the dependence on someone is quite
the contrary. (e.g. energy dependence on many European countries on Russian gas)
□ Anarchy / sytemic conflict -- despite deep integration and forces of global governance, the system will still
be prone to conflict, because the states will still make certain decisions which will not be governed from
above, what creates potential for tension
□ Fragmentation of discourse -- the discource generally moving from war to peace is / may be fragmented, or
nto always progressing forward. (e.g. after WW2 / Cold War, there were major developments in global
governance, international law, cooperation and integration. Nowadays, there are many dissent voices,
anti-EU / NATO / UN sentiments, etc.)
Theoretical frameworks + theories that focus on the individual stages + political practices used during these stages
1. Positive / stable peace
○ Johan Galtung - invented the term positive peace
○ Ken Booth (Welsh school) - peace is not peace as we traditionally imagined it - not only the absence of violence - but
also an opportunity to emancipate the individual
○ Security community - e.g. EU - within member states of the EU, war is unthinkable
○ Integration theory - states that are integrated in some sort of union tend to not be conflictuous with one another
○ Post-conflict reconstruction
2. Negative / unstable peace = no actual violence between the interactions of actors, but violence somehow lurks from behind
the peaceful situation; it is something that needs to be reckoned with before this potential threat grows
○ Regime theory - a concept of how to overcome a conflict; similar to security community, but less "ambitious"
○ Complex interdependence - imagines the stabilization of potentially problematic situations through mutual
interdependencies
○ Theory of hegemonic stability - how the system might be stabilized for at least a while in ist development, via the rise
of a hegemon who will stabilize the other actors; however the power of the hegemon will end, and then the cycle
begins anew with a new hegemon
○ (Classical) realism - conflict is only present but rather as a potential; imagines a world where everybody needs to be
afriad that war will break out; prevent that through diplomacy etc
○ Conflict resolution
○ Structural prevention = focuses on those cases / states / social groups that have a potentnial for a violent conflict to
break out, and uses measures like development alssistance / economic cooperation etc. to prevent it
○ Direct prevention = focues on those spots "on the map" where violence is just about to break out - e.g. places with
demonstrations against the government etc. A primary diplomatic instrument that tries to decrease tension and open
doors to negotiations
3. Crisis = violence is already present, but still not the main way of how ppl interact - diplomacy / political interaction still exist
○ Neorealism = the world is in a state of constant crisis; see violence as a normal part of life
○ (Neo)realism = a world always on the edge of using violence; violence extended to the realm of language (?); since the
world is organized around certain hegemons, it is inherently violent - not necessary physical, but definitely at least
verbal
○ Postmodern theory
○ Crisis diplomacy = de-escalation of conflict to open doors to negotiations and diplomacy
4. War
○ Offensive realism = states are never satisfied with what they have; a state will never stop trying to acquire more power
○ Marxism-leninism = constant war between the proletariat and suppressed classes
○ Peacemaking = diplomatic procedures trying to bring the parties at war to a negotiating table / trying to decrease the
fatalities
○ Peace enforcement
= all of these theories of course addres all these stages, and all other thing in IR, but some are better for interpreting certain stages
than others

than others
= Peace enforcement, peacemaking & crisis diplomacy = conflict management

3. Security systems in theory & practice
19. októbra 2017 9:59
= a selection of theoretical and practical concepts that somehow deal with the challenges of maintaining conflict in inter -
state relations
Concert of great powers

• System of limited, organized competition among great powers with cooperative aspects in the form of multilateral
negotiations
• e.g. Europe after the congress of Vienna 1814/1815, until app. the outbreak of WW2
• 3 conditions for it to work:
1. No member of the system is able to defeat the rest -- a realist notion of a balance of power
2. Consensual agreement on the basic tenets of the international system -- it is not just a balance of power, but also
something with which the parties willingly agree
3. Political elites of participating countries respect the interests of the international community / member
countries -- there is a mutual understanding and overtime a sort of harmonization of the needs of the member
states
Hegemony / Hegemonic stability
• Solves the problem of collective action in the internaitonal system
○ If there is a hegemon, there is not as much need of the other actors to agree on what I want to achieve
○ A hegemon bypasses the collective action - he can do it, because he is stronger than the other actors, and is able
to generat the public goods that all can enjoy:
• Key focus on the provision of public goods by the hegemon that balances his power and makes it acceptable for others
• = it is a balance, though a different type than in classical balance of power. In this case, we balance the power of the
one actor by making him provide certain public goods (security, proteciton of the environment, economic relations...)
• Present invarious theroretical approaches:
○ R.Keohane - conditions which the hegemons must meet
▪ Ability to create and enforce international rules
▪ Political will to create and uphold the normative system -- not just having power potential, but also having
public and political support that allows the hegemon the bear the weight and octs of providing the public
goods

goods
▪ Significant military, economic and technological superiority
○ J.Nye - three components of a hegemons power
▪ Military hard power
▪ Economic hard power
▪ Soft power -- the power to inspire the others / have them look up to him; makes the others think that your
preferences are also their preferences
□ Eg. China nowadays has great soft pwoer; also Iran, in its region of the Middle East, where most
states are still ruled by monarchies, serves as a source of "soft power inspiration" for them
Collective defence
• Invented in practice / by practitioners
• Important distinction between an ad hoc alliance - reacting to a specific threat - and a permanent organization of
collective defence
• At the core fo the system stands the commitment to providing assistance to the state under attack (different from
organization to organization)
○ NATO has it communicated in a slightly "looser" way, especially in comparison with the WEU (West European
Union), because the USA, as a NATO member, wanted to make sure it could keep some distance in the case of a
conflict; ANZUS (Australia, New Zealand and US) has an even looser formulation of this commitment
• 2 basic functions:
○ Active defence against external aggression
○ Deterrence of a potential aggressor
▪ The deterrent factor is already present there by the promise of collective help as such
Collective security
• Invented in practice / by practitioners
• More transformative and "radical" than collective defence, as well as older (League of Nations)
• Before the 20th century, conflicts and aggressive warfare were not only considered normal / legal, but also quite
widely used
• Difference with collective defence -- CD usually starts with a clear image of who is a threat, and is created "against
him". However, a CS does not need an actual enemy, and thinks about potential enemies not even as enemies, but
rather some kind of "deliquents" who deserve punishment, but not really a military response resulting in war
• Then the experience of WW1 shattered this idea that war should remain a normal part of IR -- Briand-Kellog pact int he
1928 --- an important milestone that made offensive warfare illegal for the first time in history
• 2 basic principles
○ Ban on the use of force to solve conflicts between members
○ Obligation to come to help a member under attack from another (member) state
• Problematic aspects
○ Relation to non-member states
○ Definition of agression -- did not include more "sophisticated" / stealthy ways of attacking a state, in which
physical aggression via land army is not apparent; the discussion of a definition of aggression continued in the UN
until 1970s
○ Designation of the agressor -- can be problematic, politically, to accuse someone of being an aggressor
○ Rules of decision-making -- should all states decide about engaging, or just some countries?
• Historical examples
○ League of Naitons
▪ Marked by limited membership - missing USA, USSR, Germany for some time
▪ Did not categorically ban the use of force between members (it cam ejust after with the Briand-Kellog pact
in 1928)
▪ Failed when facing the crises of 1930s -- did not know how to deal with rising extremists in Germany, Italy's
invasion of Ethiopia etc.
○ United Nations Organization
▪ Article 2, part 4 of the UN charter - member states commit to refraining from the use of force in mutual
relations
▪ Built-in inequality between member states in security matters (veto-wielding permanent members of UN
Security Council) --- more sort of a "concert of powers" than a democratizing principle
Democratic peace
- Basic premise = democratic states do not plan or start wars against each other

- Basic premise = democratic states do not plan or start wars against each other
- Explanations:
○ Combination of democracy and open economy / society -- the people are better-informed and there is less scope
for misunderstanding between two democratic societies
○ Transparency of the deicsion-making powers -- decisions are not in the hands of an autocrati ruler, but a group of
people who have been elected
○ Tradition of compromise and peaceful settlement of internal conflicts
- Modes of application:
○ Defensive
▪ Focuses on the democratic character of the members of a community
○ Offensive
▪ Emphasizes the promotion and spread of democracy
Security community
- Based on the idea of transactions and communication -- if we open channels for communication, interact, and become
transparent, we will limit the threat of a violent conflict
- Can be expected even among actors who do not share the same normative basis (i.e. between democratic and non-
democratic states)
○ = does not presuppose members to be democratic
○ e.g. USA & China
▪ Trade and investment
▪ Academic and scientific exchange
▪ Mutual cultural influence
▪ Co-responsibility for security in Northeast Asia
▪ = this relationship, in realist theory, is doomed to fail, so seeing it through the lense of a security
community is intriguing and offers a different prespective and ideas for its future
'Security alliance'
- Summary development over the previous 25 years:
○ community of states which aspire to promote and maintain security outside their borders, in places where
traditional approach to security has failed, based on the extended understanding of security (especially
including human security)
- What we need is not just the security between the states, but a focus on places that have fallein into violent conflicts
- If we want to maintain regional security, we need to "export" security to the parts of the world that need it
- Relevant context for the debate on humanitarian intervention:
○ We need to have a just cause to intervene
○ The right authority
○ Just intention
○ Last resort
○ Propotionality
○ Prospects of success
Similarities / cooperations between these concepts

- The system of collective security we have today (UN) is underpinned by the concert to great powers (e.g. those which is
in the Security Council)
- Ideas of democratic peace + security community need to be shared among the countries to maintain an effective
collective security
- We might claim that if there is a fucntioning hemeogmy in the system, it may be helpful for the functioning of the
collective security
○ e.g. Wars int he Middle East lead by the US as a hegemon
- The presence of a hegemon is beneficial for a collective defence organization
- Hegemony and concert - we tend to think of them as mutually exclusive, but not necessarily
- Security community, colelctive security, hegemony, concert and collective defence are all contributing to a security
alliance (they have taken the road of exporting their security to the regions that need it)

4. ?
2. novembra 2017 9:34

5. Concept of conflict
2. novembra 2017 9:35
Definition of conflict I.
- Dispute > contest > conflict
○ Dispute - disagreement about an issue; e.g. "your tie is ugly" vs. "no it is not"
○ Contests - transforms the dispute into something more substantial; e.g. putting the ugliness of the tie
○ Conflict - goes even a bit further; more permanent and serious; e.g. putting together a group of students protesting
against the professor wearing the tie, the professor would complain to the head of the school etc.
- "Conflict is an antagonistic relationship etween two and more parties over intractable divergencies regarding what is
mutually signiificant to the parties invovled" (Rioux & Redekop)
○ A relationship = meaning it is something intentional; a relation important for their coexistence
○ Intractable divergencies = it is hard to resolve
○ Mutually significant = needs to be a shared assessment of the value of the divergence / issue that stands at the core
of the conflict
- Conflicts can be held over almost anything:
○ Interests (usually materiially defined; rationally-constructed - meaning we can decide to not have an interest)
○ Needs (unlike an interest, we cannot decide we do not need a "need")
▪ Both material, like the need to eat, and immaterial, like the need to be loved / appreciated...
○ Identity (conflicts concerning "who we are" rather than "what we want"; can concern religion, territory...)
○ Desires (stand somewhere between the first two / three; it is not a need, ergo we can have deisres beyond our need;
we can have deisres that we define as our interest, but policially, we need to cover them with a rational cover; may
also be connected with identity - someone may have the desire to rule over other people etc.; closely connected to
the emotional state)
○ Values (the socially-agreed-upon norms that are broadly established; osciallates between the rationl and emotional;
often connected to identity; e.g. national pride)
○ Rights (not limited to the legal rights, but also what we consider legitimate - rights that we should have)
▪ Gives you an upper hand if you argue with rights - e.g. China and the South China Sea
Structure of the conflict
○ Divides out perception of conflict into 3 layers - presenting, underlying and intractable
▪ In the presenting layer, we have the aspects that are demonstrated "in the public" - the conflict situation, the
parties and their clash over something - over rights / power / position. In the clash, the actors try to extend /
preserve their position of influence, gain power (either to be at the forefront or behind pulling the strings), or
rights.
▪ Underlying aspects: works with the interests of states / social groups. There is typically a rational calculation
involved of what I want to achieve. In terms of values, it would be a fight to preserve the things that define us /
are a part of us. Memory: people can have conflicts about the interpretation of history (e.g. Germany and

are a part of us. Memory: people can have conflicts about the interpretation of history (e.g. Germany and
Czechia - expulsion of Germans after WW2). Desires - the more emotional aspects of why we want something;
are harder to define in rational terms (e.g. we want to control a piece of territory because our acnestors lived
there / our sacred site is there etc.).
▪ Intractable aspects: deep-seated things that are hard to be reflected. The main difference between this level
and the underlying layer is that they are harder to "identify", define, reflect, or logically explain. E.g. our identity
is sth we rarely discuss publically, but the stronger these intractable aspects are, the harder it is to solve
conflicts.
○ We do have concept for solving the clash - conflicts over rights, power or position; there are theoretical variants /
solutions, but solving the underlying aspects is harder (e.g. solving problems of memory - much trickier, perhaps
creating common history books), and intractable even much harder.
Defintion of conflict II. (= the less "deep" one; more technical)

- "Conflict is a social situation in which a minimum of two actors (parties) strive to acquire at the same moment in time an
available set of scarce resources" (Wallensteen)
○ Not a relationship, like in the first definition, but a situation (= ergo indicates that it is something less permanent /
stable)
○ Important time factor - it is not just important that two parties want the same, but they want it at the same time
▪ This is sometimes used in conflict resolution - spreading the access to / control of the thing in question over
time, providing it to one actor and then the other
- Components of conflict
○ Actors - states, non-state, the relationships between them...
○ Conflict behavior - e.g. saying something bad about the other party, can escalate to an armed conflict or higher;
contains intelligence, diplomacy, propaganda, low-level violence, conventional wars etc.
○ Incompatibility - the scarce issue at the theart of the conflict
▪ Typically two types: either of power or territory (is the conflict is about cotntrol of the whole territory, it is a
conflict of power, and if just part of the territory, like in the case of separatist groups, )
▪ Extended set: Realpolitik, Idealpolitik, Kapitalpolitik and Geopolitik
Aspects of conflict
- A relation between the intensity and duration of a conflict (a graphs showing the conflict cycle):
○ Conflict cycle:
i. latent conflict
ii. polarization
iii. manifestation -- the point were someone says there is a conflict -- it is identified outloud
iv. escalation
v. violent phase
vi. culmination
vii. stalemate -- no more resources to use in both parties; they are "stuck"
viii. de-escalation
ix. resolution
x. consequences of conflict
▪ A conflict can of course end at any phase, and can end with the victory of one side, not with a mutual
agreement
- Conflict triangle (Galtung)
○ Conflict attitudes -- conflict behavior -- contradiction / incompatibility
○ There can be dynamic development in all the corners of the triangle
- Modelling through game theories
- Conflicts in basic needs
○ = Conflict is sth that arises over these conflicting needs that are not being satified enough
○ Realistic conflict (Lewis A. Closer)
▪ Not connected to realist theory
▪ We have needs, but they are not fully satisfied. However, we have a certian minimum level for the satisfaction
of our needs, and when they are not met, conflict develops
▪ Armed conflict is a result of frustration
▪ Positive approach to conflict -- it is sth that drives society forward; lack of satisfaction causes conflict which then
leads to improvement in the resolution of this conflict. = Conflict as a driver of social progress
○ Protracted social conflict (Edward Azar)
▪ Emphasizes the need for non-material needs, like security, recognition, identity (+ the right not to be

▪ Emphasizes the need for non-material needs, like security, recognition, identity (+ the right not to be
discriminated), participation
○ There is a gap between expectations and real needs and satisfaction (James Davies)
▪ Pushed these theories further
▪ It is not about how big the expectation are in relation to reality; as long as we feel like we are progressing /
going in the right direction, we are content and do not seek conflict
▪ However, as soon as sth changes in our progress (or the environment changes and our apirations all of a
suddenr rise dramatically while the reality does not), the situation can trun violent
□ Dangerous for regimes which have transformed from autocracy to democracy
- Model of conflict based on the idea of rational calculations:
○ Conflict is a result of rational behavior of actors
○ Initiation does not mean the conflict will actually escalate - the weaker actor can accept the demands and thus end
the conflict
○ Once war develops, it can either end with the victory of one side, or escalate up to a stalemate, where neither of the
parties is able to escalate further. They come to the conclusion that they have done all they could, and they do not
want to / cannot continue fighting further. At this point, it is easiest to start mediating
▪ Mutually-hurting stalemate is one of the key concepts in conflict resolution
○ From this stalemate, countries usually reach a truce - so not yet an end of the conflict, but a ceasefire
○ Futher, the truce can extend to a resolution, but often the parties just use it to "refresh" and then resume fighting
○ RATIONAL CALCULATIONS:
○ (armed) conflict as a result of conscious, deliberate calculation of rational actors
○ the possibility of ending conflicts related to specific moments in the decision-making diagram
○ direct consequences for the intervention by outside actors
ARMED CONFLICT
Requireemnts for a definition
- If we want to study conflict throughout time, we need a definition that can be applied accross histrical periods
- This definition needs to have a functional flexibility, as conflicts vary
- Lack of geographic conditioning -- a definition cannot be geographically-discriminating
○ e.g. typical definitions say that an armed conflict is between two states / governments, or a state and a separatist
group. However, in Africa, there are many armed conflicts between wholly non-state actors in which the gvt is not at
all involved
- Preciseness, in the sense that we are at least able to say when the conflict starts and when it ends
Armed conflicts research projects
A. Correlates of War – CoW (www.correlatesofwar.org)
○ Studies conflict since 1816
○ Initial definition: War is a conflict whose party is at least one state (gvt) and which led to a minimum of 1000 battle-
related fatalities
Classify conflicts into: wars (iterstate, extra-systemic, intrastate), and militrized interstate conflicts

○ Classify conflicts into: wars (iterstate, extra-systemic, intrastate), and militrized interstate conflicts
B. Causes of War - AKUF
○ Armed conflicts since 1946 (http://www.wiso.uni-
hamburg.de/en/fachbereiche/sozialwissenschaften/forschung/akuf/akuf/)
○ Definition: War is a conflict whose at least one party is a state, the armed actions of participating actors are under
central command and there is a measure of continuity in battle
○ = not accidental violence, but controled by some political entity. Also, does not specify the n. of causalties
○ Clasifies conflicts into: anti-regime, for independence/autonomy, interstate, decolonization, other intrastate conflicts
○ Arises from the belief that armed conflicts are the results of the tension in the system (center vs. periphery)
○ = takes a global systemic view; that is why it does not incorporate the quantitative factor
○ This would thus embrace the War in Kosovo, which the first project would not incorporate, as there were less than
1000 causlaties
C. Uppsala Conflict Data Program - (see more in presentation)
○ Definition: Armed conflict is characterized by use of violence with at least 25 battle-related deaths, has at least one
state or government as a party, and concerns a dispute over government or territory.
○ = important as it contains civilian deaths that happened as a result of the war (bomb drop, hunger etc.)

6. Material underpinnings: natural resources and armed
conflicts
9. novembra 2017 9:30
Resources in general
- A variety of natural resources - not just oil or minerals, but wood, drinking water, sand, soil, animals, air...
- It has to be untouched by man to be considered a resource, a scarce commodity, that people can use for sth else (a
functional need / a need based on superstition - e.g. rhino hunting)
- We distinguish between renewable resources (plants, sun) and non-renewable resources (minerals, fossil fuels, soil)
Natural resources in international law

- We do not have a coherent international legal system regarding natural resources
- States need to resort to customary law (obyčajové právo) -- decisions are being made based upon norms that are practiced
- The allocation of natural resources is regulated by territorial sovereignty and by the existence of a title to territory or
maritime zone in which rhe resources are located (Pertile 2015)
○ Important during decolonization -- some people (e.g. John Locke) argued that natural resources do not belong to those
who own the land, but tose who uncover them / manage to extract them
○ However, nowdays, we say that ownerhips of the territory is a sufficient condition
- "Permanent Sovereignty over Natural Resources" - a UN resolution in 1962
○ Lobbied heavily by developing countries to make sure the colonial superpwoers will no longer exploit them
○ Includes the natural resources within exclusive economic zones (200 nautical miles)
○ Exempted are natural resources to be found in unclaimed territories - e.g. Antarctica
- Interstate disputes about natural resources are often reffered to the International Court of Justice
○ e.g. Philippines vs. China regarding the South China Sea
- Law of occupation - an occupying state is not allowed to conduct pillage - it cannot use the resources for personal gain or
further development of the campaign; however, the local resources can be used to support te population that lives in the
occupied territory
○ = established by the Hague regulations
- These rules / customes are often enforced through interstate relations (important role of the EU)
Definition of natural resources for Political Science
- "natural substances that are produced for satisfying human needs and desires" (Le Billon 2012)
○ = resources thus do not necessarily need to have functional properties; luxurious commodities (like gemstones) or
aforementioned rhino horns / tiger pets etc. are not functionally necessary, but satisfy certain desires
- "resources are not; they become" -- important "role of humans in their identification, roduction and consumption"
- "resources and their relative availability or scarcity are, in other words, simultaneously material and socially constructed"
○ We need oil to feed our car, but we need our car because of a social construc - bette mobility / status...
○ "the need for resources is not simply driven by human needs but by the social practices that resources, as objects,
enable"
- "oil itself does not declare war"
- Philosophical question - is there a difference between the extractionand production?
○ Questions arise over ownership - who owns the natural resource? (Extractor or land-owner?)
Inter-State conflicts over natural resources
- Book by Michael Klare - Resource Wars
- He argues that resources become more conteted because:
○ Global demands for manufactured products rises (esp. In China & India). This is coupled with overall population growth
○ Looming shortages of supplies
○ = Hence, contest for resource supply
- However, the counter-argument is that market dynamics and corporations will always find a way to satisfy global demand
○ = they will manage to find a substitute to keep themselves "alive"
- A counter-counter argument: But what about "critical resources" like oil, water, rare metals?
○ China controls one of the largest deposits of rare metals (e.g. ones used for smartphone production). Until today they
never used this leverage in international politics, but that may change
○ An implicit agreement that "water is too improtant to be fought over" - even countries that have a conflictuous
relationship cooperate when it comes to water supply (e.g. Pakistan & India)
- Klare predicts conflicts in the Middle East, Caspian Sea, South Chinese Sea, Nil Bain, Jordan and more
- Examples of (potential) conflicts:

- Examples of (potential) conflicts:
○ Libya - Chad over the Aouzu Stripe
○ Iran - Iraq over Shatt-al-Arab
○ Iraq invasion of Kuwait
○ ....
Disproved neo-malthusian approaches: Resource scarcity
- Malthusianism: relationship between resource scarcity and overpopulation
- Point of crisis = war, famine....

- Originally, the red curve was supposed to curve back down again (after deaths caused by crises) -- cyclical
- Nowadays this does not hold anymore -- since the industrial revolution it became obsolete
- Contrary arguments to Malthusianism:
○ Technology - no need to fight wars over agricultural land thanks to new technologies
○ Recycling
○ Medicine - population growth
○ Substitution
○ Empirical evidence
TWO DEBATES TRYING TO EXPLAIN RESOURCE CONFLICTS: GREED / GRIEVANCE

The greed debate: Resource conflicts
- POV of economists: the civil wars we saw in the 1990s / 2000s were caused by people looking for wealth
○ Economic violence by domestic groups -- locals using guns and violence to go after their objectives of wealth (e.g.
Sierra Leone)
○ Greater rewards for state capture
○ Greater rewards for secessionism
○ Low opportunistic costs -- the gains of becoming a rebel are higher than the potential losses of staying at home and
continuing to work in agriculture
○ Micro-level prespective -- analysis of the needs / preferences of an individual, who weighs his options and decides to
use violence to secure better living for yourself
- Also the idea of a greedy outsider
○ An outer country intervenes in a country to gain control / grace and thus access to natural resources in the area
▪ High future profits from natural resource extraction
○ Strategic leverage on competitors through supply control
○ Private military contractors -- possibility of hiring an independent foreign "army" (mercenaries) in exchange for giving
them acces to natural resources
▪ e.g. Blackwater in Iraq, Sandline in Papua New Guinea
○ = this argument is still in its early development and can be quite problematic to defend
Grievance debate: Resource conflicts
- Animosity between social groups is what is driving conflicts
○ In a country with high income inequality (both vertical - between social groups, and horizontal - among groups of the
same social group), these poorer groups look for "equalizing mechanism" in controlling natural resources
- Grievances over unfair revenue distribution / socio-culturo-environemntal externalities

- Grievances over unfair revenue distribution / socio-culturo-environemntal externalities
○ Policial view: Whole groups of people are fighting because they feel cheated / excluded from societies. Strong aspect
of alienation, which seems like a much stronger motivaiton for joining rebel groups / fighting than just getting rich
- High economic vulnerability to growth collapse
Greed vs. Grievance - who is right?
- A debate between a more economic and a more political view:
○ Economic view: People are fighting just to get rich (= greed debate)
○ Policial view: Groups of people are fighting because they feel cheated / excluded from societies. Strong aspect of
alienation, which seems like a much stronger motivaiton for joining rebel groups / fighting than just getting rich
- Depending on the rebel structure, Weinstein (2005) finds that natural resources can either lead to group fractionalization or
higher group cohesion
- Discussion over the relevance of priomary commodities as a measurement for either concept
- Differences in scarcity, dependence and abundance
Weak state hypothesis: Resource curse

- "natural resources are not directly tied to civil war, but natural resources have an effect on institutions, and this interaction
then creates opportunities or structures that lead to military conflict" (Klosek)
- Misguided economic and social policies
○ If a country is too dependent on a particlar commodity, it may not have the incentive to provide public goods -- the
money gained from exports is not use to build schools or hospitals, but to build palaces for the ruling elite
○ = institutions with access to natural resources cause inequality and grievances, which then prompt people to start a
war
- Exposure to high price fluctuations (boom-and-bust cycles)
○ Some commodities are sometimes very much in demand, and sometimes not in demand
- Dutch-disease
○ At one point in the future, the cost of tulips was extremely high
○ People started abandoning their jobs to make tulips, but as offer began to rise, prices fell
○ Since many other jobs have been abandoned and tulips were not longer that profitable, the country got into problems
- Natural capital depreciation
○ When we extract our natural resources, we can use these assets as a security for borrowing money. But once our
resources are exhausted, we lose the leverage for borrowing in the future
- Over-consumption -- loss of resource assets
- Resource rent effects on over-optimistic and short-sighted policies
- Higher levels of corruption
- Establishment of mafia-like networks or illicit resource extraction in weak states (esp. Wildlife and poaching)
Opportunity structures
- There are argument about resources, saying that they simply provide financial sources -- wars are not held over resources
themselves, but because they can be used to fund armed conflicts held for other causes
- Use of geopatial intelligence sysems to uncover an overlap between natural resource extraction sites and civil war
○ We can now examine whether the locations of civil conflicts overlap over the locations of natural resources
- Lootable vs. non-lootable sources
- The more a resource is dependent on foreign investment, the less attractive it is for rebel groups to gain during civil war,
because they will not be able to get a foreign partner to help them with the resource
Political ecology
- Difference between point and diffuse resources
○ Point -- located areound one point, often deep underneath the ground
- Further distinguishing between proximate and distant resources
- Depending on the type of resources we have, we can extimate what kind of a conflict to expect:
Point Diffuse
Proximate Coup d etat Mass rebellion
Distant Secession Warlordism
○ Coup: Congo (Brazzaville)
○ Mass rebellion: Ivory Coast, Nicaragua
○ Warlordism: Liberia
○ Secession: South Sudan, Angola
Postmodern approaches: Contextualization
- Focusing on the construction of the resource as an object which we use in our social lives

- Focusing on the construction of the resource as an object which we use in our social lives
- Related to the grievance debate, but this approach is more case-study driven
- "eneven resource entitlements also reflect the antagonising effects of war on social identities" -- the ownership of a resource
can make a person "climb higher" on the social level and further antagonize the poorer groups
- Fetishization - how imaginative aspects of resource production and consumption affect power relations
- Different forms of violence can be uncovered - structural, cultural (racism), physical
Policy approaches
- NGOs making media campaigns trying to portray certain natural resources in "bad light" - showing the "cost" of getting ar
esource (e.g. blood diamond)
- Legal processes trying to make certian resource extractions illegal; global trade schemes - Kimberley process (a requirement
of a certificate for your diamond, to know where it came from)
- Due-diligence requirements for corporations
Other research avenues: Dependent variables
- Dependent variables can also comprise of (/ natural resources can also impact):
○ Conflict severity (how many ppl die)
○ Conflict duraiton
○ Conflict terminaiton
○ Post-conflict reconstruction / peacebuilding
○ Role of corporations
○ How we can use NR in counter-insurgency strategies...

7. Doplnit - Conflict prevention
23. novembra 2017 9:34
Instruments of conflict prevention
Actors of conflict prevention

- States
- International organizations
- Regional organizations
- Regional economic organizations
- NGOs
- Individual
- EXAMPLES:
○ Agenda for Peace - UN 1992; the first major document wich emphasized the preventive approac to conflicts
○ Regional scale - preventive activities of OSCE; their activities tend to beu much less publicized than of the UN or
NATO, but they are impactful, especially through the High Commissionar on National Minorities
Early warning mechanisms

- We need to know that sth bad is happening to be able to prevent it, which can be tricky
○ It usually involves knowing about processes happening within states, which further complicates things, because
the itnernational comunity has agreed not to intervene in other sovereign states when nothing bad is happening
yet
- World Bank
○ A system which relies on these general categories:
▪ Character of social and ethnic relations --- are they strained / burdened by historical or other resentments?
▪ Character of governance and political institutions --- do they govern democratically? Does it guarantee
basic rights of the population?
▪ State of human rights and security --- is the security of the state built upon the protection of the rights of its
citizens?
▪ State of economic structures and economic output --- are they stagnating? How is wealt being distributed?
How much is the government invovled in the economic processes?
▪ State of the environment and access to natural resources --- how are the proceedings from natural
resources exportats distributed? Water distribution systems?
▪ External factors --- is there a conflict in the neighboring areas? Are there processes of regional hegemony /
arms races? Has the country been in war / conflcit recently?
○ Main factors that elad to the outbreak of a violent conflict:
▪ There was a violent conflict during the past decade
▪ Low income
▪ High dependency on export of one unprocessed commodity
▪ Political instability
▪ Retriction on human and civic rights --- not allowing people what they otherwise would have done (speak
their language, practice their religion...) which leads to riots
▪ Militarization --- the more weapons you have, the higher the potential for violent escalation if a conflict
breaks out
▪ Ethnic dominance --- a stran between the ethnic communities of the society - one or just some of them
benefit from the economic setup of the country, while others struggle (e.g. Syria before the war; Iraq under
Hussein...)
▪ Ongoing conflict in the region --- a risk of "contaigon"
▪ High youth unemployment
- Barbara F. Walters & Jack Snyder: Civil Wars, Insecurity and Intervention
○ Factors contributing to a higher risk of an outbreak of civil war:
▪ Collapse of state / government
▪ Geographical isolation of minority groups within a larger ethnic community
▪ Demand for a redistribution of power within the state --- when certain groups are demanding a
redistribution of power (even if their claims are legitimate), it may lead to destabilization and an outbreak of

redistribution of power (even if their claims are legitimate), it may lead to destabilization and an outbreak of
civil war
▪ Change in or unequal distribution of resources within the state

8. State-to-state arms trade, Armed conflict &
International law
23. novembra 2017 9:34
Background
- This presentation will focus on Non-international Armed Conflicts (NIACs) and Arms Transfers (= Arms Trade)
○ Transfers are considered the biggest parts of Arms trade, so they are often used synonimously
○ Why just NIACs? Out of 49 conflicts in 2016, 36 were NIACs. Also, aside from being the msot wide-spread forms of conflict,
they are also the least regulated ones
- 20 largest arms importers in 2012-16
○ India, Saudi Arabia, UAE, China, Algeria, Turkey, Australia, Iraq, Pakistan, Vietnam, Egypt
- The countries with the most NIACs
○ India, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Iraq, Pakistan, Egypt
- = an overlap between having conflicts and importing arms
- Nicaragua Case -- Nicaragua vs USA from 1986
○ Nicaragua found out that the rebels in their country were being armed by the US
○ They brought it in front of the International Court of Justice
○ However, "in international law tere are no rules whereby the level of armaments of a sovereign State can be limited, and
this principle is valid for all States without exception"
○ = important piece of court law, because it was the first time that the ICJ addressed the principle of non-intervention; the
conclusion was that
Relevant facts on Arms Trade

- The problem with arms trade goes deeper into the history; being an arms trader is an old profession
- American Civil War is considered as a "milestone" in Arms Trade, as it was one of the first conflicts enjoying the outcomes of the
Industrial Revolution:
○ People realized they could produce weapons in series, in a very fast way, which accelerated trade
○ Also, for the first time, weapons constructed of multiple, separately-manufactured parts appeared. Therefore, if a part of
the weapon broke, it could be repaired (whereas in the past when something broke, it would be thrown away)
- Law of Neutrality -- relevant to arms trade; combined with the Law of Recognition allowed states to take part in (or support one
of the fighting sides) a non-international armed conflict
○ Example: US civil war -- Britain as such was supporting the North, but the rich people of Britain actually supported the
South, because they could make use of slavery and the raw materials they extracted. So Britain declared itself as netural,
therefore inidividual citizens were permitted to give support to one of the parties (= so rich Britons were arming the
South)
▪ e.g. the Alabama case - a ship built in Britain and given to the South
- World Wars Period
○ Clearly defined sides in the conflict
- Spanish Civil War
○ Quite significant for international lawyers in ters of armed conflcit
▪ Certain scholars argued that this was the time when a more comprehensive regulation of armed conflict started to
arise
○ The Sunset of Neutrality and Recognition
○ = The republican government in Spain was completely ignored and unsupported by the itnernational community, while
Germany and Italy strongly supported the insurgent side led by General Franco
- Cold War and Proxy Wars
○ Nicaragua Case (1986) and the Principle of Non-intervention in domestic affairs
○ Additional protocols to the Geneva Conventions - addressing regulation of armed conflicts
- Post-Cold War period
○ e.g. Russians sending arms to Syria in the war, arguing that the arms are all a part of regular trade agreements signed
before the outbreak of the conflict
At the end of the CW

- Disarmament vs arms control
○ Arms control = "we do not want to reach this high level"; a more preventive approach
○ Disarmament = main goal to decrease the number of existing weapons
- Attempts of nuclear disarmament
They took a slightly different path than regular disarmament -- it is more detached from regular

○ They took a slightly different path than regular disarmament -- it is more detached from regular
○ It is more regulated than regular arms transfers -- when they are problems, they usually consist in violating existing
agreements, not doing something "in the grey zone"
- Conventional Arms & Weapons
○ = everything that is not nuclear (or other weapons that have been banned by other treaties, like chemical weapons)
○ There is no general prohibition of the transfer and use of conventional weapons
○ Ilicit transfers -- mainly regualted in soft law (political agreements...)
▪ There is quite a lot of attention on illicit transfers in law
▪ Transfers not authorized by the government; thus often break some rules (officially labeled as being sent to a
government, but in reality end up in the hands of a rebel group)
▪ The Firearms Protocol (2001) - an additional protocol on the UN Convention on Transnational Crime
○ Specific treaties -- not dealing with ilicit transfers as such, but deal with the prohobotion of particular arms
▪ Ottawa Convention on Landmines (1997) -- mainly anti-personnel landmines (to help protect civilian population); anti-
tank landmines are still allowed
▪ Cluster-munitions Ban (2008) -- forms of bombs designed in order to explode when they are launched from an aircraft
and divide themselves into multiple pieces before they reach the ground; lead to many civilian casualties
▪ = these treaties are important because they are no longer just soft law. Once you sign them, there is no way around
them
▪ Arms Trade Treaty (2014) -- it is a very broad piece of legislation, but the main points include:
More on the Arms Trade treaty 2014

- Article I: objects and purpose of the treaty:
○ speaks about regional and international peace, security, stability, human suffering, transparency and reponsible action by
States
- Article II: gives a list of all weapons that the treaty covers
○ is extended to every kind of conventional arms and weapons (from small guns and rifles to large ships or helicopters); also
addresses the UN register of arms and weapons;
○ introduces an authorization system (which was already being used in practice between states, but not officially codified) -
requires a government to authorize every arms trade
- Article VI & VII: specific prohibition of transfers
○ These transfers are prohibited by the exporting state if the exporting state is aware of certain crimes happening in the
importing state. These crimes include genocide, crimes against humanity, grave breaches of the Geneva Conventions,
attacks against civilians, war crimes defined by international agreements
○ Besides these crimes, there is a need to stop every transfer that:
▪ would undermine peace and security,
▪ could be used to commit or facilitate serious violations of HR law and IHL law, commit or facilitate acts related to
transnational crimes or terrorism
○ In case of new relevant information (regarding the state where I am sending arms to), a new assessment is needed
Current Framework and Approach

- Authorization system
○ Was a practice first, now an obligation
○ All transfers are relevant to state responsibility -- a direct connection between the supplier state and the reception state
○ Important, because now we have State responsiblity if something goes wrong
○ Whenever we have proof that a state is providing arms to another state that is breaching international law, he is held
accountable
- Limits to transfers happen only when there are cases of serious violations of HR and IHL (which are often not enough). Examples:
○ Case 1: Arms trade to Saudi Arabia before the High Court. The essential role of the UK and the value of promises.
▪ The UK was helping Saudi Arabia breach itnernaitonal law by interfereing in Yemen
▪ The High Court was supposed to assess whether the entire arms deal was legal or not
▪ The High Court was passing an interpretation saying that the problem was not the arms trade per se, but the best
guarantee of this arms trade was that the British army would be present in Saudi Arabia to help control how the guns
are being used, and make sure that they are used legally. "We cannot stop arms trade with SA, because if we do,
other countries with weaker control mechanisms will fill in the gap"
▪ However, the British enforcers in Saudi Arabia did not have access to all necessary information, so the real effect is of
course questionable
▪ "The value of promises" -- Britain said that they have been assured by SA that the guns were not used for illegal
acts, and it was enough for the High Court to accept it; however, outside agencies and state, like Amnesty
International or the EU, found out that this was not being kept
○ Case 2: Italy's practice on arms trade. Embargoes, stability and human rights. The case of Somalia.
▪ Should Italy close its eyes from the possible human rights violations committed in Somalia, where it is sending arms,

▪ Should Italy close its eyes from the possible human rights violations committed in Somalia, where it is sending arms,
but at the same time while these weapons are helping maintain stability?
▪ In the end, Italy and the African Union troops have decided to withdraw and asked the Somali forces to keep the
peace instead. The embargo was partially lifted to help provide stability, and the Somali institutions were asked to
oversee respecting of the enforcement of laws
- UN Security Council embargoes, esp. Chapter VII od the UN Charter
○ Ban on arms trade if it provides threats to international peace and security
○ It is a very selective approach - we can achieve an embargo on arms imports to a country only when the Security Counci
agrees to it
○ Peace, security and human rights, vs stability? -- We need arms to create stability, but they are also often used to violate
human rights
Conclusion
- A lot of confidence is being put in the role of the State -- we keep beleiving that once the arms reach the state, they will not be
used illegally, but that is often not the case
- The link between arms trade, peace and security needs to be further investigated and clarified
- Another questions - are arms really necessary to create stability / necessary at all?
- Sending arms abroad is becoming a new way to fight conflicts (e.g. drone attacks are very close to armed conflicts, yet the legal
sphere is still centered around boots on the ground, which are often not employed in conflicts even if drones are)
- Current legal approach vs. practical effects

9. Non-violence as a method of waging conflict
30. novembra 2017 9:36
- Recently, in the discipline of conflict studies, there has been wide-spread influence in how violence works as a method for waging
conflict, and a general shift towards the idea that no matter how much armed conflicts are relevant, we also need to focus on non-
violent approaches (protests agains unpopular governments etc.)
Banality of non-violent conflict and exceptionality of violent action

- Banal non-violence?
○ Non-violent conflict resolution is a common, dominant and generally preferred mode of conflict resolution in many parts of
the world (Europe, Latin America, East Asia)
○ It is actually prevalent / preffered in the main societies that dominate the system
○ However, violence is not inevitable -- we have many cases where violence broke out even in very developed and generally
peaceful societies (terrorism in Europe in the 70s; a white cop beating a black guy in the US which leads to violent riots... )
○ Also, non-violence can be complex, complicated and demanding -- in prolonged non-violent conflicts, it often seems almost
cathartic to break out violence; to stay calm and keep going can be difficult to maintain
- Violence as an exception?
○ Especially in the contemporary international system, violence is understood as deviation from generally recognized rules (=
per international law, violence only okay for self-defence)
○ However, in certain contexts (e.g. regional), violence still represents a regular norm of conflict resolution; in many countries
/ regions, the use of violence, or the potential for it, has been established as a condition for doing politics
○ A remaining tendency to attribute certain positive values to war / violence (e.g. "war on poverty", "war on extremism", "war
on drugs")
▪ "war on sth" is a sexier way to say "a policy on changing sth" -- we often use a violent narrative to describe our
approach an issue -- our distance from violent solutions may be narrower than we have imagined
○ = no matter how peaceful our societies are in general, we are not so far from the potential of violence as it may seem
Violence, non-violence and intervening variables

- Between violent and non-violent solutions stands the state, with its justice system, human rights, democracy and institutions that
enforce them
Non-violence as an instrument
- = an instrument of an active political strategy against a political regime, with the aim to enforce certain specific demands of (a
systemic nature)
- Non-violence in the physical sense -- people are not physically attacked (some people, like Galtung, would argue that volence is a
much wider term, and even what we labels as non-violence could be seen as violence)
- Questionable edges which stretch the limits of non-violence towards violent behavior (e.g. if I crash a police car without hurting
the policeman, is it still non-violent or violent?)
Theoreticians of non-violence
- Mahatma Gandhi
○ Goal was to influence the psychology and morality of the opponent
○ "what we attack with a non-violent campaign are the minds of the opponent"
○ If we get violently attacked but do not react,
- Richard Gregg - The Power of Nonviolence (1934)
○ A concept of moral jiu-jitu - attacking the moral 'balance' of the opponent
○ We are engaged in a combat in which we try to throw our opponent off-balance morally / psychologically
- Gene Sharp - The Politics of Nonviolent Action (1973)
○ Took a more systematic and empirical testing of non-violent metods
○ Stands at the start of empirical research of non-violent conflict
○ Founded the Albert Einstein Insitution in 1983 -- now experts in non-violent approaches
G.Sharp - Techniques of non-violent action

= what you can achieve with a non-violent approach:
A. Conversion
○ The regime adopts the stance of the opposition
B. Accommodation
The government does nto transform its position, but partially adopts the opposition's demands

○ The government does nto transform its position, but partially adopts the opposition's demands
○ = a consensual agreement
C. Non-violent coercion
a. The government is pressed into adopting changes, even though it does nto want to
b. The government stays in place, but the demands of the opposition are enforced against the will of the regime
D. Disintegration
a. Fall of the regime under direct impact of the protest actions
b. e.g. 1989 Czechoslovakia
G.Sharp - Methods of non-violence
= empirically derived from political practice
A. Non-violent protest and persuasion (= forms of public appearances)
a. Formal statements (public speeches, declarations, open letters, petition... --- allow to draw in larger parts of the population)
b. Communication with a wider audience (leaflets, radio programs, slogans, social media...)
c. Group representations (sending deputations to the government, mock awards/elections, group lobbying...)
d. Symbolic public acts (displays of flags (or not displaying a flag), wearing of symbols, prayer, rude gestures...)
e. Pressure on individuals ('haunting' officials, fraternizations (trying to win the hearts of deployed soldiers / police on your
side - trying to show them you are more humane than the regime they serve), vigils...)
f. Drama and music (humorous pranks, performances...)
g. Processions (marches, parades, religious processions, motorcades...)
h. Honoring the dead (political mourning, mock funerals (symbolically burying the regime / its representatives), homages at
burial places...)
i. Public assemblies (protest meetings, camouflaged meetings...)
j. Withdrawal and renunciation (walk-outs, sielnce, renouncing honors...)
B. Methods of non-cooperation
a. Ostracism of persons (social boycott, excommunication, interdict...)
b. Non-cooperation with social events, customs and institutions (suspension of sports activities, student strikes, social
disobedience, withdrawal from social institutions...)
c. Withdrawal from the social system (stay-at-home, sanctuary, protest emigration)
C. Economic boycott
a. Boycott by consumers (not buying things - e.g.from Israeli-occupied territories)
b. By producers / workers / capital holders / governments...
D. Strikes
a. Symbolic / sectoral / general
E. Political non-cooperation
a. Rejection of authority (withdrawal of allegiance, refusal of public support...)
b. Citizens' non-cooperation with the government (boycott of elections / laws / organizations / officials...)
c. Citizens' alternatives to obedience (refusal to disperse, falsie identities, reluctant and slow compliance, non-obedience in
absence of direct supervision) = a subtler variation of total non-compliance; popular in Japan
d. Action by government personnel (selective refusal of assitance, obstruction, mutiny...)
e. Domestic governmental action (quasi-legal evasions and delays...) = protest does not have to come only from people
"outside" of the regime, but also from within (public sector workers)
f. International government action (changes in diplomatic representation, canceling diplomatic events, expulsion from IOs...)
F. Methods of non-violent intervention
a. Psychological intervention (fasting, non-violent harrassment...)
b. Physical intervention (sit-in, stand-in, non-violent occupation...) = often the goal for the media to capture me non-violently
sitting somewehere and being dragged away violently
c. Social intervention (overloading facilities, speak-in, alternative institutions...)
d. Economic intervention (defiance of blockades (smuggling), politically motivated counterfeiting (subtly integrating criminal
elements into my campaign), dumping (e.g. Boston Tea Party), seizure of assets...)
e. Political intervention (overloading administrative ystems, disclosing the identities of secret agents, seeking disobedience...)
- = there is a ton of options to protest agains the government in a non-violent manner
- Typically, the problem with non-violent movements is that they only do one thing (e.g. just public protests), but then it is easy for
the government to suppress my activities; it is better to differentiate our portfolio to be effective
Strategic logic of non-violence (Chenoweth & Stephan)

- Non-violence is in fact an efficient tool in protesting agains the gvt / enforcing someting
- Their empirical research:
○ Based on a dataset of ciolent and non-violent political protests with more than 1000 participants between 1900 - 2006
○ The political goals they monitored (= the reasons why people protested in the protests they examined):
▪ Self-determination
▪ Expulsion of a standing political leader

▪ Expulsion of a standing political leader
▪ Expulsion of foreign military occupation
○ Research results:
▪ Non-violent resistance is twice as likely to succeeed as violent opposition
▪ Non-violent resistance increases the probabiliy that the fall of the regime will lead towards peaceful and democratic
development
□ Mainly because a much wider range of people can partake in the n-v resistance - even the old, women, the
sick... It is not as physically demanding as actual violent campaigns
▪ These results are statistically valid for any repressive violent regime
- = it would make sense to complement R2P with a 'responsibility to assist'
○ = we should think at least as hard about supporting non-violent opponents, as we support violent opposition (by providing
weapons, intelligence, training...), because betting on the non-violent ones is actually statistically better
- Logic of success of non-violent resistance
○ Incorporating as wide and complex representation of the society as possible --- all age categories, sexes, races... + trying to
reach out to people working for the government who disagree with it
○ Using as many methods and instruments as possible --- adopt a complex approach which should be strategically planned
○ Improtance of local context --- it always matters what the local context is - the mentality / religion / history / norms... What
worked in Czechia may not work in Libya etc.
Pacifism as a strategy of non-violence

10. Conflict management: Pacific settlement, sactions and
military instruments
7. decembra 2017 9:51
Conflict management
- = a set of instruments aimed at reducing or limiting the itnensity of an ongoing conflict, without the ambition to olve it, t ypically with
a participation of a third party
- = a way to handle disputes
- = manages the consequences of the conflict
- Includes diplomatic, judicial and military instrument used by a wide variety of actors (typically states and international in stitutions; in
some cases some other authority, like a religious figure or improtant individual)
Diplomatic instruments for conflict management
- = negotiations between parties to a conflict and other involved actors without automatic legal implications
- Fully dependent on the willingness of the actors partaking in the conflict
A. Negotiation / diplomatic instruments
○ Are the most usual instruments of conflict management, mainly because of the low cost / threshold / risk for being able to get
involved in a conflict
○ Can take the form of consultations (targeted clarification of the roots of a conflict)
B. Theoretical undertanding of negotiations
○ Puzzle-solving -- attempt to rationally solve a dispute; may be built on principles of game theory - counts with predefined
interests of the parties; looking for a rational outcome / compromise respecting all parties
○ Bargaining game -- attempt to put forward my own strategy and pushing my opponents into a particular compromise; trying to
achieve the best possible outcome for me while resolving the conflict
○ Organizational management -- stakes in the "game" are shared between the parties; taking into account multiple levels of
negotiation - besides the main "international" negotiation (high policy), there is a lower level on the national / home level
(politicians, voters...)
○ Diplomatic politics -- based on the idea that conflict is not limited in duration or scope, but is inherently present in the
international system. By negotiating, we are simply trying to achieve the natural development of my policy interest. The main
goal is not to "solve" the problem, but via interacting with my opponent, I attempt to acquire new information, gather
intelligence, and setp forward with my ideas
C. Good offices and mediation
○ Good offices -- an attempt to bring conflicting parties to a negotiation table. Usually a third part is actively seeking negotiation,
but then does not push the actors to adopt its views. It simply passes informations and positions, but does not pass verdictsor
give solutions. It only does what the parties of a conflict allow it to do. The third party is not a party in the conflict, simply a
party in the negotiation.
▪ The 3rd party can often be the UN High Commissioner
○ Mediation -- the third party proposes its own ideas or solutions. Again, the mediator is not a party in the conflict, simply a party
in the negotiation.
▪ Types of mediation strategies
□ Communication strategy -- close to good offices. Based on passing information from one disputed party to another,
thus lessening tensions and potential misunderstanding. Provides a more rational channel for communicating
between parties in conflict. Sometimes even represents the only communication channel between parties, for
example when one of the actors does not acknowledge the other actor as legitimate
□ Formulation strategy -- more active. Besides rationalizing the debate and controlling the stream of proposals of
both parties, it helps to set the agenda more clearly. Often sonnected to negotiation strategies
□ Manipulative strategy -- the third party actively enters and tries to keep all partie sof the conflict at the negotiating
table by employing some kind of pressure - e.g. setting deadlines for achieving progress, pushing the parties into
accepting solutions... May also filter information / keep some "secret" from the other side, to not harm the
equilibrium it tries to create
D. Enquiry and conciliation
○ Enquiry = verifies disputed facts and presents a report; impartial to the biases of the conlficted parties
○ Conciliation = after hearing the parties and considering their arguments and facts, the third party proposes a compromise
solution
International judicial proceedings

- Main difference from the previous points -- here the decision is binding
A. International Arbitration
○ An ad-hoc body, whose members are chosen by both sides of the conflict. The parties promise to take the decision of the body
as binding
▪ = Usually created temporarily, for a specific dispute

▪ = Usually created temporarily, for a specific dispute
▪ = Parties influence the composition of arbiters (usually based on parity)
○ Application of legal norms can be supplemented with political concerns
○ Parties significantly influence the proceedings
○ Examples:
▪ Perament Court of Arbitration in the Hague -- oldest arbitration body
▪ Internatioanl Tribunal for the Law of the Sea
▪ Arbitrations in the settlement of investment disputes
B. International Courts
○ Standing institutions
○ Permanent composition of judges
○ Applies norms of international law
○ The will of parties decisive for founding the court's jurisdiction and starting the proceedings
▪ A the state can partake in Ics investigation only if he acknowledges its authority and jurisdiction. Then, the court's
decision is binding for
○ Examples
▪ International Court of Justice
▪ Internatioanl Tribunal for the Law of the Sea -- has multiple ways of dipsute settlements, so it belongs both to Arbitration
and Court
C. International criminal justice - Criminal Tribunals
○ Also ad-hoc, for a specific dispute / issue, and focuses on trying individuals
○ Decisions are binding
○ Adjudicates on individual responsibility for committing:
▪ War crimes - crimes in the times of war - against "War Law" (perfidy, attacking medical corps, crimes agaisnt war
prisoners...)
▪ Crimes against peace
▪ Crimes against humanity - can be committed during peacetime or war; relating to civilian population
▪ Genocide - eradication of a particular group of citizens on the basis of their shared features
○ Examples
▪ Nurmberg Tribunal (International Military Tribunal) -- the 1st one ever established
▪ International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia
▪ International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda
▪ International Criminal Court
International sanctions
- = attempts to influence the behavior of conflict parties, the extent, intensity or mode of the conflict by restrictive measur es adopted
against the will of the sanctioned actory by third party or parties
- Types of sanctions:
a. Diplomatic sanctions -- "softer" in nature; e..g revoke a state visit, withdraw diplomatic representation from a state; cancel the
recognition of a state
b. Economic sanctions -- e.g. tariffs, quotas, embargoes, blockades; or non-tariff restrctions on export / import, confiscation of
property etc; also individual economic sanctions are possible - freezing of assets of certain individuals abroad etc. (though those
are usually classified as targeted sanctions, see below)
c. Military sanctions -- e.g. arms embargoes, limited and restricted military action
d. Other - culutral, sport, academic... -- boycotts (e.g. of the Olympic Games)
e. Sanctions against individuals (targeted sanctions) -- usually against members of a hostile regime
- Problems of sanction politics
○ Effectiveness
▪ Relation between goals and costs of their mechanism
▪ Relation between sanctions and alternative procedures
○ Impact
▪ Targeting the sanctions and their impact
▪ The question of smart sanctions
Military instruments of conflict management

- = intervention of a third party in a conflict, with or without the consent of the conflict parties, by deploying military for ces in a non-
violent or violent manner
A. Peacekeeping
a. Traditional peacekeeping -- based on mutual consent in the intervention. May consist in monitoring a ceasefire after the end of
an (interstate) armed conflict. The use of force is strictly limited. E.g. the one in Rwanda in the 90s.
b. Complex peacekeeping -- involves more tasks related to post-conflict reconstruction. Has a larger share of non-miliary
personnel and operates in areas where fighting has not ended. Also has more robus military capabilities and mandate as

personnel and operates in areas where fighting has not ended. Also has more robus military capabilities and mandate as
traditional peacekeeping
c. Preventive peackekeeping -- deploys peacekeeping forces in the context of contlict prevention; often done by the UN, NATO, or
smaller organizations like the African Union
B. Peace enforcement
○ Can take place even without consent of the conflict parties. Thus "infringes" state sovereignty, which is problematic
○ Regulated by Chapter VII of the Un Charter
C. Military invervention
a. Classical intervetion -- interference into sovereign territory of another state which does not lead to an armed conflict
b. Preempetive / preventive intervetion -- against impending attack; takes place to deny further development of a potential
confict; led by an attempt to prevent a change in the balance of power
c. Interventions into an ongoing conflict -- e.g. humanitarian intervention, interventions motovated by peacebuilding / nation-
building
d. Rescue missions -- with the consent of the state concerned
○ Legitimacy of military intervetions
▪ Must be taken for the just cause and wit the right intention (not for personal gains)
▪ By the right authority
▪ Must have a reasonable likelihood of success
▪ Must be the last resort -- ergo only used when all other methods of conflict resolutions have been exhausted
▪ Proportionality -- the force must be proportionate to the problem
○ Effectiveness of miltiary interventions
▪ Problem of scope and impartiality - successful intrevention cannot be limited and impartial at the same time
▪ 'imperial' interveention - wit a decisive use of force
▪ Limited intervention in support of a party to a conflict

11. Methods of Conflict resolution
14. decembra 2017 9:50
MAIN CHALLENGES TO RESOLVING INTERSTATE AND INTERNAL CONFLICTS (Wallenstein)

For Interstate conflict
- Challenges
○ Start conflict resolution while taking account the status quo now (during the conflict), or status quo ante bellum
(before the conflict began?)
▪ In legal terms, the ante bellum situation should always be taken account; in practice, that is not always true -- e.g
Egypt and Israel (when they recognized Israel with the new territories they gained during the conflict)
○ Integration or punishment of the defeated party?
▪ In European history, this is very prominent -- French - Prussian War (France lost and had to abide by harsh
conditions established by the Germans; the German empire was declared in Versailles) / then WW1 - the
situation has changed (France pleaded for harsh conditions against the defeated Germany)
▪ After WW2, one of the parties was not just defeated, but totally destroyed on multiple levels (not just
economically and socially, but politically and ideologically - the ideology Germany was built on was totally
discredited). And in this situation, when it may have seemed that harsh conditions against Germany would be
easy to enforce, the community decided to adapt a different, more "friendly" approach. However, it was not out
of pity, but out of fear that someting even worse than Germany may come about - e.g. fear from the Soviets. So
the Allies came to the conclusion that it is better to integrate them into the European community, than to "give
them up"
- Main theses
○ (Purely) economic disputes are always soluble
▪ = if the conflict is only baout an economic resource, it is easiest to find a way to a resolution
▪ But why do we still have conflicts over oil and other resources? They are usually connected to other issues that
are harder to overcome - e.g. territorial claims
▪ e.g. Iraq invaded Kuwait under the premises of gaining the money that it owed to the USA from their oil resources
(but likely there were other reasons - access to more territory / power over the resource...)
○ Ideological conflicts easily lead to political mobilization and, subsequently, armed conflict
▪ e.g. Iraq - Iran war
○ Practically all interstate conflicts between state concern, at their core, disputes about territory or power
○ For the post-conflict phase, determining guilt constitutes a key challenge
▪ In the past, waging wars was a notmal part of foreign policy, so guilt for starting it was not really the thing
▪ However, from WW1 onwards, this changed; afterwards, assigning the guilt to the country that started the war
was an important point to be reolved
□ Germany was identified as the first aggressor, which was then the reason for their harsh reparations
▪ Since then, international crime of aggression was legally established and is punishable by the instruments of the
International Court
▪ (E.g. The US invasion of Afghanistan was legal, as it had the UN mandate; Iraq was illegal, but the US cannot be
sued on te international court, because it does not accept its jurisdiction)
Civil wars
- Democratization as a solution - conditions of success:
○ The winner respects the rights of the loser, including the right to win in the future
▪ Including respecting the rights of the opposition and the possibility that they may be legally elected to power, and
push out the winner, because the people choose to do it
○ The loser accepts that defeat does not equal liquidation
○ All parties agree that state is not a property of any of them
- = difficult not just in parties after a civil war, but between parties in many other cases, even in democratic countries
○ e.g. the USA - when one party wins, the losing party is kicked out of its positions of power
- Mechanisms of overcoming the internal security dilemma
○ Demilitarization and unification of armed forces
▪ = all means of amred violence should be reduced and re-connected
▪ Different ways to do demilitarization: e.g. dissolving the entire existing force and creating a new one; cleasning te
most "problematic" units - paramilitary forces, death sqads; incorporating members of the opposition into the
official armed forces
Security guarantees for political leaders

○ Security guarantees for political leaders
○ International (military) presence (e.g. peacekeeping)
○ (Interim) power-sharing
○ Amnesty
▪ Usually a necessity to forgive at least some people / groups for what they ave done during the conflict; (amnesty
for the opposition, who raised arms against the gvt)
▪ Also, some should not be awarded amnesty - e.g. those involved in war crimes / human rights abuses
State formation conflicts

- Autonomy
○ Easy to adapt to a specifict situation -- does not need to elad to a consistutional change, can be ad hoc and tailored to
fit the needs of the specific group in the country
▪ Typically ad hoc solution - politically defensible and non-precedential --- giving autonomy to one group does not
necessarily imply that it will be given to another one as well
○ A compromie for both the gvt (maintaining the unity of the state) and opposition (strenghtening self-governance)
○ However, often understood as an interim solution before gaining full independence (e.g. Palestine, Kosovo)
- Federalism
○ Theoretically attractive, as it provides a "symmetrical" solution, but complicated in practice (e.g. Bosnia & Herzegovina)
▪ = a federation between the Serbian republic and Bosnia & Herzegovina, which contains Christians and Muslims
○ More appropriate as a preventive step than a solution after an armed conflict ?
- Independence
○ Key factors for its "quality":
1. Participation in regional integration structures
□ If independence leads to both the new and the old state being aprt of a regional integration, that is good (=
as it inherently means more cooperation, trade between the countries etc. will happen)
2. Self-understanding of the original state center
□ Can the country imagine itself without the part that is being separated?
□ e.g. Czechoslovakia vs. Kosovo -- int he case of CZSK, the countries established they would be better on
their own - that the historical and other differences are big enough to require them to exist independently;
in the case of Kosovo, the territory was always historically linked to Serbia as a "cradle" of its existence; it
was presented as "essential" for the existance of Serbia
3. The problem of the "remaining" population
INNOVATIVE APPROACHES TO CONFLICT RESOLUTION

= not innovative int he sense of being new (many are in fact very old), but in the sense that they are not being used very often
A. Facilitation
○ Aimed at making it easier to find common themes, consepts and understanding
○ Typically incorporates brainstorming
○ Usually affiliated with the activities of civil society (or track II diplomacy)
○ Types:
a. Negotiated rule-making = not going by the "official rule book", but taking into account some specifities of the
conflictuous group / conflict and using them to create new policies
b. Community capacity building = sometimes, the people need to improve their social conditions, but are unable to
formulate and voice them to the official structure; this approach thies to get people to come together, find their
representatives and a way to communicate with the authorities
c. Civil society dialogue = "omits" the authorities and uses talks between various "normal people" (among groups,
artists etc.) -- establishing the notion that the ideas different groups have are not so dissimilar
d. Problem-solving workshop
B. Reconciliation
○ Focuses on psychological and emotional aspects of the conflict (fear, hatred, trauma)
▪ These things are typically overlooked in peace agreements and general conflict resolution
▪ Dealing with the (in)humane side of the conflict
○ Overcoming victimization is a key
▪ = humanizations of the victims of violence (as they typically only become numbers, statistics, policies...)
○ A need to focus not just on fighters / people directly involved in the fights, but also civilians, or people that have been
affected by the conflict as "collateral damage"
○ Components:
a. Overcoming enmity -- the guilty party confesses and asks for forgiveness; postconflict justice, restitution and
reparation

reparation
b. Restorative practice -- restorative circles, empowerment and humanization; e.g. someone took my house during
the war and still lives in it after the end of the conflict - I should either get it back, or get a reparation to counter
for losing it
c. Conflict healing -- commemoration, mourning (a la AA meetings)
d. Compassion with the suffering of others -- narrators (people who suffered in a conflict) talking to an audience
e. Empowerment through art -- artistis have the ability to express what other peopel feel or want to say, through
different than traditional means
C. Traditional procedures
a. Peace circles
▪ Symbolic object which empowers the speaker (an object is being passed around a group, and while holding the
item, I am "safe to speak" about my experience / ideas)
▪ Several circles for the debate (identification of the problem, uncovering deeper connotations, healing of the
conflict)
b. Gacaca
▪ A way to deal with post-conflict justice that suffered a crime against humanity on a massive scale
▪ Established in Rwanda after the genocide (which was exceptional in the sense that really huge numbers of the
population were forced to participate - Huttu leaders were frocing Huttu civilians to kill Tutsi)
▪ Informal court procedure with a participation of the given local community
□ = affected civilians could point at people who have been perpetrators in the genocide
▪ Criticized by some, praised by others

Conflict Studies Notes WS2017-18

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Conflict Studies Notes WS2017-18

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Readings

12. októbra 2017 9:35

Conflict Studies Page 1

Week 13 (exam period) - test in essay form (2 questions)

Conflict Studies Page 2

The development of understanding security

Conflict Studies Page 3

Deepening of the concept of security

Objective vs Intersubjective understanding of security

Conflict Studies Page 4

Negative vs Positive understanding of security

Conflict Studies Page 5

= theoretical reflection of conflict and peaceful coexistence

Peace / conflict and the basic levels of analysis:

Conflict Studies Page 6

Conflict Studies Page 7

Conflict Studies Page 8

Conflict Studies Page 9

Concert of great powers

Conflict Studies Page 10

Conflict Studies Page 11

Similarities / cooperations between these concepts

Conflict Studies Page 12

Conflict Studies Page 13

Structure of the conflict

Conflict Studies Page 14

Defintion of conflict II. (= the less "deep" one; more technical)

Conflict Studies Page 15

Conflict Studies Page 16

Conflict Studies Page 17

Natural resources in international law

Conflict Studies Page 18

- Point of crisis = war, famine....

TWO DEBATES TRYING TO EXPLAIN RESOURCE CONFLICTS: GREED / GRIEVANCE

Conflict Studies Page 19

Weak state hypothesis: Resource curse

Conflict Studies Page 20

Conflict Studies Page 21

Instruments of conflict prevention

Actors of conflict prevention

Early warning mechanisms

Conflict Studies Page 22

Conflict Studies Page 23

Relevant facts on Arms Trade

At the end of the CW

Conflict Studies Page 24

More on the Arms Trade treaty 2014

Current Framework and Approach

Conflict Studies Page 25

Conflict Studies Page 26

Banality of non-violent conflict and exceptionality of violent action

Violence, non-violence and intervening variables

G.Sharp - Techniques of non-violent action

Conflict Studies Page 27

Strategic logic of non-violence (Chenoweth & Stephan)

Conflict Studies Page 28

Pacifism as a strategy of non-violence

Conflict Studies Page 29

International judicial proceedings

Conflict Studies Page 30

Military instruments of conflict management

Conflict Studies Page 31

Conflict Studies Page 32