Pol Science

lOMoARcPSD|17842581
Pcr - notes
Peace and conflict resolution (University of Delhi)
Scan to open on Studocu
Studocu is not sponsored or endorsed by any college or university

Downloaded by Nitigya Thakur (nitigyathakur25@gmail.com)
lOMoARcPSD|17842581
B.A.(Programme) Semester-VI Political Science
SKILL ENHANCEMENT COURSE (SEC)

Conflict and Peace Building
Study Material : Unit 1, 3 & 4
SCHOOL OF OPEN LEARNING

University of Delhi
Department of Political Science
Editor: Dr. Mangal Deo

Dr. Shakti Pradayani Rout

lOMoARcPSD|17842581
Graduate Course
Skill Enhancement Course (SEC)

Conflict and Peace Building
Study Material : Unit 1, 3 & 4
Contents
Unit-1 : Concepts
(b) Conflict Resolution, Conflict Transformation Divyendu Jha
and Conflict Management
(c) Peace Building: Meaning and Concept Dr. Gurdeep Kaur
Unit-3 : Levels of Conflict

(b) Sub-National Level of Conflict Neha Mishra
(c) International Neha Mishra
Unit-4 : Conflict Responses: Skills and Techniques

(a) Negotiations: Trust Building Pallabi Barah
(b) Mediation: Skill Building; Active Listening Pallabi Barah
(c) Track I, Track II & Multi Track Diplomacy Pallabi Barah
(d) Gandhian Methods Pallabi Barah
Edited by:
Dr. Mangal Deo
Dr. Shakti Pradayani Rout
SCHOOL OF OPEN LEARNING

UNIVERSITY OF DELHI
5, Cavalry Lane, Delhi-110007

lOMoARcPSD|17842581
Unit-1
b. Conflict Resolution, Conflict Transformation
and Conflict Management
Divyendu Jha
Outline
2.1 Introduction
2.2 Conflict Resolution
2.3 Conflict Transformation
2.4 Conflict Management
2.5 Conclusion
Conflict is part of human existence. It is an inevitable aspect of humanity which usually
occurs when people differ in their feelings, thoughts and actions. Conflict is normal, and
people are not likely to be in consensus all the time. When there is a disagreement, there
is likely to be dispute in an organization. But a dispute well managed is likely to promote
unity, teamwork. Conflict theory is a very important role to an administrator, and it is also
important to various other fields including education, sociology and even communication
among others. Conflict can be seen as a struggle caused as a result of differences in
values, scarce resources, and even power, such that the goal is to either neutralize or
eliminate the competition or rival completely.
Overtime, there have been various perceptions regarding organizational conflicts. The
first, which is a traditional view, The second, which is the human relations view, argues
that it is natural in an organization. The third and most recent is the interactive
perspective.
Types of Conflict
These are various types of conflicts which are also resolved in different ways:
1) Intrapersonal Conflict: Intrapersonal conflict occurs within the individual as a
result of, role conflict and job stress role conflict, means the different role played
by persons in a given community or organization. For example, the role of a
parent and that of an employee may come into conflict when the employee’s child
becomes sick, and the career parent is stressed at work. This leads to intrapersonal
conflict. As the worker may not be able to put in his/her best into the ever-
mounting pressure of work on the table. The effect of intrapersonal conflict may
result in self-destruction, alcohol and drug abuse. It also has effect on the job
performance, turn over and absenteeism. However, these can be solved by sending
staff to seminars, workshops, counselling centres that are set up in the office.

lOMoARcPSD|17842581
2) Inter-personal Conflict: Interpersonal conflict occurs between two or more

persons in an organization. This may result from: Different in Values: Especially
when, one person places a great emphasis on task accomplishment to the
exclusion of all else, while another stresses the need to maintain good employee
relations even if performance of the immediate task is slightly affected; Different
in Problem – Solving Styles: An employee may prefer to work independently of
the other, while the other employee prefers group work; Different in Managerial
Philosophies: One manager or supervisor may favour decentralization in decision
making while another favours centralization. Interpersonal conflict also occurs
due to competition between two or more employees, for power, promotion or
rewards.
3) Person-Group Conflict: Here, an individual may decide to challenge the norms
or rules of behavior that controls group membership. When instances of waste,
fraud or corruption are brought against this person and the reported is
investigated, and the affected employees then feels threatened.
4) Inter-group Conflict: It occur between people who are working together in a
department. It is caused by issues pertaining authority, jurisdiction, control of
work flow, and access to scare resources.
5) System Conflict: The system conflict occurs when different departments in an
organization are working towards different objectives which are completely
different from the overall organizational goals. The system conflict can be
resolved through the use of task forces and rotating members of departments
among work units.
2.1 Introduction
Regarding the origin of Peace and Conflict studies as a discipline, World War I is
considered to be the starting point. The changing paradigms of world consciousness after
the end of World War I were the real turning point for establishing a discipline which
entirely looks at the issue of peace and conflict. The three world leaders namely Georges
Clemenceau, David Lloyd and Woodrow Wilson met in a crucial time i.e., after the end
of World War I where Wilson proposed his famous Fourteen Points for peace-making in
the entire Europe. Wilson’s fourteen principles basically stressed upon the end of
European Empire and for the establishment of League of Nations. The kind of destruction
that had been going on during World War I compelled the world community to think in
terms of peace and conflict resolution. The two World Wars in the first four decades of
the 20th century have carried lots of unending problems which the human society had to
face immediately after the end of World War. As a result, emphasis was made to
seriously think in terms of establishment of peace and security in the entire world by

lOMoARcPSD|17842581
stressing on academic discussion in the field of Peace and Conflict Studies so that a
unanimous consensus may create in the minds of all those peace loving individuals in this
world.
Ever since the creation of nation-state system through the Treaty of Westphalia in 1648,
there have been hundreds of wars with immense loss including two World Wars in the
twentieth century. The saga of violence and destruction of life and property caused the
growth of peace and anti-war sentiments which appealed to the intellect of many scholars
across the disciplines to initiate peaceful international relations. The main aim of
establishment of Peace and Conflict Studies as a separate discipline was to spread the
culture of peace through research and develop new perspectives on peace and conflict,
and explore the causes and consequences of various forms of conflict.
Peace and Conflict Studies (PACS), is a well-established and well-functioning academic
discipline now across the globe, which ‘systematically study the causes of war and
violence and the conditions of peace’. (Elias & Turpin, 1994)As such this discipline
clearly distinguishes itself from other established disciplines. Subsequently it becomes
clearer regarding the objectives and principle which need to follow in terms of peace
studies. Especially after the end of World War II, the discipline tried to rigorously work
in the field of research in order to offer solution for the establishment of peace and
security in the world. Regarding the objective of Peace and Conflict Studies, David Dunn
and Pedro Bernaldez Stated,
“As a whole, the objective of peace studies is to distill and spread the knowledge
of peace research to wider community, in order to better understanding of peace
and conflict issues in different and varied forms with certain values within a
particular process and try to influence policymaking process successfully.” (Dunn
& Bernaldez, 1999)
Peace and Conflict Studies is a very well-articulated academic discipline now, which
‘systematically study the cause of war and violence and the conditions of peace’. (Elias &
Turpin, 1994) Series of activities and approaches like peace movements, peace research,
peace education, the process of peace building, are rigorously associated with its
evolution. Peace education plays a significant role in terms of analysing and
implementing policy of Peace studies.
While analysing Peace and Conflict studies as an academic discipline, it has lot of co-
relation with the discipline of International Relations. This relationship also well
elaborated by John Paul Lederach. According to him, Peace and Conflict studies deals
exclusively on Conflict Resolution, Management and Transformation mechanisms. In
Lederach’s view, Conflict Resolution, Management and Transformation can be clubbed
and titled as a younger sister of a big brother, International Relations, that mostly focus
on soft and humanitarian issues of international relationships; whereas the latter deals
with more hard core real politics issues. (Lederach, 1997) So by making consensus

lOMoARcPSD|17842581
between Conflict Resolution, Management and Transformation, which is a specialized

field of study, and International Relations, a dominant discipline, the objectives of PACS
(Peace and Conflict Studies) can be fulfilled.
As a distinct field of study in the post-cold war phenomena, Conflict Resolution basically
deals with series of mechanism such as Conflict Management, Conflict Prevention,
Conflict Transformation, Peace Building, Peace Keeping, Peace Making etc. A group of
pioneers from different disciplines saw the value of studying conflict as a general
phenomenon and of late by making connection with peace they discover a new discipline
in the name of Peace and Conflict Studies. Regarding the rapid development of Peace and
Conflict Studies as a field of study it is measured by some eminent scholars that inter-war
period of 1918 to 1945 i.e., between World War I and World War II was the period when
the discipline got accelerated with primary researches. When idealism enchanted
‘supranational structure’, for instance, the League of Nations, was unable to stop the
World War II and its subsequent casualties of more than 50 million people, the
involvement of North American and Western European universities in peace research has
started. (Rogers, 2010)
Richardson Institute of Peace Centre, which was established at the Lancaster University,
in the Department of Politics, Philosophy and Religion in 1959, was the first peace
related institution in Britain. The Center for Conflict Resolution (CCR) was established in
1956 at the University of Michigan, which has started publishing the Journal of Conflict
Resolution (JCR) since 1957. Both the center and the journal emphasized how to prevent
global war and to bring intellectual efforts to study international relationships as 'an
interdisciplinary enterprise’. Conversely, within three years peace research crossed the
Atlantic when Peace Research Institute Oslo (PRIO) was founded by Johan Galtung in
1959. The PRIO started publishing the Journal of Peace Research (JPR) and Security
Dialogue (SD) since 1964. Galtung broadened the perspectives of Peace Studies, which
Paul Rogers terms as “maximalist agenda” of European peace research. (Ibid)
The Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI) was set up on 1st July
1966 under the auspices of the Swedish Parliament. It focused on two broader projects -
how to prevent further development of biological weapons and on disarmament research,
including the study of anti-ballistic missile (ABM) system. Subsequently, international
peace societies and professional associations like Peace Research Society International
(PRSI) and the International Peace Research Association (IPRA) were established in
1963. The Department of Peace and Conflict Research (DPACR) was established in 1966
at Uppsala University, Sweden and its aim was to conduct research on social and
economic structures, focusing on both at the national and international level.
In the post-cold war scenario, growing militarization, arms competition, recurrent coups,
brutal suppression of social movements in different parts of the world especially in the
third world countries, have given birth to a widespread concern for peace. The discipline

lOMoARcPSD|17842581
of Peace and Conflict Studies is more relevant for the global south, where the majority
sections of people particularly the marginalized are struggling with social injustice and
economic disparities. In this context PACS (Peace and Conflict Studies) has more
necessity as well as demand in the Least Developed Countries (LDCs). It was for the first
time in 1999, University of Dhaka, Bangladesh opened a full- fledged academic
discipline of Peace and Conflict Studies. Advocating for a discipline like PS or PACS in
Bangladesh Peter Wallensteen in 1997 wrote to Professor A.K. Azad Chowdhury, the
then Vice-Chancellor of the University of Dhaka, Bangladesh, and stated,
“Internationally there are already now a large number of such programmes, not
only in Sweden (where our training programme includes Bachelors, Masters and
Ph.D of peace studies/research), but also in Britain (Bradford), Syracuse in the US
and several programmes in the University of California System. Thus, Dhaka
University would take its rightful place in a distinguished group of universities
forwarding this subject in training as well as in research.” (Wallensteen, 2005)
The whole analysis of Peace and Conflict Studies are basically revolving around specific
viewpoints i.e., the process of Conflict Resolution, Management and Transformation.
Johan Galtung, a Norwegian sociologist proposed an influential model of conflict, that
encompasses both symmetric and asymmetric conflicts. He suggested that conflict could
be viewed as a triangle, with contradiction (C), attitude (A) and behaviour (B). In the
field of academic discourse analysis Galtung’s triangle model always plays a significant
role thereby initiating different ideas, actions and practices in Peace and Conflict studies.
2.2 Conflict Resolution

Human beings engage in conflict, aggression, warfare, violence seemingly equate with
the human condition. Equally, humans have sought, as long as there has been conflict, to
handle conflict effectively, by containing or reducing its negative consequences. Treaties,
ceasefires, agreements, and handshakes are all symbols of human endeavours to reduce
the negative consequences work better than others. Why it is that in one instance a
handshake and an apology may end weeks of enmity, whereas in another instance a
handshake or apologies do absolutely nothing? The study of conflict resolution seeks to
come to grips with explaining why people engage in conflict, and identify ways in which
conflict may be resolved?
Conflict resolution, as a defined specialist field, has come of age in the post-Cold War
era. It has also come face to face with fundamental new challenges. It started in 1950s
and 1960s, at the height of the Cold War, when the development of nuclear weapons and
the conflict between the superpowers seemed to threaten human survival (Hill, 1981).
Conflict resolution is now recognised as a legitimate, indeed important topic of academic
study. Justifications for the study of conflict resolution appears daily rising levels of
domestic violence in the post war era, the birth and growth of nuclear stockpiles, and the

lOMoARcPSD|17842581
increasing level of dissatisfaction with the status quo at the national and international
level. Because of the bad ramifications and repercussions of these nuclear weapons which
had been used against humanity many times be it, First World War (1914-1918) or
Second World War (1939-1945). These concerns serve to galvanize attention on
resolving conflict by peaceful means without going to war. Even before these modern
daily ills, however, humanity has been locked into patterned ways of dealing with
conflict. The real world has constraints imposed by human nature, by history, and by
deeply ingrained patterns of thought.
Conflict resolution, for some, appears to offer alternative to what seems an otherwise
dangerous and threatening world. Much of its focus has been on techniques or methods
by which conflict may be handled. The focus has been largely upon individual actors, or a
small collection of actors, working to resolve interpersonal, organisational or community
conflict. International conflict resolution has also been an area of keen focus, but has been
left largely to the diplomats and practitioners of United Nations conflict does not occur
within vacuum. Conflict resolution texts emphasis the imaginative, creative generation of
alternatives, empowerment of the weak, and the search for non-violent change. Conflict
resolution has been defined as a situation:
“Where the conflicting parties enter into an agreement that solves their central
incompatibilities, accept each other’s continued existence as parties, and cease all
violent action against each other” (Wallensteen, 2002:8).
This means, of course, that conflict resolution is something that necessarily comes after
conflict. It also means that we first need to have concepts and tools for the analysis of
conflict. This is what conflict theory is all about. Let us now scrutinize key elements in
this definition. The agreement is normally a formal understanding, a document signed
under more or less solemn conditions. However, there can be more informal, implicit
understandings worked out between parties. Such agreements may exist in secret
documents, such as a crucial promise made as a precondition for the formal
arrangements, or as deals about which the parties have been more or less explicit. Many
cases are likely to see as much dispute around such informal understandings over the
formalized documents. Furthermore, such informal pacts require considerable trust
arrangement. Thus, the formal document is important for any peace process. The
definition talk about the parties accepting each other’s continued existence as parties.
This is an important element as it distinguishes a peace agreement from an agreement of
capitulation. An agreement of capitulation is the strongest agreed expression of victory
and defeat. It means that one side lays down its struggle, dissolves its organisation,
departs from the disputed territory and, in short, ceases to be an actor of influence and
significance.
An example is a withdrawal agreement. This is an arrangement where one side agrees to
remove its troops from an area of dispute and this is the only matter the agreement

lOMoARcPSD|17842581
regulates. The withdrawing party is not likely, however, to see it as a matter of

capitulation, although the essence of the agreement is to end that party’s participation in
the conflict. An example is the Soviet withdrawal from Afghanistan that was agreed in
1988 and implemented in 1989.
However, the conflict resolution agreements of interest here are more complex than such
arrangements. Peace agreements refer to situations in which the fighting parties accept
each other also as parties in future dealings with one another. It means that nobody wins
all that is there to win, but no one loses all that there is to lose either. Such arrangements
are difficult to maintain, no doubt, but they are more frequent than may perhaps be
imagined. Of course, the word “accept” in the definition does not imply that the parties
agree to everything or that they like each other. It only means that they accept the other as
much as they need for the agreement to be implemented by the opposing sides. The
formulation that the parties “cease all violent action against each other” is the most
important. Many times, it is part of the main treaty, but it can be treated as a separate
understanding. Often cessation of violence is made public at about the same time as the
peace agreement is concluded. To the public at large, it means that the war ends and the
dangers of being killed are reduced. Sometimes, however, cease-fire agreements can
precede the actual conclusion of the agreement regulating the incompatibilities between
the parties. Thus, the agreements included as conflict resolution measures are those that
solve incompatibilities and end fighting (Burton & Dukes, 1990).
It can be said that conflict resolution has a role to play, even in war zones, since building
peace constituencies and understandings across divided communities is an essential
element of humanitarian engagement. It can be argued that conflict resolution is an
integral part of the work towards development, social justice, and social transformation,
which aims to tackle the problems of which mercenaries and child soldiers are symptoms.
It can be said that for a broad understanding of conflict resolution, to include not only
mediation between the parties but efforts to address the wider context in which
international actors, domestic constituencies, and intra party relationships sustain violent
conflicts.
Conflict resolution is the process of attempting to resolve a dispute or a conflict.
Successful conflict resolution occurs by listening to and providing opportunities to meet
each side’s needs, and adequately address their interests so that they are each satisfied
with the outcome. Conflict resolution aims to end conflicts before they start or lead to
verbal, physical, or legal fighting. More common but not popular with practitioners in
conflict resolution is conflict management, where conflict is a deliberate personal, social,
and organizational tool, especially used by capable politicians and other social engineers.
2.3 Conflict Transformation

The term “conflict transformation” is a relatively new invention within the broader field
of peace and conflict studies. As a relatively new field, it is still in a process of defining,

lOMoARcPSD|17842581
shaping, and creating terminology. During the 1990s, a number of theorists have assisted
in solidifying what John Paul Lederach (1998) called “a shift” toward conflict
transformation in the language used in the field and practice of peace research and
conflict resolution. During the early 1990s, the term conflict transformation was not in
common use among peace and conflict theorists. In fact, one can argue that the term has
not been a core construct of the field for even a decade.
Meanwhile, it has accrued a number of meanings, including transformation of
individuals, transformation of relationships, and transformation of social systems large
and small. We will analyse conflict transformation as a newly minted core construct in
the field and outline how this term and its relationship to other terms such as conflict
resolution is shaping our field. However, the idea of transforming conflict in order to
mitigate or even end protracted social conflicts has now become an integral part of the
lexicon used in the peace and conflict studies field. It can be said that, perhaps
unintentionally, this term carries the connotation of a bias toward “ending” a given crisis,
or at least its outward expression, without being sufficiently concerned with the deeper
structural, cultural, and long-term relational aspects of conflict. In terms of its meaning
and use a term does not really exist until it has a name, nor can it be utilized as a tool for
meaningful communication within a discipline until the name, and its accompanying
definitions, are broadly recognized and acknowledged as having efficacy.
The term conflict transformation has become relatively widely used – in other words, it
has been named but it would not be true to say that its attendant definitions have been
universally accepted. However, while there is a definite movement afoot to make clear
distinctions between the terms “conflict resolution” and “conflict transformation”, they
are still often used interchangeably both in common language usage and in the academic
literature. The abundance of different definitions and interpretations of conflict
transformation creates semantic difficulties. It underscores the need for clarity regarding
this term that is now used as a way to describe, explain, and put into operation the work
of practitioners and theorists.
The classical doctrine of casual pacifism was intended as formulated explicitly by Alfred
Fried in 1918 to establish “a new world order”, a new form of global governance. Casual
pacifism was key the key term: “If we wish to eliminate an effect, we must first remove
its cause with another which is capable of creating the desired effect’’. This intention was
not rooted in an eschatological goal but in manageable approaches which were “inspired
by a purposeful spirit of peace” (Austin, Fischer & Ropers, 2004).
This new world order was defined as the outcome of the “situation of states’’, a process
which was already under way and which would culminate in a contract social, or social
contract, between states. This would lead not to the abolition of conflict but to what, in
current terminology, is known as conflict transformation: “the reshaping of international
relations in a way which will imbue conflicts with a character which frees them from

lOMoARcPSD|17842581
violence and makes them entirely suitable for management by legal means’’. This
conflict transformation – “transforming the nature of conflict” – is precisely what is
meant by “civilizing conflict” in the current peace theory debate (Ibid).
Conflict transformation is an open-ended, long-term, multi-track, and dynamic process,
which significantly widens the scope of actors involved. As far as outcomes are
concerned, conflict transformation aims to achieve a settlement of substantive issues
raised by the needs and fears of the conflict parties. This has two elements: first, a process
orientation approach emphasising the need to change mutually negative conflict attitudes
and values among parties in order to increase cooperation and communication between
them; and second, a change oriented approach stressing the political imperative to create
a new infrastructure for empowerment and recognition of underprivileged, disadvantaged,
and subaltern groups, thus fostering and enabling social justice.
In short, the satisfaction of basic needs on the personal and relational levels will not be
sufficient. Rather practitioners must work to achieve equal access to resources and
assemble the infrastructure that will make possible to address structural inequalities with
the aim of longer-term social reconstruction and reconciliation. If one is to consider
conflict transformation as a conceptual and practical extension and a useful combination
of the pre-existing models, it would make good sense to have some types of synthesis of
game theory, rational choice, human needs theory, and non-violence action. An
illustrative example can be found in the problem-solving workshops, which were inspired
by different sources of non-violent action, such as those of Gandhi, King, and Sharp, that
all stressed the need for respect for the adversary and the search for mutually beneficial
outcomes. (Lederach, 1998).
However, the transformational approach addresses this situation somewhat differently.
This is because conflict transformation is more than a set of specific techniques. It is
about a way of looking and seeing, and it provides a set of lenses through which we make
sense of social conflict. These lenses draw our attention to certain aspects of conflict and
help us to bring the overall meaning of the conflict into sharper focus.
John Paul Lederach (1998) answers the “what” question of conflict transformation
slightly differently and links it in a sense to “how” and “where” it gets done. He echoes
some of the points in Vayrynen’s list, albeit with new terminology. The four dimensions
that should be taken into consideration in order to transform systems can be summarized
as follows:
(1) Personal, or individual changes in the emotional, perceptual, and spiritual
aspects of conflict;
(2) Relational, or changes in communication, interaction, and interdependence
of parties in conflict;

lOMoARcPSD|17842581
(3) Structural, or changes in the underlying structural patterns and decision

making in conflict; and
(4) Cultural, or group/ societal changes in the cultural patterns in understanding
and responding to conflict
The lenses of conflict transformation focus on the potential for constructive change
emergent from and catalysed by the rise of social conflict. Because the potential for
broader change is inherent in any episode of conflict, from personal to structural levels,
the lenses can easily be applied to a wide range of conflicts. The main question is, then,
how can conflicts be transformed? There are four basic steps to transforming conflict.
Within each step, different methods can be used move the process toward a positive
outcome. Remember, transforming conflict is a process, not a single event or activity.
The four basic steps to transforming conflict are as follows:
(1) All groups that are affected by the conflict should acknowledge that there is
a problem and commit to working together to deal with the conflict
(2) The root causes of the conflict should be identified, made explicit, and
reconciled collectively by the groups
(3) The groups involved should develop a common vision for what they can do
together and how they can do it
(4) The groups should determine what they need in order to sustain their ability
to continue to work together to manage or eliminate the causes of the
conflict and to promote peace.
2.4 Conflict Management

Conflict management according to Ogonor (2004) is a strategy employed to reduce the
frequency of destructive encounters by strengthening the inhibitors to conflict actions and
avoid triggering off events according to Ogonor conflict management is aimed at limiting
and avoiding violence between two parties. It therefore covers every action taken before
during or after conflict aimed at mitigating its effects and to ensure that both parties live
in peace harmony and conduct themselves in an orderly manner. Igbinoba sees conflict
management as a term which refers to an unresolved dispute. It is a method used by
people in handling disputes. (Igbinoba, 2011)
According to Aghedo, conflict management is an umbrella term. When disaggregated,
three meanings are discernible that is, a term, an approach, and a discipline. As a term,
conflict management refers to a process whereby dispute is reduced and therefore brings
about a positive change in behaviour. As an approach, it is a systematic method of
dealing with the causes, symptoms, dynamics, transformation, containment, settlement,
and resolution. (Aghedo, 2011)
10

lOMoARcPSD|17842581
Houseman (2007) perceives conflict management as a difference between relevant ideas

and irrelevant ideas. Therefore, managers must mediate to ensure that conflict is resolved
and prevent misunderstandings from becoming protracted and destructive disputes.
Mediation is necessary as it is aimed at helping people to settle their misunderstandings,
helps individuals who have misunderstanding towards conflict management resolve their
differences.
Stages of Conflicts Management
Conflict management, according to Aghedo, can take place in three stages namely; pre-
conflicts, conflicts; and post-conflicts:
Pre-conflict stage: At this stage, effort are made by third party (peacemaker) to
resolve the dispute before the situation degenerate into physical combat. This he
says is a pro – active conflict management stage because conflict is anticipated
and efforts are made to redress causal grievances to avoid escalation. Pre –
conflict management stage is also significant and desirable because the cost
associated with violent conflict can be avoided.
Conflict stage: At this stage, efforts are made by third party to bring about peace
and end hostility between actors engaged in on – going conflicts. The
management of conflict at this stage is an indication that efforts were either not
made to settle the dispute at the pre – conflict stage or such efforts were
unsuccessful
Post-conflict stage: According to Aghedo (2011), efforts at this stage are made
by third party to ensure sustainable peace after initial conflict has ended in order
to avoid a re – occurrence of conflict in the future. This normally takes the form
of post – conflict economic reconstruction and peace – building. To ensure lasting
peace, the grievances that triggered initial conflict is thoroughly interrogated,
victims of such conflict compensated and perpetrators brought to book.
Conflicts management is often divided into different stages which are conflict
management styles and strategies. Pace highlights, that people view conflict in a
traditional way, as it is convenient for them. (Pace, 2003) Blake, Robert, Jane and
Mouton (2007), highlights five conflict management styles, which are;
1) The competitor, this is highlighted by an individual whom vaguely realizes his
aims or goals at the expense of others. The competitor views losing as a sign of
weakness while winning, he views as strength.
2) The collaborator also known as the problem solver proposes that this style
deemphasizes the significance of losing and winning. The collaborators goal is to
seek a mutually acceptable or approved solution to group members’ problems.
11

lOMoARcPSD|17842581
3) The compromiser, this person works to aid groups at the expense of the
individual, as he views everyone as a loser in the conflict.
4) The accommodator or the friendly helper, instigates that anyone who possesses
this method is non assistive. He neglects his personal needs, wants and goals to
maintain a friendly or tranquil atmosphere within the group; he is obliging.
5) The fifth style is known as the avoider, it is also known as the impersonal
complier, which sees conflict as totally a non-positive entity and therefore, the
individual decides to exclude himself from the conflict by disassociation.
Strategies on Conflict Management
There are various strategies for the management of conflicts. However, Thomas (2005) is
of the opinion that people tend to link strategies in conflict management to that of the
conflict management styles, while others focus on strategies as distinct or separate from
styles. It seems that there is an agreement among the researchers on conflict management
styles. There is a perceived agreement among the researchers on conflict management
styles, while there are divergent views on conflict management strategies. Thomas
focuses generally on strategies used by administrators in education. (Thomas, 2005)
According to Thomas, there are eight strategies as regarding management and they are
1) Citizen Advisories
2) Confrontation Sessions
3) Sensitivity Training
4) Process Involvement
5) Education Pluralism
6) Volunteerism
7) Cooperative Studies
8) Failure.
He did not however, elaborates on these management strategies in details or extensively,
which states that a successful conflict manager is of course aware of or alert and even
sensitive to the needs of the young, is realistic and assertive about his own strengths and
weakness, substitute collective judgement for personal wisdom in order to promote
collective wisdom, as a strategy to fall back on when conflict gets out of hand, and
recognizes the necessity of “staying the course” at times.
2.5 Conclusion
Based on the chapter, one can summarise and conclude that the term conflict management
broadly to refer to efforts that prevent the development of violent episodes by containing
or limiting an escalating situation; conflict management work typically involves the
attempted prevention and cessation of direct violence between parties. To use a
12

lOMoARcPSD|17842581
healthcare analogy, conflict management is like the containment of a pandemic. This

might involve quarantine, healthcare alerts, immediate efforts to stop contagion, etc. At
this stage, the goal is to stop the increase and spread of disease, where finding the cure
comes later. Within conflict management work, there is not necessarily a goal of solving
the conflict as more pressing and immediate issues demand attention. The goals of
conflict management work are to deter increased violence and deteriorating
circumstances and to shift the conflict scenario from destructive to constructive
dynamics, laying the groundwork for effective conflict resolution work in the future.
While Conflict resolution is a term that is used to refer to many aspects of intervention;
for our purposes, we will consider it a process by which parties both come to agreements
or settlements about a conflict scenario and address underlying needs and interests of the
parties to a conflict. To continue with the health analogy, conflict resolution refers to the
diagnosis, treatment, and better understanding of a disease once it is contained.
Settlements and agreements most successfully address both the objective (concrete issues,
resources, land) and the subjective (emotional, perceptual, needs - based) dimensions of a
conflict. Furthermore, conflict resolution efforts attempt to build better and renewed
relationships between conflicted groups. Various conflict resolution techniques used to
reduce tension and conflict include negotiation, mediation, arbitration, diplomacy,
interactive problem solving, cooperation on superordinate goals, unilateral initiatives, and
other tension reducing methods
And, conflict transformation is a term that refers to a deeper effort to transform
individuals and contexts embroiled in conflict and attempts to impact wider social and
political causes of a conflict. It addresses long - standing, deep - rooted issues on the
emotional and structural levels of society and is seen as both a post - conflict peace
building process and one that is necessary to heal a society in the interest of moving it out
of the conflict cycle. To follow our healthcare analogy to the end, conflict transformation
work is more like a holistic medicine approach, where after a disease has been contained
and treated, addressing issues such as diet, exercise, lifestyle, long - term healing,
alternative therapies and proactive prevention becomes more possible. Conflict
transformation work attempts to shift the fundamental roots, causes, and attitudes of a
conflicted society, creating healing and positive peace
References
Aghedo, I. (2011). Conflict Management and Peace- Building. Peace Studies and
Conflict Resolution, 95-109.
Austin, Fischer, A. M., & Ropers, N. (2004). Transforming Ethnopolitical Conflict.
Germany: Vs Veralag.
Burton, J., & Dukes, F. (1990). Conflict: Practices in Management, Settlement, and
Resolution. New York: St. Martin Press.
13

lOMoARcPSD|17842581
Dunn, D., & Bernaldez, P. B. (1999). Peace Studies: World Encyclopedia Vol. IV.
Oceana Publications.
Elias, R., & Turpin, J. (1994). Introduction: Thinking About Peace. In R. Elias, & J.
Turpin, Rethinking Peace (p. 05). Lynne Rienner Publishers.
Hill, B. (1981). An Analysis of Conflict Resolution Techniques. Journal of Conflict
Resolution, 26(1), 109-138.
Igbinoba, G. (2011). “Peace Studies and Conflict Resolution. Nigeria: Otoghagua Ent.
Lederach, J. P. (1997). Building Peace: Sustainable Reconciliation in Divided Societies.
United States Institute of Peace Studies.
Lederach, J. P. (1998). Preparing for Peace: Conflict Transformation Across Cultures.
New York: Syracuse University Press.
Ogonor, B. (2004). Conflict Management and Resolution in Organization and
Administration of Education: Perspectives and Practices . Festa Printing Press
LTD.
Pace, R. (2003). Organizational Communication. N.J: Prentice-Hall, Inc.
Rogers, P. (2010). Peace Studies. In A. Collins, Contemporary Security Studies (p. 73).
Oxford University Press.
Thomas, K. (2005). Decentralization as a Management Tool. the American Management
Association, Annual Conference and Exposition. New York.
Wallensteen, P. (2002). Understanding Conflict Resolution: War, Peace, and the Global
System. London: Sage.
Wallensteen, P. (2005). as quoted by Dalem Ch. Barman. In D. o. Studies:, Peace: Our
Turn to Think and Act, Vol. ii (p. 09). Dhaka University.
14

lOMoARcPSD|17842581
c. Peace Building: Meaning and Concept

Dr. Gurdeep Kaur
Assistant Professor
Department of Political Science
Sri Guru Gobind Singh College of Commerce
University of Delhi
3.1 Introduction
3.2 Learning Objectives
3.3 Peace building: Genesis, Evolution and Definitions
3.3.1 Peace building: Some Definitions
3.3.2 Peacekeeping, peacemaking and peace building
3.3.3 Characteristic Features of Peace building
3.3.4 Some Key Assumptions that facilitate Peace building
3.4 Principles of Peace building
3.5 Dimensions of Peace building
3.6 Peace building Agents
3.6.1. Role of Supranational and Intergovernmental Institutions
3.6.2. Role of Civil Society in Peace building
3.7 Challenges to peace building
3.8 Conclusion
3.9 Suggested Questions
3.10 Suggested Readings
3.11 Websites
3.1 Introduction
Besides the basic necessities of food, clothing and shelter, a good purposeful and
meaningful life isn’t possible without peace. There can be no progress and growth in any
society where peace does not prevail, this is an undeniable truth known by people,
societies and nations across the globe. Yet, there are conflicts, friction, disputes and
discords observed at all levels and the manifestations of those vary from mild to profound
ways, nevertheless are noteworthy, disturbing and require intervention so that peace is
established between the contending parties. Indeed the efforts towards restoration of
peace are complex, challenging and require a careful assessment of not only the causes
behind the conflict but also of the strengths and capacities that can be effectively used in
order to restore normalcy and prevent recurrence of conflict in future. Peace building is
one among the various measures adopted to bring an end to recurring violence and make
interventions to have ever lasting solutions to differences and conflicts. Although the
15

lOMoARcPSD|17842581
concept of peace building is not new, it gained currency and widespread acceptance in the
years after the end of the Cold War.
Although there has been no major war after the Second World War but minor wars,
internal conflicts and civil wars have resulted in immense blood shed, destruction and
instability in many parts of the globe. Mention worthy are the conflicts of Rwanda,
Bosnia-Serbia, Syria, Afghanistan, Yemen, Mexico among others that have not just
resulted in heavy toll of human life but the economic, political and social instability is
likely to impact the well being of the future generations as well. Of course, stopping the
conflicts is first and foremost. But equally important is to work for establishing an
environment of enduring peace and good will through peace building initiatives. In the
past few decades peace building has emerged as one of the pathways preferred and
adopted by the supranational organizations, government and the non government entities
alike in countries impacted by violence that cause a lot of human suffering, infrastructural
damage, economic loss and distortion of social fabric. With multifarious tasks undertaken
in peace building that includes addressing the root causes of conflict, promoting and
strengthening democracy, encouraging citizen centric development, providing
humanitarian assistance, and also because of its growing importance it indisputably is an
area worth familiarizing in detail. This chapter is an attempt to explain the concept of
peace building in detail. After a careful understanding of the content of this chapter, the
students will be able to answer questions on the various aspects of peace building.
3.2 Learning Objectives

The content of the chapter will enable the students to:
❖ Understand and define the concept of peace building.
❖ Differentiate between peacekeeping, peacemaking and peace building.
❖ Explain the assumptions that facilitate peace building
❖ Have an in-depth understanding of the role and responsibility of various actors in
the peace building process.
❖ List the key principles of peace building
❖ Elaborate on the challenges to effective peace building.
3.3 Peace building: Genesis, Evolution and Definitions

The genesis of the term can be traced back to Johan Galtung’s work “ Three approaches
to Peace: Peacekeeping, Peacemaking, Peace building” published in 1976 that called for
the establishment of peace building structures to promote sustainable peace by addressing
the “root causes” of violent conflict and supporting indigenous capacities for peace
management and conflict resolution. The concept of peace building was however
introduced within the United Nations with the report entitled Agenda for Peace submitted
at the 47th session of the United Nations, by the then United Nations Secretary‐General,
16

lOMoARcPSD|17842581
Boutros Boutros‐Ghali, on 17th June 1992. The report defined peace building as action to
solidify peace and avoid relapse into conflict. And four years later, the idea of creation of
a new Canadian Peace building mechanism and fund was shared by the Minister of
Foreign Affairs on 30 October 1996. In 2000, the Brahimi Report defined it as “activities
undertaken on the far side of conflict to reassemble the foundations of peace and provide
the tools for building on those foundations something that is more than just the absence of
war. Amidst such political assertions, there were many measures taken by the
international community in violence impacted countries like Somalia, Bosnia, Rwanda
and thus peace building gained political currency both in theory and practice. To meet the
twin goals of peace and development, it was looked upon as a viable strategy in the
conflict prone parts of the world so that peace is solidified. Ever since the concept was
introduced within the organization in 1992, the UN’s understanding of peace building has
continued to evolve in conformity with the changing nature of conflicts, the challenges
faced in the process of peace building. The table below summarizes the evolution of the
peace building concept.
17

lOMoARcPSD|17842581
Source: UN Peace building: an Orientation

https://www.un.org/peacebuilding/sites/www.un.org.peacebuilding/files/documents/peacebuilding_orientati
on.pdf
3.3.1 Peace building: Some Definitions

Peace building is essentially a way to bring peace and harmony. Depending on
one’s perception about peace, peace building differs considerably in terms of approaches,
scope of activities and time frame. In the most general sense it is understood as the
application of measures to achieve peace but as one explores one finds that the term and
the concept is used by scholars, practitioners, policy makers, and others with varying
understandings and definitions.
Johan Galtung, Norwegian sociologist and the principal founder of the Peace
Research Institute, Oslo has defined peace building as “Peace building is the process of
creating self-supporting structures that “remove causes of wars and offer alternatives to
war in situations where wars might occur.” Conflict resolution mechanisms “should be
built into the structure and be present there as a reservoir for the system itself to draw
upon, just as a healthy body has the ability to generate its own antibodies and does not
need ad-hoc administration of medicine.” Galtung’s conceptualization of peace building
was based on his understanding of peace. The emphasis on the self supporting structures
focussed on positive peace which meant establishing structures and institutions with
foundational ideals and principles of equity, justice, cooperation and coexistence that can
foster an environment of peace by addressing underlying causes of conflict.
The Alliance for Peace building defines peace building as tackling the root causes
of violence, rebuilding lives after conflict, and ensuring communities have the
appropriate tools to resolve conflict without resorting to violence.
According to John Paul Lederach “Peace building is understood as a comprehensive
concept that encompasses, generates, and sustains the full array of processes, approaches,
and stages needed to transform conflict toward more sustainable, peaceful relationships.
The term thus involves a wide range of activities that both precede and follow formal
peace accords”.
According to Kofi Annan, peace building is “the various concurrent and integrated
actions undertaken at the end of a conflict to consolidate and prevent a recurrence of
armed confrontation”
According to the United Nations Peace building Support Office “Peace building is
rather the continuum of strategy, processes and activities aimed at sustaining peace over
the long-term with a clear focus on reducing chances for the relapse into conflict. It is
useful to see peace building as a broader policy framework that strengthens the synergy
among the related efforts of conflict prevention, peacemaking, peacekeeping, recovery
and development, as part of a collective and sustained effort to build lasting peace”.
18

lOMoARcPSD|17842581
According to International Alert, an independent international peace building

organization “Peace building is fundamentally about dealing with the reasons why people
fight in the first place, while also supporting societies to manage their differences and
conflicts without resorting to violence”. The core idea is to prevent the outbreak,
continuation and recurrence of conflict so is a complex, long process that cannot
accomplish the objective of changing attitudes, norms, behavior, practices and institutions
without partnering with internal and external actors.
Source: https://www.international-alert.org/about/what-is-peacebuilding/
The definitions above must have enabled the readers to understand that peace
building is broad in nature and scope so happens to be a slippery term and often confused
with preventive diplomacy, peacekeeping and peacemaking, the strategies used by the
United Nations to deal with conflict and restore peace. It therefore becomes important to
differentiate it from other strategies which too are followed to deal with violence and
have an important role to play in fostering a cohesive peaceful order which of course will
enable the readers to have more clarity on the meaning and concept of peace building.
3.3.2 Peace keeping, Peacemaking and Peace building
Peacekeeping is narrower in approach. It concerns maintaining a truce and preventing
the outbreak of violence and is a strategy brought into implementation by actors with an
official mandate for peacekeeping operations by means of which the hostile parties’ are
kept at a distance so that they cannot use force and are encouraged to bring the agreement
into force. Peacekeepers do not involve themselves in the conflict but remain prepared to
use force in self defence and in defence of the mandate. Over the past many years,
peacekeeping has evolved from a strategy designed for monitoring cease fire to perform
a more complex role in tandem with the other agencies like police, military and civilians
19

lOMoARcPSD|17842581
to establish sustainable peace. Thus peacekeepers are engaged in a wide range of

activities that may include facilitating other non‐military initiatives as well.
The activities often initiated and facilitated by peacekeepers are:

a) physically distancing the fighting parties and assisting the parties to transform
from violent conflict to peace.
b) ensuring the adherence to the commitments and supervision of the cease fires,
c) supervising the agreed confidence‐building activities,
d) managing through third‐party intervention (often, but not always done by military
forces).
Peacemaking refers to making peace via political and diplomatic measures that
bring the conflicting parties to an agreement. The goal of the strategy is to take a political,
military or diplomatic route that can push the contending parties’ for a dialogue and
eventually reach a peace agreement. The United Nations Secretary-General, upon the
request of the Security Council or the General Assembly or at his or her own initiative,
may exercise his or her “good offices” to facilitate the resolution of the conflict.
Peacemakers may also be envoys, governments, groups of states, regional organizations
or the United Nations. Peacemaking efforts may also be undertaken by unofficial and
non-governmental groups, or by a prominent personality working independently.
Unlike peacekeeping and peacemaking, peace building is wider, more permanent
and comprehensive in approach involving the process of building peace before, during
and after the eruption of violence. The scope of peace building is vast and expansive, at
its core is a clear goal to identify and deal with the key drivers of conflict and look for
peaceful solutions for resolving political, social, economic or any other problem. It
involves a range of measures like introducing reforms in the economic domain, in
governance by making it democratic, participative and transparent, by establishing
institutions among others to strengthen the capacity of the state at all levels for effective
conflict management; reduce the possibility of recurrence of conflict. Peace building
measures enhance the ability of the state to perform its role and responsibility towards its
people in an efficient and legitimate way. Aimed to bring about required transformations
in the social , political, economic or cultural conditions often takes place by engaging a
wide range of actors both State and non State actors alike. The idea of peace building is to
support a war torn/conflict impacted country at all stages of conflict, including post
conflict recovery and providing all necessary financial/ technical/ policy/ institutional
support so that the country fares well on all parameters of development and thus reduce
the risk of conflict from relapsing.
Peace building begins with measures either ‘from above’ or ‘from below’ but
becomes effective and purposeful with the combination of both. The former includes
initiatives like peace mediation, negotiation and peacekeeping with the purpose to
20

lOMoARcPSD|17842581
discourage the armies factions use force or resort to violence and encourage them look for
peaceful resolution of the conflict for which help can be sought from the international
community or from the neighboring states that can be a guarantor to the peace agreement.
Further the measures from above also includes ways to have sustained peace in conflict
affected parts and this can be done by restoration of public order, strengthening relief and
reconstruction activities, initiating confidence building exercises, plugging all gaps and
provision of all necessary services to the people without discrimination. The building of
peace ‘from below’ includes strategies to develop trust and build confidence among
communities at the local level.
Peace building aims to bring about constructive transformation and focusses not
only on ending the conflict. In addition to strengthening the social, political, economic
and cultural structures and processes, it also promotes values like understanding,
empathy, tolerance, compassion, cooperation, justice, equality, fairness, etc. And these
goals can be effectively realized with the participation of all stakeholders not only
through formal platforms and bodies i.e. the national government/ regional or provincial
government/ local governing bodies but with the active engagement and involvement of
religious, educational institutions, cultural bodies and definitely not without give due
concern to the aspirations, sentiments and expectations of the people . And eventually
with such efforts long term stability and order is ensured.
3.3.3 Characteristic Features of Peace building
The purpose of peace building is to bring about far reaching transformations,
creating a conducive environment for the establishment of an integrated, inclusive and
peaceful society that leaves no space for distrust, hatred, fear, animosity, bitterness, fear,
frustration and fragmentation, thus minimizing the possibility of the flare up of the
conflict. Some features of peace building are as follows:
❖ Peace building is comprehensive in nature that begins with identifying the root
cause of the conflict or violence, making an in depth study of the society where
violence has erupted, evaluating the strengths and weaknesses of a conflict
prone society, devise a prudent workable plan, identify the key stakeholders
and parties’ to the plan, execute the plan and monitor the plan among many
other aspects. And besides, being comprehensive is a long process.
❖ Peace building is initiated after the conflict has subsided or has ended by opting
from a range of activities that can help in establishing a congenial environment
for peace and good will to prevail. With reconstruction, rehabilitation and
capacity building efforts not only enduring peace and harmony is ensured, the
foundation of development is also well- laid.
❖ Peace building involves application of non violent strategies like establishing
communication, negotiation, mediation etc. Such initiatives pave the way for a
healthy way to resolve conflicts. In addition a combination of various strategies
21

lOMoARcPSD|17842581
are applied for desirable results and also after taking cognizance of the situation
and issues. The pathways may however vary, but are available for every
conflict impacted environment.
❖ Effective peace building requires a multi pronged approach. For long lasting
peace social, economic, political and other interventions need to be taken.
❖ Peace building refers to a set of measures taken to make a careful assessment
of the conflict causing factors or reasons and address those in addition to
safeguarding the life of the civilians with the involvement of state and non-state
actors like the civil society, NGOs, market etc.
❖ Peace building happens to be a futile exercise if not tailored and customized.
Every conflict situation is different from the other, the key issues are different,
so are the strengths and limitations of every society different from the other.
For instance, peace building in Sierra-leone cannot materialize by following the
approach and strategies that were / are being followed in Afghanistan. Both the
countries are starkly different in terms of geography, ethnicity, population,
resource availability and also in terms of the root cause/ causes of the problem
among other variables.
❖ Peace building is an intervention to bring about transformations at the ground
level, involving enormous field work which of course is challenging, requiring
a lot of preparedness, at times requiring on-site solutions which are certainly
not possible without the involvement of personnels and officials with necessary
skills, expertise and also willingness. The plans, strategies for all field
activities, however, are designed in formal settings which serve as a forum to
exchange ideas, opinions and share expertise.
3.3.4 Some Key Assumptions that facilitate Peace building
There are often different routes and processes for conflict resolution and peace
building, applied by the practitioners, which may however vary but there are certain core
assumptions that motivate the practitioners to continuously engage in the task of peace
building. The core assumptions are:
a. Conflict is natural and is a source of change—Unlike the general perception,
conflict is understood in a positive connotation for peace builders. Peace builders
begin their intervention by considering conflict as natural and perceive conflict as
often leading to desirable social change. Difference in opinion, incompatible
goals, competing interests, exclusionary practices, unfair distribution of tangible
and intangible goods etc often lead to chaos and conflict and in the process the
peaceful ways to resolve conflicts remain unexplored. The peace building
initiatives, on the other hand, begin with the positive approach that the competing
groups can be engaged and assisted to look for potential avenues of reconciliation
22

lOMoARcPSD|17842581
and work for a desirable change that can satisfy the needs and aspirations of all
parties.
b. Application of Non violent means are pragmatic, purposeful and
constructive—For peace building, non violent methods are preferred over the
violent ones because through dialogue, discussion, meditation , a possible solution
to the conflict can be arrived at and with contending parties sitting together on a
table increase the prospect of sustainable peace. Moreover, non violent approach
is a cost effective, ethically correct, constructive way to deal with conflicts and
issues of varied nature. Thus the presumption that non violent methods are the
most effective and workable in persuading the adversaries to change their
perception and resolve the conflict, is strong among the practitioners of peace
building and that motivates them to continue their efforts in this direction.
c. Co-operation is a viable way to resolve differences/mistrust—All differences
over resources, values, interest or even if a conflict has emanated due to a
historical baggage can be effectively dealt with cooperation. However, co-
operation cannot happen without willingness to participate in discussion and
cannot prove to be effective without the intent to listen and understand the issue
from the perspective of the opponent. Therefore, the peace building exercises
invest extra efforts to clear the misperceptions, burst the negative stereotypes and
reconstruct the positive image of the enemy.
d. The conflict emanates from contending issues and people are not seen as a
problem—It is people who fight, disturb law and order, destroy public property
and are responsible for ravage but are definitely not the cause of the conflict,
peace building begins with this presumption. The focus of the peace building
efforts henceforth are on the root cause of the problem that could be differences in
values, goals, aspirations, interests etc. The peace building practitioner assumes
that if the parties involved redirect their energies and efforts focussing on the
issue rather than paying attention to individual or collective characters of the
others involved, the task of restoration of order and sustainable peace is easy and
definite.
e. The route to resolution of conflict and all peace building is via
communication—The communication gap not only closes the doors of
reconciliation but also augments the negative perception that one group has for the
other in situations of conflict. Communication is the medium through which
negative feelings and perceptions are discovered and are addressed. Effective
communication serves as a strong foundation for peace building as it enables
fostering an environment of trust, empathy and understanding. No matter how
effective concrete structural reforms are initiated, if they are not communicated to
people or people are not involved in such developments by opening
23

lOMoARcPSD|17842581
communication, they fail to serve any purpose. No stakeholder, no matter how

small or insignificant, is included in the peace building process, certainly
facilitates long term solutions and prevents the conflict from relapsing.
3.4 Principles of Peace building

The very objective of peace building is to foster an environment for positive peace i.e., to
create conditions wherein neither the new issues escalate to violence nor the old issues
resurface again and create disorder and chaos. Peace building efforts aim towards
establishing sustainable peace by making the optimum utilization of all tangible and
intangible resources for sustainable development that paves the way for coexistence,
mutual trust, respect and interdependence. The principles of peace building are:
1. Principle of Comprehensiveness—Superficial assessment of the conflict fails to
bring about effective and long lasting results. A conflict needs to be understood in
totality, an attempt needs to be made to have clear understanding of the conflict
like the issue behind conflict, parties’ involved; to investigate whether there are
historical roots of the confliction what grounds can the contending parties’ be
brought to settlement; identifying the demands and needs of those involved; etc so
that workable strategies are brought into execution that can bring lasting peace.
Thus a conflict needs to be understood and assessed in complete
comprehensiveness that necessitates in depth enquiry and adopting a broader
vision and a purpose.
2. Principle of Interdependence—Conflicts escalate and manifest in violence due
to many intertwined reasons and factors. Similarly, effective peace building is not
possible without the recognition of interdependence of variables, factors and
actors. Peace cannot be established without the involvement of a wide range of
actors and also without inter-connecting people, systems and activities. All things
are mutually linked and connected, and this needs to be taken into account
throughout the peace building process. With concerted efforts to build and support
the interdependent relationships, lasting peace is possible and is sustained.
3. Principle of Sustainability—If efforts to establish are not comprehensive, well
thought, practical, applicable and sustainable then the conflicts often span
generations and flare up periodically into violent actions. In order to establish
sustainable peace, it is important that all efforts are channelised in the right
direction, all steps taken towards peace building are well supervised and gaps, if
any, are identified timely and addressed. It henceforth requires that apart from
reviewing plans, programmes of action and policies and other steps for their
immediate outcomes must also be reviewed for their outcomes in the long run.
The sustainability principle can be prudently followed by creating ongoing
capacities within the context to transform recurring cycles of conflict and crisis.
24

lOMoARcPSD|17842581
4. Principle of Strategic Framework—Adhering to the principle of strategic

framework implies ‘first thing first’, prioritizing tasks, bringing into
implementation specific scheduled actions, responding pro- actively to emerging
social situations and meeting immediate and specific concerns and needs. In
addition, reinforcing broader and a long term change process along with the well
designed plan of actions to meet the immediate needs and for a desired future
must also be a part of the strategic framework.
5. Principle of Infrastructure—This principle requires working on the
infrastructure necessary to support the peace building process and for the
realization of the envisioned transformation of the society from violence to peace.
This infrastructure refers to people and their relations; the social spaces where
people interact and bring the needed transformation and also the institutions that
can strengthen the bond of trust, understanding, tolerance, acceptance between the
people. Thus, infrastructure includes logistical mechanisms, social space and
institutions that support the peace building processes and bring desirable changes.
3.5 Dimensions of Peace building

There are multiple reasons that are responsible for chaos, conflict and violence in any
society. Some reasons for conflict become pronounced and identifiable while others do
not. But the ongoing conflict impacts society in all ways, this is indisputable. As an
exercise peace building requires working in all dimensions which are:
★ The structural dimension—The structural dimension of peace building lays
thrust on working on the root cause of the conflicts. Most often than not, the
conflicts and violence are an outcome of social, political, cultural or economic
reasons like unfair distribution of resources- tangible and intangible, repressive
policies of the state targeting any particular community or group, unequal political
representation etc. Without addressing the factors that cause conflict and violence,
the foundation of peace cannot be laid. For lasting peace, it is necessary that the
social, political, cultural and economic foundations be such that they not only
satisfy the needs of the people but also help build trust between people and the
state. Working in this dimension requires addressing political/economic injustices,
introducing reforms, ensuring civil liberties to people without discrimination,
creating employment avenues, facilitating services, introducing reconstruction
programmes, protecting human rights, establshing institutions for capacity
building among people etc. and for such kind of initiatives state has a pivotal role,
of course, the help and assistance can be taken from external agents and civil
society groups and such endeavors can also be successfully accomplished by
public- private partnership.
25

lOMoARcPSD|17842581
★ The relational dimension—In situations of conflict and war, relationships get

broken as hostilities, mistrust and suspicion grows between contending groups.
All efforts to peace building prove futile if relationships continue to remain
damaged and divisive. The relational dimension focuses on repairing and
transforming the damaged relationships by encouraging the contending groups to
arrive at reconciliation, rebuild relations through values of forgiveness,
understanding, tolerance and develop trust in one another. To work practically in
this domain there is a need for effective communication in continuum- dialogue
and healthy interaction at all levels help parties understand their own role in
conflict and also in peace building; enable the groups to have an improved
perception about one another that serves as a foundation for healthy relations for
sustained peace. Relationships at all levels need to be improved and
communication gaps need to be worked on, if the very objective of peace building
is to be accomplished. Till the time, the relational dimension remains unattended
and the stakeholders do not endorse a common vision and approach for building a
peaceful society, no strategy is able to deliver desirable results. Ranging from
high level meetings to interactions at the grass root levels, by organizing
workshops, making optimum use of print and electronic media and by keeping a
tap on the spread of fake and inciting messages can help build better, healthy and
meaningful relations. In such an environment, peace agreements are likely to be
self-sustaining.
★ The personal dimension—The personal dimension focuses to bring the needed
changes at the individual level. Conflicts lead to psychological damage and leave
people emotionally drained after facing trauma of all kinds. Individuals are a
fundamental unit of every society and conflicts often leave them in a state of fear,
anxiety, helplessness, despair, desperation, negativity, depression and pain. Unless
physical, psychological, emotional healing of individuals is addressed, sustained
peace is not possible. Moreover, if this dimension of peace building is ignored,
victims of conflict and war are likely to become perpetrators of violence in future.
Therefore to break the cycle of violence it becomes all the more important that
besides re-building community structures, enhancing health infrastructure and
facilities, empowering the victims of violence through compensation,
representation, community outreach programmes be rolled out and healing and
counseling sessions be arranged.
With the help of professionals and experts people can be counseled and guided to
overcome the bitter, turbulent past and start afresh with positivity and hope since efforts
of peace building require a strong foundation where individuals of the society have a
significant role to play.
26

lOMoARcPSD|17842581
3.6 Peace building Agents

No external entity how powerful and influential it may be cannot bring long lasting
peace. The desire for peace has to be from within and sustained efforts from within can
bring lasting peace. Having said that top down approaches are important but efforts for
peace must also be initiated from the bottom. Active involvement and healthy
participation of the local people in all stages of the peace building process is desirable for
sustaining peace. A right balance of the efforts of both the external and internal agencies
is necessary for the constructive transformation of the conflict impacted society to set the
house in order. External agencies like the international organizations, any neighboring
country can facilitate and support peace building by extending financial assistance,
facilitating rehabilitation work, providing expertise, resources for the restoration of
institutions and political structures while the internal agencies have a more important and
integral role to play. Experts like lawyers, educationists, teachers, social workers are the
ground level agents in peace building and so are the religious networks that play an
important role in establishing social, ethical and moral norms. Non-governmental
Organizations, business community too are engaged to carry out a range of peace
building activities and strengthen the grass root level initiatives. Beginning with the
national government to the local community, all have a contributive role to perform for
one or multiple tasks in the peace building process. It is important to understand that the
government of the respective country is the object and the subject of peace building at the
same time. And while peace building aims to transform various government structures,
the government typically oversees and engages itself in this reconstruction process and
the international bodies can help in funding, technical assistance, political, social and
economic advocacy, it is the civil society that can play a pivotal role as peace
agents/actors with best of their capacities to meet peace building goals. The text that
follows would further elaborate on the role played by institutions and bodies at various
levels to bring into implementation peace building efforts and enhance those.
3.6.1 Role of Supranational and Intergovernmental Institutions
Today we are living in an integrated, interconnected world characterized by
globalization wherein neither the causes nor the outcome of the conflict are confined to
the territorial borders of the affected state. Ethnic/ religious/ other conflicts have a
spiraling effect and make a detrimental impact on the social, political and economic
environment at the global level. In the past few years, there has been an increase in the
ethnic conflicts, civil wars in many parts of the world. According to the recent World
Bank report, the development outcomes are severely impacted by the fragility, conflict
and violence that have not only led to the crippled state institutions and rule of law but
have created new tensions and challenges like militant extremism, terrorism, refugee
crisis and these problems are not typically restricted to the frontiers of any particular
nation state, so cannot be addressed independently by the country impacted. Moreover,
27

lOMoARcPSD|17842581
the birth of institutions like the United Nations or for that matter any other
Intergovernmental organization rests on the principle of collective responsibility and
solidarity which is to be extended to the member nations in all possible ways to resume
stability.
The United Nations has been actively engaged in peacemaking, peacekeeping, preventive
diplomacy and peace building activities ever since its inception. The United Nations has
been performing its role in peace building through its various departments, agencies and
programmes and many countries have benefitted by the services delivered. The protection
of civilians is always at the heart of all peace building measures of the United Nations
and the goal is met with effective coordination with other agencies like the UNHCR,
FAO, ILO and to accomplish the responsibility of peace building, the UN draws on the
abilities of various UN bodies and other agencies, with distinct yet complementary
mandates to work for peace building.
Source : Protection of civilians: The role of UNHCR
For instance, United Nations High Commission for Refugees works in conflict
affected states, UNHCR and other humanitarian organizations keep a watch on the
critical developments in conflict affected states, and perform an early warning
responsibility, mobilize the wider UN system with data, ground reports and analysis for a
timely and appropriate broader political response for peace and cohesion. Similarly UN
Women can play an important role in the peace building by mobilizing women to be a
part of the peace building process by empowering them through training and imparting
necessary skills.
To facilitate peace building endeavors and to maintain coherence, coordination and
effectiveness of the activities undertaken by the UN and its various bodies, the Security
Council and the General Assembly has laid down a well designed peace building
architecture. The UN’s peace building architecture comprising the Peace building
Commission, Peace building Support Office and Peace building Fund was established in
28

lOMoARcPSD|17842581
2005-6. Each of the constituents has a defined role but each works in coordination with
the other. The Peace building Commission (PBC) is the inter governmental consultative
body that extends assistance to countries emerging from conflict by bringing together a
wide range of relevant actors, arranges for resources and facilitates integrated solutions.
The Peace building Support Office (PBSO) was established to assist and support the
Peace building Commission, administer the Peace building Fund, and support the
Secretary-General’s efforts to coordinate the UN system in its peace building efforts. The
Peace building Fund (PBF) is the UN’s global multi-donor trust fund for meeting the
immediate needs of countries emerging from conflict or at risk of relapsing into conflict.
To reaffirm the pivotal role of the peace building architecture, both the United
Nations General Assembly (UNGA) and the Security Council (SC) adopted two key
resolutions on 27th April 2016, emphasizing on UN’s focus on sustained peace and that
peace building should be initiated to prevent conflicts rather than preventing the
recurrence of the conflict. With these resolutions the UN sought to advance its global
peace building agenda to meet the sustainable Development Goal #16.
In addition to the transnational/ supranational organizations, intergovernmental
organizations also have an important role and responsibility towards peace building. In
contrast to the transnational organizations, the regional organizations are often more in
tune with the nuances of their localized cultural and community tensions. The local
people also feel more connected to the intergovernmental organizations, which they
believe can give enough space to the language, ethnicity, cultural issues etc. in the entire
peace building process. For instance, the African Union (AU) comprises 55 member
countries located in the continent of Africa. Due to the geographic proximity, some
shared cultural values and practices etc people of conflict affected countries of the
continent develop trust, closeness with AU over any other organization. And indeed the
regional bodies are better sensitized with the regional issues and have more workable
plans for peace building. The IGOs are in a unique position of authority and influence
with which they can push their member states to work for tolerance, cohesion, inclusion
and peace for the betterment and progress of their respective citizenry and for the entire
region too.
3.6.2 Role of Civil Society in Peace building
Civil society is recognised as one of the key agents in peace building. Civil Society
Organizations (CSOs) is an umbrella term for a wide range of non-governmental and not
for profit organizations that are active in the public domain, express the shared interests
and values of their members or others, based on ethical, cultural, political, scientific,
religious or philanthropic considerations. Broad range of organizations, such as
community groups, women’s association, labor unions, indigenous groups, youth groups,
charitable organizations, foundations, faith-based organizations, independent media,
professional associations, think tanks, independent educational organizations and social
29

lOMoARcPSD|17842581
movements fall in the ambit of CSOs. These organizations act as a link between the state
and the citizenry and are instrumental in promoting values, accountability, transparency,
democratic principles; voicing people’s concerns and also disseminate information and
provide feedback for necessary corrective measures.
Over the past years, there has been a considerable shift in the peace building approaches.
Peace building that once focussed primarily on the security and peacekeeping has brought
working on the enhancement of socio economic and political indicators within its ambit
so that a congenial environment of sustainable development can be created leaving no
scope for conflicts to emerge or relapse. The changing approaches to peace building has
created space for the participation of the civil society actors. Until the 1990s, the key role
in the peace building process was played by the top leaders of the conflicting groups,
national government and international organizations and donors. Of late, the importance
and significance of the vibrant and diverse civil society in conflict prevention, conflict
management and post conflict intervention for reconstruction and development is not
undermined. Paffenholz and Spurk have identified seven functions played by civil society
in peace processes and these include protection, monitoring, advocacy, socialization,
social cohesion, facilitation, and service delivery.
a. Protection—Although it is the state that is entrusted with the responsibility of
protecting and safeguarding its citizenry, in cases where the state suffers from
extreme fragility and disorder the relationship between state and people is
disturbed. State is unable to provide security and safety to its people resulting in
rampant violence, human rights violations, looting, plundering etc. In such
situations the civil society has to step in to ensure the security needs of the people.
And this is done by civil society actors either alone or by associating with other
specialized agencies or NGOs for e.g. Peace Brigades International is an INGO
that is providing support to local actors in countries where law and order has
crumbled and communities experience violent conflict and live in fear of
intimidation.
b. Monitoring—International and local civil society groups are vigilant and monitor
the ground level developments pertaining to issues like human rights violations,
implementation of the agreement etc. on a regular basis and report the same for
timely and appropriate intervention to the decision makers. Such monitoring roles
performed independently or in association with other agencies of UN or INGO
helps to make the government or the armed group accountable for any kind of
excesses on common people and also serve as an early warning system. For
example there has been a joint early warning initiative between UNOCHA,
ECOWAS and a regional NGO peace network active in West Africa.
c. Advocacy—Advocacy is another important function of civil society in peace
building as they can push for negotiation, set an agenda for negotiation and
30

lOMoARcPSD|17842581
agreement and also foster the implementation of the agreements. The advocacy
based on substantial findings, monitoring can help the civil society to lobby
successfully for people centric public policies, integration of issues in broader
developmental projects and programmes. For example, in Northern Ireland, civil
society groups managed to lobby successfully for the integration of human rights
provisions into the peace agreement.
d. Socialization—Socialization refers to developing in group bonding, affinity and
closeness with one another that helps to promote tolerance and peaceful values
within the society. In this regard, the role of civil society is pre-eminent because
socialization cannot take place without one’s engagement with and participation
in various associations, networks or movements. Civil society- schools, religious
groups, cultural groups facilitate the spread of democratic values and promote a
culture of peace.
e. Social Cohesion—During conflicts, social fabric gets torn and damaged as
hostility, mistrust, suspicion, becomes more pronounced. In such a situation, civil
society has a challenging yet an important role to play. It works to build ‘bridging
ties’ across adversarial groups as well as (peaceful) ‘bonding ties’ within specific
groups and facilitate cohesion, harmony and peace in the society.
f. Facilitator & Mediator—Civil society works as a facilitator throughout the
peace process beginning with bringing the contending parties together in a
transition process. And also facilitate towards establishing an environment that is
convivial for interaction, dialogue, and deliberation and for reconciliation of the
competing interests. At times, civil society acts as mediator and supports
collaboration between rival groups, institutions and state. For example, in
Afghanistan to resolve conflict between the Taliban government and various
Afghan communities, local and religious leaders explored various options and
facilitated peace talks.
g. Service Delivery—During conflicts, the state structure and its administration
becomes weak and often fails to provide essential and social services to people,
which can further worsen the situation. Civil society has a pivotal role in this
context, it provides the needy and starving population with basic services,
reaffirm the faith in positive values of empathy, sharing and coexistence that can
go a long way in preventing the relapse of conflicts.
The table below provides a comprehensive description about the role assumed by
the civil society in peace building and the kind of organizations/ groups engaged in the
task.
31

lOMoARcPSD|17842581
Source: Civil Society and Peace building Potential, Limitations and Critical Factors Social Development
Department Sustainable Development Network THE WORLD BANK February 2007
https://openknowledge.worldbank.org/bitstream/handle/10986/7709/364450SR0REPLA1
nd1Peacebuilding1web.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y
3.7 Challenges to peace building

Peace building is not as simple as it seems. It is indeed difficult to establish peace in
conflict affected parts of the world as it is to take place in an insecure, politically fragile
and economically crippled environment. There are numerous challenges to effective
peace building, some are as follows:
➢ Lack of Shared Vision—Coherent shared vision of stakeholders is first and
foremost for peace building work because it enables setting the goals, prioritizing
activities, establishing effective coordination, and sharing the responsibility.
However, it is observed that the shared vision is either absent or minimal at the
level of the government, among civil society members and between the national
partners and also between national and international partners. In absence of shared
vision there is no common understanding of the context, the set goals and
priorities happen to be different; the strategies happen to be different resulting in
more disagreements and chaos, thus adding to the complexities of the peace
building process.
➢ Maintaining and Managing the balance between Short term and Long
Objectives—Peace building is aimed at preventing the outbreak, the recurrence or
the continuation of armed conflict. It therefore has to engage in a wide range of
political, development, humanitarian and human rights programmes and
mechanisms. And this requires short and long-term actions tailored to address the
particular needs of societies sliding into conflict or emerging from it. But it is
found that there exists difficulty in accommodating, prioritizing and balancing the
short term and long term objectives. Indeed for any conflict affected society,
32

lOMoARcPSD|17842581
meeting the immediate needs is most pressing like humanitarian assistance,

arranging for uninterrupted supply of food, medicines, rehabilitation etc but if
these are to be provided and smooth delivery of services is made available, it is
important to address systemic challenges simultaneously. All gaps in efficient
service delivery are to be plugged, transparency is to be ensured, all logistics need
to be arranged etc. In such a scenario it often becomes difficult to maintain a
balance between short term and long term objectives, given the dire needs and
demands of rebuilding a fragile environment with limited availability of
resources.
➢ Lack of competent staff/human resources—Strengthening or rebuilding the
foundations of the society that have been torn apart by conflicts/ civil war is not
business as usual. Peace building requires strategic planning for a diverse range of
activities to be undertaken that necessitates the need for highly competent, capable
human resources. It is generally found that the agencies - International/National/
local/ civil society, all face the dearth of competent, willing, committed man
power since it is a task requiring a lot of skills, technical know-how, and readiness
to work in a challenging environment. Peace builders apart from possessing
willingness, expertise and capability must also be emotionally strong and well
prepared to deal with challenges. Since there is a long list of qualities and abilities
needed for peace builders to deal with situations that are unstable, insecure,
dynamic and complex, a lack of capable human resource is apparent.
➢ Poor rate of Implementation—Despite the arduous efforts to stop conflicts from
emerging and re emerging, many countries’ suffer from weak managerial and
leadership capability or commitment, and/or the lack of realistic assessment of
capacity and of politics that account for the poor rate of implementation of
national strategic plans despite being good, purposeful and much needed. In
addition, effective implementation requires fixing realistic targets and timelines,
effective coordination among and between all partners, establishing rapport with
common people. In absence of such measures in many fragile states, conflicts
never settle and recur.
➢ The financial challenge—Peace building is an enormous task, the success of
which besides other important aspects is largely dependent on the financial
resources. Conflicts result in dilapidated economy, unemployment, poverty,
destruction and deaths and the state in itself is not in a position to bring the
situation back to normalcy and has to henceforth depend on external funding.
Many times it is found that the donors are reluctant to fund critical but high risk
political and security activities. Poor and inefficient donor financing practices are
identified as a fundamental challenge to peace building, in many of the reports
prepared after survey and assessments. These practices include funding for short
33

lOMoARcPSD|17842581
term projects only, inadequate funding, early withdrawal, distributing aid in a

disaggregated way etc. Such practices often do not meet expectations of the
national partners, as a result many vital areas in absence of adequate/ sustained
and properly disbursed financial resources remain neglected.
➢ The Communication Challenge—Communication is important for dealing with
conflicts, it is through communication via different platforms that the information
reaches the people and for establishing sustainable peace, people need to be well
informed with correct facts, developments and ground level situations. Effective
communication facilitates the participation of people in the peace building work,
publicizes the dividends of peace and helps build support for the peace process.
However, it is observed that during and in the immediate aftermath of conflict,
weakened public and private media fail to provide accurate, independent and
reliable information. Misinformation, absence of information and changing facts
hence are constant challenges in peace building.
Besides the stated challenges, others like lack of citizen participation, weak
accountability between national and international partners; and limited effectiveness of
capacity development approaches; poor conflict analysis; lack of trust between partners;
too many plans etc. make interventions uncoordinated, fragmented, incoherent resulting
in unsustained peace.
3.8 Conclusion
The content of this chapter provides a basic yet comprehensive understanding on the
meaning and concept of peace building. It is found that despite the shortcomings and
challenges it continues to be an important endeavor for global peace and harmony. With
the conceptualization of Sustainable Development Goals, it becomes imperative to
strengthen the social, political and economic structures and system of fragile states by
partnering with all stakeholders and most importantly, with the conflict impacted people.
Presumptions and principles of peace building happen to be the driving force and pillars
respectively by adhering to them inclusive, peaceful, prosperous, world order is possible.
3.9 Suggested Questions

Q.1 Define and explain the concept of peace building.
Q.2 Explain the relation between peacekeeping, peacemaking and peace building.
Q.3 What are principles and presumptions to peace building?
Q.4 Analyze any one case study for identifying the achievements and limitations of
peace building.
Q.5 Discuss challenges to effective peace building with relevant examples.
Q.6 Civil Society has an important role in peace building. Justify
34

lOMoARcPSD|17842581
3.10 Suggested Reading

 Kofi Annan., “No Exit Without Strategy”, Report of the Secretary-General to the
UN Security Council (Doc.S/2001/394, 20 April 2001).
 Boutros Boutros-Ghalli., An Agenda for Peace: Preventive Diplomacy,
Peacemaking and Peace-keeping, United Nations Department of Public
Information, New York, 1992.
 Roland Paris., At War’s End: Building Peace After Civil Conflict, Cambridge
University Press, Cambridge, 2004.
 Necla Tschirgi., Post-Conflict Peace building Revisited: Achievements,
Limitations, Challenges, International Peace Academy, New York, 2004.
 Lederach, J. P. Building Peace. Sustainable Reconciliation in Divided Societies.
Washington, D.C.: United States Institute of Peace Press, 1997.
3.11 Websites
https://www.international-alert.org/
https://www.peacebrigades.org/
35

lOMoARcPSD|17842581
Unit-3
b. Sub-National Level of Conflict
Neha Mishra
Outline
2.1 Introduction
2.2 Determinants of Sub-National Conflict
2.3 Stages of Sub-national conflict: From War to Peace
2.4 Sub-national conflict in Asia
2.5 UN and Peacekeeping in sub-national conflicts
2.6 Donors and Aiding during sub-national conflicts
2.7 Sub-National Governance: Solution to sub-national conflicts?
2.1 Introduction
The world is experiencing a resurgence in violent conflict. Many of these conflicts are
fought within state borders, often in the context of deeply divided plural societies that are
undergoing political transitions to determine the nature of the state and how subnational
governance arrangements should redistribute the political power at global and domestic
level. There has been a rise in the level of conflict at sub-national level since The past few
years were marked by the highest level of violent conflict in the post– Cold War era. The
most affected region by these violent events have been Sub-Saharan Africa, the Middle
East, and parts of Asia. The impact of these conflicts has been a serious cause of struggle
for civilian population.i The determinants of global conflict dynamics have shifted from
the interstate to intrastate conflict or sub-national conflict. These sub-national conflicts
have proliferated since the end of the second world war, having high humanitarian and
economic impact with costing millions of lives, as witnessed in the Yemen, Somalia,
Myanmar and Mali.ii
The subnational conflicts start with the emergence of rebellion forces that caused by
inattentive or overextended state, which makes a community or category feel repression
and feel the need to rebel. The state repression or discrimination against minorities has
emerged as the usual form of subnational conflict, whose character varies in accordance
to a region, ethnic or religious seeking a legacy of autonomy from the central governing
authority. While many insurgents are motivated by ethnic-minority grievances and ideals,
others are motivated by much less altruistic objectives, including crime and local political
dominance. Although these conflicts do not dominate the entire country, but their impact
lasts for decades.iii Subnational conflicts are usually marginal issues that are considered
peripheral or secondary to national and international concerns. These issues affect a
36

lOMoARcPSD|17842581
minority population in average, around 6-8% of a national population, and typically

involve less than 20% of national territory. In the case of subnational conflict, insurgents
and private armies of local elites threatens the local population of a particular region more
than any government security forces. A country sometimes experiences multiple
intrastate conflicts with varying forms that involves non-state actors, who sometimes
demands greater decentralization within a sovereign state and sometimes demand
independence.iv
2.2 Determinants of Sub-national conflict

Subnational conflicts are invariably affected by multiple and overlapping levels of
contestation. The three major forms include:
a) State-Minority Conflict involves the active struggle over the presence, role,
authority, and legitimacy of government actors and institutions in the conflict
area. the number of violent conflicts in the world that have a major underlying
cause involving ethnicity, culture or language remains extremely high. The vast
majority of these types of conflicts concern minority groups. It is the conflicts
involving minorities that seem to last the longest and often cause the most
bitterness and damage. Just a few examples of minorities involved in conflicts
would include: Chechens, Darfurians (for example, Fur), Kurds, Palestinians,
Roman Catholics in Northern Ireland, Serbs and Tamils. Chechnya, Darfur,
Kashmir, Kosovo, Sri Lanka – just some of the world’s long running conflicts. All
fuelled and fought over ethnic, linguistic, religious and cultural issues. All
concern minority groups. But despite the fact that a disregard for minority issues
lies at the heart of these conflicts, minority rights have been marginalized in
international conflict prevention. Conflicts that could have been prevented flare
up, as warning signs provided by minority rights violations go unheeded.
Attempts to end violence only sow the seeds for more violence in the future, as
peace settlements simply become ceasefires. Although minority rights as such
have developed significantly since 1919, they have largely been marginalized
within the international protection of human rights. Among those working on
conflict prevention, notably the UN, there are few or no specialists working on
minority rights, (with the notable exception of the Organization for Security and
Cooperation in Europe [OSCE] High Commissioner on National Minorities
[HCNM]).v
Violent conflict involving minorities appears to come in two main forms: attacks
on minorities and minorities resorting to violence.
i) Attacks on minorities—This is where the violence is largely directed at
minorities, sometimes because the minorities are scapegoated for other
problems in society, sometimes because authorities want their land or other
possessions, or simply because they are ‘different’. Such violence may be
37

lOMoARcPSD|17842581
carried out directly by government agents or it may be done by third parties,

but almost always with government connivance. This type of violence, if left
unchecked, can easily escalate. Minorities may retaliate, or the violence
against them may worsen, sometimes culminating in mass killing, rape and
other atrocities.
ii) Minorities resort to violence—The other type of violence is when it is
resorted to by members of minority groups. This is often because many
members of the minority community feel they are under threat and have
nothing to lose from violence. Often, the minority community has suffered
years of discrimination and denial of its identity. What may spark the violence
may be a relatively minor incident, but based on years of discrimination and
exclusion. But again violence, once started, may easily escalate and violence
can continue for generations. Both types of violence can be used for other
ends by parties without a direct interest in the minority concern – such as
agitators, governments and neighbouring states. But even when the violence is
used for other purposes, it is often based on real concerns. However, ethnic
and religious conflicts often last for decades, sometimes long after the initial
grievances have been remedied. For example, the violence associated with
Euskadi ta Azkatasuna (ETA) in the Basque region of Spain began at a time
when the Basque identity (including its language) was being strongly
suppressed by Madrid. Today, while the problems remain, the Basques have
great freedom to practice their language and a large degree of autonomy and
participation in the decisions that affect them, yet the violence continues. It is
clear it is much better to prevent conflict before it begins.vi Territorial
separation is sometimes the only way to manage the most extreme types of
ethnic conflict, which usually involves consideration of some type of formal
territorial devolution of power or autonomy. In the extreme case of “ethnic
cleansing” in Bosnia, areas which previously featured highly intermixed
populations of Serbs, Croats, and Muslims are now predominantly
monoethnic.
b) Competition and Conflict between Local Elites
These conflicts include rival clans, families and/or political factions that compete
for dominance in their area. This conflict can be further divided into the following
forms:
i) Election and conflict—The choice of an electoral system in a culturally
plural society can affect the potential for future violent conflict. The optimal
choice for peacefully managing conflict depends on several identifiable
factors specific to the country, including the way and degree to which
ethnicity is politicized, the intensity of conflict, and the demographic and
38

lOMoARcPSD|17842581
geographic distribution of ethnic groups. It is assumed that the “free and fair
elections” are the most appropriate way both to avoid and to manage acute
internal conflict in any country. Electoral system design is not merely
contingent upon the basis and intensity of social cleavages but also, to some
extent, upon the nature of the dispute, which is manifested from cultural
differences. The classic issue of dispute, is the issue of group rights and status
in a “multiethnic democracy,” that is, a system characterized both by
democratic decision-making institutions and by the presence of two or more
ethnic groups, defined as a group of people who see themselves as a distinct
cultural community; who often share a common language, religion, kinship,
and/ or physical characteristics (such as skin color); and who tend to harbor
negative and hostile feelings toward members of other groups. when looking
at different electoral options concerns the spatial distribution of ethnic groups,
and particularly their relative size, number, and degree of geographic
concentration or dispersion. For one thing, it is often the case that the
geographic distribution of conflicting groups is also related to the intensity of
conflict between them. The frequent intergroup contact facilitated by
geographical intermixturemay increase the levels of mutual hostility, but it is
also likely to act as a moderating force against the most extreme
manifestations of ethnic conflict.vii
ii) Rebellion and conflict- Rebel groups that confront the government frequently
become engaged in fierce and violent struggles with other groups. Civil
resistance plays a key role in shaping rebel behaviour. Rebel responsiveness is
greater in localities where local elites have strong clientelist networks than
where they have weak clientelist networks. Armed conflicts between rebel
organizations have been prevalent in, for example, the Myanmar, Afghan,
Liberian, and Sudanese conflicts. Conflict between rebel groups should be
understood in the context of the civil conflict: as a means to secure material
resources and political leverage that will help in the conflict against the
government. Where rival groups challenge the distribution of spoils along
these two dimensions (i.e., in terms of material and political resources) we
expect to see inter- rebel fighting. A group particularly vulnerable to rival
groups when its resource mobilization effort is focused on the extraction of
valuable natural resources and when it operates in zones of territorial control
beyond government reach. Moreover, the quest for political leverage, which
can bring groups into conflict with other groups, will be strongest for groups
that are either weak or strong relative to other groups in the conflict and when
the state adversary is weak.viii
c) Inter-communal Conflict
It comprises competition between different ethnic and/or religious groups living
close together, and often competing for scarce land and other resources.
39

lOMoARcPSD|17842581
Communal conflict is defined as violent conflict between non-state groups that are
organised along a shared communal identity, and how such conflicts relate to
state-based violence. Communal conflicts as located in the middle of the
coordination spectrum since the communal actors involved lack a formal military
organisation but may still feature a high level of coordination. Communal
conflicts can take many different forms, and in order to understand the different
dynamics of communal conflict, it is useful to analyse their underlying causes and
the issue over which the conflict is fought.ix
Different conflict issues may necessitate different types of interventions and
conflict resolution strategies:
i) A first set of communal conflicts takes place in connection with local or
national elections. A core reason for this is that political allegiance in many
countries follows ethnic lines and when one group’s candidate loses, this
group might seek revenge against the other group. This is often worsened by
the patrimonial systems that characterise most countries where communal
conflicts are common. Such systems include a strong patron-client relationship
in which access to power becomes extremely important.
ii) Land is also often at the heart of communal conflicts that centre on groups’
main livelihood. One example is pastoralist conflicts, i.e. herder-farmer
conflicts and conflicts between various pastoralist groups. Such conflicts
constitute one of the oldest forms of organised violence in the history of
mankind.x
iii) The identity conflicts are another kind of communal conflicts pitting the
‘original’ inhabitants of a locality against more recent settlers. Ethnic identity
is one of the most significant types of identities. Meanwhile, some researchers
have recently begun to criticise the term ‘identity’ as being too excessively
associated with political ideologies, lacking operational power and being
difficult to define precisely. Simultaneously, attention has been drawn to what
can be referred to as ‘ethnic revival.’ Ethnic identity is created based on the
opposition between what is ‘one’s own’ and what is ‘foreign.’. Even though
the category of ‘the Other’ or the ‘foreign’ always appears in the context of
identity, it has a special significance in the case of ethnic identity. By such
means, the belonging to a particular ethnic group is emphasized, while
simultaneously one is cut off from other groups. Conflicts between clans,
tribes and ethnic groups have occurred throughout the ages and in all
civilisations.xi
40

lOMoARcPSD|17842581
2.3 Stages in Sub-National Conflict: From War/Crisis to Peace

Each subnational conflict can be placed along a continuum of political transition from
war to durable peace.
Stage 1: No Transition, Only Violence
This stage involves no political transition, only violence. There is effectively no credible
process underway to facilitate peacemaking and end protracted violence. Where there are
efforts to facilitate a transition, a fragile political transition may exist—most commonly
through a formal peace process between the central government and the armed group
opposing the state. However, there may be widespread skepticism that the transition
process will lead to a durable peace, due to stalled negotiations, fragmentation of armed
groups, or failure to deliver on promised reforms or concessions.
Stage 2: Accelerated Transition
It involves high confidence in the transition process, and where the government, the
armed opposition, and key leaders from the conflict area have more political space to
proceed with difficult compromises and concessions.
Stage 3: Consolidation
It is the other end of the continuum in the sub-national conflict, taking place usually after
a major agreement has been reached, when institutions undergo major transformation.
However, the path from war to durable peace in the consolidation stage is not linear. It is
very common for political transition processes to follow winding, circuitous paths, with
major setbacks at multiple points in the process.xii
2.4 Sub-national Conflicts in Asia

Asia has hosted some of the world’s most violent interstate and subnational conflicts. The
latter count among the world’s longest running, averaging 40 years, and most intractable,
often fueled by uneven resource distribution, ethnic and religious tensions, violent
extremism, and/or urban crime. When such conflicts spill across national borders, they
affect neighboring societies, economies, and politics in devastating ways.
Within Asia, subnational conflicts have been the most common form of armed conflict
since 1955. Subnational conflicts in Asia affect strong states and middle- income
countries. The majority of subnational conflicts take place in stable, middle-income
countries, with relatively strong governments, regular elections, and capable security
forces. Despite decades of economic growth, widespread poverty alleviation, and
increasing capacity of central governments, subnational conflicts continue to be a major
challenge in the region. Subnational conflicts in Asia are fueled by perceived injustice
over governance, political and economic marginalization, and threatened identity of the
local minority population. Many of these areas were self-governing and culturally distinct
41

lOMoARcPSD|17842581
prior to 20th century state building that sought to consolidate power over peripheral
regions through stronger central control, cultural assimilation, and concentration of local
power in the hands of a small governing elite with strong ties to the state. Minority
populations living in subnational conflict areas were often subjected to prolonged assaults
on their identity that contributed to their perceptions of injustice. Such policy-driven
assaults included: education in the national language only, citizenship criteria excluding
some minorities, discriminatory access to government services and productive assets, and
loss of traditional homelands. These factors continue to feed an inter-generational
narrative of fear and distrust of the state and security forces and of challenging the state’s
legitimacy and authority in the conflict affected area.xiii It is the ingredients of the
strategies that Asian countries chose to stimulate growth and development that have led
to subnational conflicts. These include a strong focus on centralizing power at the
expense of power in the peripheries, an emphasis on creating a dominant national culture
and identity - sometimes at the expense of minority cultural identities, and an opening up
of markets to outside investment - often over-riding traditional claims to land and other
natural resources. These policies and practices have generally been quite successful in
stimulating growth. But they have also led to resentment in regions that have not
benefitted from this growth and/or who perceive their cultures and identities to have been
marginalized. The security-focused responses of some Asian countries, who have sent the
military in rather than search for solutions to underlying problems, has also led to
resentment which has given some conflicts a new lease of life.xiv
In the last decade, the subnational conflict in Asia has witnessed a great rise. If we look
back to the past two years, Seven countries in Asia and Oceania experienced active armed
conflicts. There were three in South Asia: Afghanistan (major internationalized civil
war), India (high-intensity, interstate border and subnational armed conflicts) and
Pakistan (low-intensity, interstate border and subnational armed conflicts). The other four
in South East Asia—Indonesia, Myanmar, the Philippines and Thailand—were all low-
intensity, subnational armed conflicts. Three emerging trends in the region remained
cause for concern in 2020: (a) the growing Chinese–United States rivalry combined with
an increasingly assertive Chinese foreign policy; (b) the growing violence related to
identity politics, based on ethnic or religious polarization (or both); and (c) the increase in
transnational violent jihadist groups. Some of the most organized of these groups were
active in South East Asia, most notably in Indonesia, Malaysia and the Philippines.xv
2.5 UN and Peacekeeping in sub-national conflicts

UN peacekeepers frequently operate in highly volatile areas with conflict. While
peacekeepers work to protect civilians, stabilize conflict zones and strengthen rule of law,
they also strengthen social and civic conditions necessary for peace. Peacekeepers help
strengthen national and sub-national institution to address the root causes of conflict such
as discrimination, inequalities and marginalization. The UN civil affairs officers are a key
42

lOMoARcPSD|17842581
civilian component that helps facilitate interactions between peacekeeping missions,

partners and local communities to prevent conflict. Civil affairs work depends on a
mission’s mandate and the evolving situation on the ground. Three constant key activities
that civil affairs officers undertake are engaging local stakeholders, participating in local
conflict management and supporting the extension of state authority. Civil Affairs is one
of the largest civilian components in peacekeeping operations. In 2020, 565 Civil Affairs
officers in eight UN Field Missions, of which hundreds were national Community
Liaison Assistants (CLAs), played a key role in early warning and situational awareness
of conflict dynamics on the ground. Local conflicts dynamics are complex. They are
deeply rooted in the societal grievances of a host-country and as such are both vulnerable
to national political power struggles and a destabilizing factor for fragile peace processes.
These disruptions can be triggered by political and resource-based factors including land
disputes, cattle migration patterns and much more. Peacekeepers work to prevent and
mitigate these disruptions by supporting communities and actors at the sub-national level
generating opportunities for community dialogue, mediation efforts and localized peace
agreements and reconciliation processes that can reduce the toll of civilian casualties and
livelihood disruption. The extension of state authority is a key peacekeeping task that
focuses on activities to ensure that the state’s institutions are present throughout the
territory of the country providing goods and services and that its authority is perceived as
legitimate in the eyes of the population. This is an area of work in which peacekeeping
operations in Mali, the Democratic Republic of the Congo and the Central African
Republic, among others, provide technical support and capacity development to state
institutions, especially in the area of security and rule of law, and promote good
governance practices at the sub-national level by working closely with local authorities,
civil society actors and local communities to foster dialogue and accountability.xvi
The nature of United Nations (UN) peacekeeping has changed over the last two decades.
While once intended primarily to bolster post-conflict peace processes, contemporary
peacekeeping missions are commonly deployed to states in which the guns on the
battlefield have not yet silenced. Since the end of the Cold War, the United Nations has
deployed 28 peacekeeping operations (PKOs) to Africa, 21 of which served during an
active civil conflict. Intervention into active conflict has dramatically changed the
responsibilities of peacekeepers and the challenges they face. Peacekeepers are no longer
meant simply to keep the peace. Modern operations must also reduce hostilities between
conflicting parties and establish favorable conditions for a subsequent peace process UN
PKOs reduce battlefield hostilities in two general ways. First, when UN forces are
deployed to a civil conflict, they function to resolve the security dilemma that exists
between the belligerents. By providing security guarantees, UN missions assist the
combatants in overcoming commitment problems that would otherwise make peaceful
forms of resolution difficult to pursue. Security guarantees allow the belligerents to pull
back from battlefield hostilities as a means of achieving their goals. Second, PKOs seek
43

lOMoARcPSD|17842581
to increase the costs borne by combatants in an effort to reduce their reliance on combat
as a means of resolving the dispute. In satisfying these two mechanisms of violence
reduction, PKOs commonly engage in two operational activities: separating and
disarming the combatants. Military troops are the most likely to prevent battlefield
violence because they offer the strongest means by which the UN can guarantee security
and increase the cost of fighting, by separating combatants on the frontlines and engaging
in disarmament and demobilization activities.xvii
2.6 Donors and Aiding during sub-national conflicts

Aid agencies concerned about peacebuilding focus mainly on fragile and heavily conflict-
affected states. Since subnational conflicts are often found in middle-income, relatively
strong states, and consequently receive low levels of foreign aid, donors do not have the
policy influence that they usually have in donor-dependent fragile states. Most assistance
does not explicitly focus on conflict issues, and many large-scale programs do not
seriously consider conflict in their design, implementation, and monitoring. It has been
observed that aiding focus on development assistance more, with nearly little focus on
aiding during conflict times, thus focus on focus on traditional development sectors such
as infrastructure, economic development, and service delivery. Aid and development-
cooperation actors — governments, nongovernmental organizations (NGOs), United
Nations agencies, and others — have recognized the nexus between conflict and
development, leading many Organisation for Economic Development and Cooperation
Development Assistance Committee (OECD-DAC) donors to fund programs that address
the underlying causes of conflict while building the necessary conditions for peace.
Aid to subnational conflict areas has the greatest impact when it supports a political
transition from conflict to durable peace. Transitions must be locally owned to be
credible, but aid can play a supportive role in providing external validity, advice, and
material support. In the absence of a credible transition, traditional aid programs are
unlikely to affect the dynamics of the subnational conflict. In most cases, government
efforts to win support of the population through development or cash hand-outs will not
have a significant impact on peoples’ perception of government, make the insurgents less
likely to continue their struggle, or cause warring elites to pursue their interests in
peaceful ways. In general, people associate aid with local leaders, or the local
implementing partner, not the donor or the central government. As a result, most aid to
subnational conflict areas will reinforce local power structures.xviii
The WB is considered to be a global leader in "conflict-sensitive programming", while
China does not have an analogous set of policies, institutions, or operational tools in place
to encourage conflict-sensitive development programming. The WB aims for aid
allocation in line with conflict prevention policies within the realms of humanitarian
action, development, and security. In contrast, Chinese aid comes with fewer strings
44

lOMoARcPSD|17842581
attached. The WB is a multilateral donor that emphasizes scientific expertise, frequently

imposes human-right, as well as, sustainability conditions. China, in contrast, has become
one of the most important bilateral donors, but is often portrayed as a "rogue" donor, with
economic targets, such as securing resource supply, as a central part of its aid strategy.
However, Proponents of the Chinese engagement in Africa highlight a less complicated,
bureaucratic process, with quicker implementation times. They argue that China’s
flexibility and emphasis on economic "mutual benefits" may boost growth more than the
WB approach. Chinese infrastructure projects are found to lead to a more equal
distribution of economic activity in the localities where they are implemented, which
could lead to a reduction in conflicts.xix
2.7 Sub-National Governance: Solution to subnational conflicts?

To mitigate the devastating consequences of violence and conflict, the international
community is promoting efforts to resolve intrastate conflict through the negotiation,
implementation, and operationalization of new political settlements. International
organizations are increasingly aware of the linkages between subnational governance and
intrastate conflict. Within the framework of the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs),
the international community committed to supporting efforts that strengthen subnational
governance and to using the efforts as a tool to foster peace and stability. Under SDG 16,
which seeks to “promote peaceful and inclusive societies for sustainable development,
provide access to justice for all and build effective, accountable and inclusive institutions
at all levels,” two sub-targets focus specifically on the role subnational governance can
play in achieving these goals. The World Bank has recognized subnational governance
and conflict as central themes in its prominent World Development Report series. Most
recently, the World Development Report 2017: Governance and the Law finds that
power-sharing institutions “that balance, divide, and share power reduce the incentives to
engage in violence by increasing the benefit of security”, as do redistributive institutions
“that allocate and redistribute resources and resource rents”.xx
Subnational governance arrangements have the potential to mitigate conflict by offering
(1) a path to national unity; (2) a political solution to civil war; (3) an instrument for
deflating secessionist aspirations by conceding enough power to forestall their escalation
into violence; and (4) a mechanism to be responsive to grassroot demands and enlist local
support for central policies. Leading international organizations recognize the potential
merits of subnational governance as a conflict mitigation mechanism. Thus, such
arrangements feature prominently in political settlements that have been negotiated,
designed, and implemented in several fragile and conflict-affected states. It is estimated
that the World Bank allocates around $3 billion each year to support community- driven
development projects, which are used as tools to strengthen local governance from the
bottom up. Subnational governance spans all layers of governance, from the communal
level to the central government, distributing varying degrees of formal and informal
45

lOMoARcPSD|17842581
authority to communities, municipalities, districts, governorates, regions, states, and the

center. The link between institutional capacity and political stability and security
emphasizes the need to develop functioning subnational governance arrangements as part
of a package of resilient and effective institutions and dispute resolution mechanisms.
Subnational governance arrangements are also more effective when combined with other
forms of governance. The types of subnational governance arrangements that has been
established over years are – a) Highly decentralized governance structure in Bosnia and
Herzegovina; Devolution structure in Kenya; Unitary state system with local self-
governance arrangements in Mali; Unitary state system with multiple federacy
arrangements in Myanmar; Unitary State system with a federacy arrangement in
Philippines; Federation in Somalia; and Federation (proposed) in Yemen.xxi
46

lOMoARcPSD|17842581
c. International
Neha Mishra
Outline
3.1 Introduction
3.2 Theoretical Interpretation of International Level of Conflict
3.3 Factors that affect International level of conflicts
3.3.1 Geopolitical Factors
3.3.2 Socio-Economic Factors
3.3.3 Political Factors
3.3.4 Ethnic Factors
3.4 Peace Resolution of International Conflict
3.1 Introduction
Whenever two individuals opine in different ways, a conflict arises. In a layman’s
language conflict is nothing but a fight either between two individuals or among group
members. No two individuals can think alike and there is definitely a difference in their
thought process as well as their understanding. Disagreements among individuals lead to
conflicts and fights. Conflict arises whenever individuals have different values, opinions,
needs, interests and are unable to find a middle way.i Thus, Conflict is defined as a clash
between individuals arising out of a difference in thought process, attitudes,
understanding, interests, requirements and even sometimes perception. A Conflict not
only can arise between individuals but also among countries, political parties and states as
well. A small conflict not controlled at the correct time may lead to a large war and rifts
among countries leading to major unrest and disharmony.ii
Theoretically, levels of analysis decide whom we identify as relevant key actors (or units
of analysis) for both peace and conflict. There is no uniform or fixed number of levels of
analysis, but scholars have deployed three and five levels, according to which theories
can be organized.iii For instance- Robert Jervis uses four levels of analysis,iv or most
famous three level analysis designed by Kenneth Waltz as causes of war: the individual,
the state, and the international system. On each level can be found causes that lead to
international conflict. The first level focuses on the actions of individual human beings,
taking certain effects on international relations. The second level concentrates on
domestic factors within the state, while the third level emphasizes characteristics of the
international system.v
47

lOMoARcPSD|17842581
International Level of Conflict

Conflict is a competitive phenomenon that involves two or more conflicting goals. The
main element in the definition of conflict is that it involves at least two or more parties
with opposing objectives, which means that each party wants to get what the other wants
or retains it. Conflict is remote and can be distinguished between a negative dimension
and a positive one. While the negative side of a conflict involves the “attempts to destroy,
exploit, or impose a solution on one side or others”, the positive dimension of the conflict
generally refers to that aspect of “Push towards work or establish contacts, solve
problems, and positive exchange between the parties concerned. There is a saying that
“When there is an individual, peace prevails and where there are two individuals,
conflicts arise and when there is more than that, alliances begin.” This wisdom refers to
the historical law that governs our lives in general whether the national societies or
political units at the international level that has the form of human or political unity from
the family, the tribe, the nation to the organization and the state which is governed by the
law of conflict, a historical basis that does not need to be proven stressfully.vi
As many scholars of international relations see that conflict is a natural phenomenon of
extremely complex dimensions and very intertwined with the human relations, since the
emergence of the first human, and these relations are known at different levels: individual
or collective, and also in various dimensions: psychological or cultural, political,
economic, social, historical, etc. Also, its forms vary and the results have different ranges
that intensity starts of a fine conflict at the family level to the extent of wars and armed
conflict. The phenomenon of international conflict differs from other phenomena of
international relations as a very complex dynamic phenomenon, due to its multiple
dimensions, the interplay of its causes and sources, the interplay of its direct and indirect
effects, and the varying levels that occur in it in terms of scope, intensity and violence.vii
3.2 Theoretical interpretations of the International level of Conflict

In general, psychological explanations of the conflict phenomenon at the international
level are based on a set of psychological factors. The most important of which can be
identified in the following four directions:
The first trend: connects the aggressive tendency with the human nature. Among the
most prominent advocates of this approach are the famous psychologist Sigmund Freud,
and the known professor of international relations Kenneth Waltz. In this regard, Freud
goes on to say that “the motivations of the process of conflict and struggle are due to the
instinct of love of domination and control, as well as the motive for revenge, expansion
and risk.” In his conception, conflicts and wars are caused by “feelings of selfishness and
human stupidity” on the one hand, and by “misdirection of aggressive tendencies” on the
other. International conflicts do not cause “instinctive aggression” but arise because of
the accumulation of hatred and hatred left by extremist propaganda. The reliance on
48

lOMoARcPSD|17842581
“instinctive aggression” does not apply in many international conflict situations where the
leaders of many countries have been forced to resort to armed conflict after exhausting all
other means and alternatives, failing to protect the national interests of their States, to
settle the dispute situation in an acceptable manner.viii
The second trend: represents the so-called failure or frustration theory that views
conflict as a result of the frustration factor and its impact in crisis conditions experienced
by its parties, especially when their plans fail. The most prominent advocates of this trend
are the psychologist Vogel and Eric Fromm. In interpreting the conflict, Vogel says that
countries that reasonably meet the basic needs of their people are less psychologically
prepared for conflict and war than those whose populations are dominated by
dissatisfaction or distress. “Violence and the tendency to destroy are the automatic and
inevitable outcome of the frustration created by the trauma of disappointing one’s hopes
and aspirations for one reason or another,” said Eric From. In turn, the tendency to
interpret the conflict as a result of the factors of failure and frustration has in turn
provoked some criticism, which was in the absence of objectivity and realism in this
direction, since most of the aggressive countries in history were not poor countries, on the
contrary, the most affluent and well-off country, and therefore the focus on frustration
alone as the driving force of international conflicts is unrealistic and objective.
The third trend: the focus on national personality: This trend explains the
phenomenon of conflict on the basis of the existence of the so-called “aggressive national
psychology” or “the aggressive nature of certain nationalities and general characteristics”,
which in the perception of those who call this trend “the main driving force of conflicts
and international wars.” This trend therefore sees “the need to confront and besiege those
nations as an effective means of preventing the outbreak of war itself.” This trend is being
criticized on the grounds that it cannot be said that there is general agreement on the
characterization of some national figures by the tendency of aggression. It all depends on
the ideological, political or national orientation of those who classify nations into
aggressive and peace-loving groups.
The fourth trend: national beliefs as a cause of conflict: This trend is based on the
distinction between patterns of national beliefs and their relationship to the phenomenon
of international conflict as follows: Negative Mode: This pattern maintains negative
attitudes towards other countries. The main factor behind this trend is to reorient the
feeling of internal frustration to some countries that are viewed as hostile and try to
empty it, which leads to the mutual relations of these parties to a higher level of tension
Conflict.
In the conflict of interest between states, the main driving force of the policies of foreign
countries is the continuous pursuit of the protection and development of national interests
and that the way to do so is to “multiply the State’s resources by force.” It is worth
mentioning here that the concept of interest here, as defined by Morgana in this regard,
“becomes synonymous with strength” and that the force here includes - in addition to
49

lOMoARcPSD|17842581
military tools - international political influence, as well as the strength of economic

pressure, psychological and propaganda warfare methods, Diplomatic, etc. “The struggle
for power as the basis of national interest is a constant truth that transcends individual
beliefs, sects, political parties, and rulers,” say the authors of this entry, notably Kenneth
Thomson, Frederick Schumann and Raymond Aaron. Thus, “conflict, not cooperation, is
the distinctive character of international relations, and the state derives its ability to
survive from its own power or from the protection that others provide to it if it is unable
to ensure its own right to self-preservation.” In general, contributing to the success of
attempts to resolve conflicts of interest between States leads to efforts to resolve and
compromise towards the possibility and how to bring about a change in the intellectual or
mental process that is interested in reaching agreements. In this direction, it may be useful
to focus more on creative thinking rather than analytical thinking on the one hand, and
adopt a “problem-solving” approach rather than a “competitive approach” in discussing
differences between the parties to the conflict.ix
3.3 Factors that affect International Level of Conflict

The classification of international conflicts can be broadly divided into five areas: First,
in the form of international conflict into violence and non-violence, explicit and implicit,
can be controlled and uncontrollable, such as addresses and can not be resolved; Second,
on the content and means of international conflict, can be divided into economic conflict,
political conflict, military conflict, diplomatic conflict, and cultural conflicts; Third, the
violent intensity is divided into general conflict, the international crisis and war; Fourth,
the scope of the international conflict can be divided into local conflicts and the full-scale
conflict, the conflict of bilateral and multilateral conflicts, regional conflicts and global
conflict; Fifth, the nature of international conflict, then Something conflict, North-South
conflict, West conflict, South-South conflict, stuff conflicts, ethnic conflicts, religious
conflicts, etc.x
Table- 1. The Classification of International Conflict
Categories
Forms
Violent & non-violent, explicit & inexplicit, controllable & uncontrollable,
resolvable & irresolvable
Contents Economic conflicts, political conflicts, military conflicts, diplomatic
conflicts, cultural conflicts
Intention General conflicts, international crises, wars
Scopes Bilateral conflicts, multilateral conflicts, regional conflicts, global
conflicts
Kinds North-South conflicts, ethnic conflicts, religion conflicts
50

lOMoARcPSD|17842581
Some major factors that determine International level of conflicts are:

3.3.1 Geopolitical Factors
Geopolitics, as exploring the importance of international relations theory, is the idea of
the early days by the German geographer about the interaction of geographical space and
of international politics. The so-called geo-politics means the geographical space location
and resource characteristics for the establishment of basis points, to analyze and forecast
the world or regional strategic situation and the relevant country's political behavior, and
then to develop a national strategy and foreign policy, and to obtain the maximum
national interest. Such as Germany scholars and Adolf Hitler that refer to Haushofer’s
geopolitical phrase: "living space” of the external invasion and aggression as a basis for
policy. After World War II, most of the Western scholars begin to re-examine the
geopolitical implications, so that once again the world of academia knows the importance
of geopolitics.
Geopolitical relations between countries affects the intensity of conflict. First, from the
realistic point of view, the international behavior is basically not change by certain
factors, such as geographic location, climatic conditions, resources, and human nature. In
most realistic view of geopolitical thinkers, the natural position of a country's capacity to
influence her foreign policy direction. In short, the choice of location determines the
country, limiting the choice of foreign policy programs.xi
In traditional international politics, and geopolitical concept, considerable attention,
before the First World War, the location for a country's foreign policy has a decisive
influence on the views of mainstream living. However, with the transport, aviation
technology development and other factors, the importance of geopolitics, the relative
decrease. Even so, to the country's foreign policy is concerned, the importance of location
is still not completely neglected. Second, geographical proximity between countries will
increase the likelihood of a crisis; conflicts between neighboring countries are often
greater than the possibility of interaction among countries located far away from the
situation. Conflicts between neighboring countries more reason may be that the dispute as
the parties have not yet draw the boundaries, or as the parties competing for territory,
resources, requirements, or because of some problems left over by history, or is due to
spread easily from one country neighboring countries within the regime or ethnic
disputes. Scholars such as Robert C. North mentioned that: international conflicts and the
extent related to the adjacent countries, the length and characteristics of the common
border, whether there is a strategic value to the harbor, and other relevant geographic
features, and thus demonstrated their changes in geographic factors, the possible impact
of the conflict.xii Other conditions being equal is to stay away from neighboring countries
more prone to inter-State competition and hostility, conflict and therefore more likely to
develop into an international crisis.
51

lOMoARcPSD|17842581
3.3.2 Economic Factors

The consequence of collective activity within or between states can be viewed as an
intricate combining of political and economic function. The desire for economic gain is a
powerful motive for seeking to change the international system, and thus the distribution
of power; that the distribution of power itself' ultimately rests on an economic base; and
that the struggle for power and the desire for economic gain are thus 'ultimately and
inextricably joined. The economy of a state has been identified as 'a diverse group of
activities with varying production functions reflecting the technology, resource base, and
population of the political-economic unit. Harold Laswell defined politics in terms of
who gets what, when, and how, while Paul Samuelson referred to economics as the study
of what, how, and for whom.xiii
Trade and other economic activities are commonly thought of as essentially non-
conflictual, and in the study of international politics trade levels have often been used as
indicators of peaceful relations between countries. The outcomes of trade, investment,
balance of payment is whether conflictual or reciprocally advantageous, depends in large
part upon the leverages that are associated with the various transactions and upon how
they are perceived and evaluated by those who are being leveraged. The pattern of a
country’s international financial transactions will be affected by its history of previous
trade, its balance of payments, and its past and current political associations. To a
substantial extent, financial relations between advanced and developing countries tend to
follow patterns established during periods of colonialism or more exclusive trading
relationship. In pursuit of their own national interests, strong countries have often applied
military coercion to establish and maintain ‘free’ trade and to manipulate the political and
indirectly the economic positions of weaker states. Economic activities undertaken for
domestic purposes to meet public demand for goods or services, to protect employment or
home industries, or in pursuit of some other apparently benign outcome may, under
certain circumstances, appear threatening to the leaders, special interests or populace of
some other country, whether directed toward that country or not. Whatever actions a state
takes to maintain or change its economic situation will have effects both on itself and on
other states. Neither the raising nor the lowering of trade barriers will satisfy everyone
within a society, or even outside it, nor will the reduction of some barriers necessarily
improve the situations for individual countries or for the system as a whole as long as
other such barriers remain. Protectionist policies which seem to benefit country A (or
some sectors of A’s economy) in the short run may, by damaging the trade position of its
partner, B, lead to retaliation against A. In the long run they may damage A merely by
weakening B’s trading capabilities, thus creating a no-win situation. If a country tries to
reduce a trade imbalance by devaluing its currency in order to make its exports cheaper
and more competitive on the world market, its small trading partners may be forced to
follow suit lest they find themselves in a severely disadvantaged position.xiv
52

lOMoARcPSD|17842581
In seeking to maintain a balance or eliminate an imbalance, a country may undertake

adjustment measures which are calculated to serve its own national interests, but which
also affect the payments position of other countries with which it maintains commercial
relations. Under some circumstances, such outcomes are mutually advantageous, but
under other circumstances the impact may be damaging to the second party. If its volume
of transactions is sufficiently large, a country may be able to shift the major costs of
adjustment onto other countries. National leaderships normally seek to avoid being forced
by other countries to adjust their payments position, but they want to be able to adjust
effectively when their own objectives call for that step. They can pursue these objectives
through their own policies and by influencing the policies of others.xv
3.3.3 Political Factors
International conflicts are commonly explained in terms of political motivations,
ideologies, decisions and actions, an idealist assumption dating back to the days of Plato
and Aristotle. In general, the proximate events that trigger international violence and war
are likely to be more political than economic. A distinction needs to be drawn between
economic measures implemented solely for economic purposes (which may have political
side effects); economic instruments consciously applied for political purposes (which
may have unintended economic, as well as political, consequences); and economic
measures calculated to affect both economic and political outcomes (which may have
unintended consequences in either or both spheres). In principle, all three types of activity
have the possibility of contributing to conflict, crisis and war.xvi
The economic instruments consciously undertaken for political (and in this case, military)
purposes is provided by a study by Albert Hirschman of Nazi German employment of
foreign trade as a weapon against their enemies in World War II. In his investigation,
Hirschman distinguished between supply effects of trade (essentially trade undertaken for
commercial, industrial and consumer purposes generally) and the influence effect, which
amounts to leverage the employment of trade as a ‘carrot’ or as a ‘stick’. For instance-
The Marshall Plan, Point IV, and US policies in Asia during the immediate post-World
War II years provide examples of economic measures calculated to affect both economic
and political outcomes. On the economic side, an important objective of the Marshall
Plan was to reestablish Western European countries as areas for investment and reliable
partners in trade in considerable part as an effort to stave off a possible depression at
home. At the same time, the USA sought to block the possibility of bilateral trade and
financial arrangements between the Soviet bloc and the weakened (and in some instances
devastated) countries of the West. Economic capabilities and leverage potentials are
comparable to Hirschman’s use of supply effect and influence effect. As defined by
Hirschman, the supply effect refers to securing access to strategic materials. It results
from: (1) policies that secure gains from trade, particularly the importation of strategic
goods; (2) trade directed to countries from which there is minimal danger of being cut
off; and (3) the control of trade routes. These aspects of national trade policy led to a
53

lOMoARcPSD|17842581
direct increase in leverage potential, preparedness of the country for war, and protection
in the event of trade interruptions. Just as war or the threat of war can be construed as a
means of obtaining a particular result, so the supply effect may serve as an indirect
instrument of power, the direct instrument being war or the threat of war. In its final
result, therefore, the supply effect of foreign trade implies at least the possibility of
war.xvii
Use of the influence effect ‘to interrupt commercial or financial relations’ for political
purposes dates far back in history. Thucydides identified the Megara Decree, which
closed Athenian ports to the Megarians, as a factor in the outbreak of the Peloponnesian
War.xviii In recent times, ‘the great expansion of world market relations has obviously
enhanced the role of economic power as an instrument of statecraft’.xix Possibilities for
application of the influence effect have vastly increased, however, with the trend toward
global interdependence in recent years.xx Whatever the intent behind it, a particular state
action (such as imposing a tariff) may be viewed as positive, rational, and efficient from
the point of view of state A, but hostile, competitive, and conducive to conflict from the
point of view of state B. Diplomacy and other activities need not be intended as
aggressive or hostile in order to be perceived by another actor as threatening or injurious.
Common to all these phenomena is a situation in which one country, A, draws upon
whatever economic, political, and military capabilities it has in order to exert leverage
upon and thereby influence (the word ‘control’ is often used) the policies and actions of
another country, B. From this perspective, the concept of negative leverage, whether
economic, political or other, is virtually synonymous with coercive diplomacy. Coercive
diplomacy refers to the use of limited force or threat of force to strengthen a country’s
leverage in negotiations that are in progress.xxi Traditionally, escalations of force and
threats of force have been used by one country ‘in order to influence the calculations and
behavior of opponents in world policies’, i.e., in order to ‘exercise coercive leverage for
the attainment of some objective’.xxii
3.3.4 Ethnic Factors
One of the growing debates among students of international politics concern the precise
linkage between ethnic conflict and international conflict. There are over 5,000 different
ethnic groups in the world it is perhaps not surprising that of the 180 existing states in the
international system only a handful embody the principles of nation-states. Ethnic conflict
presents a wide range of challenges for foreign policy and interstate cooperation. Human
rights issues and refugee situations represent one level in which nations are closely
interlinked by ethnic conflict.
There are three types of ethnic conflicts having an international dimension. The most
common type is a) Irredentist conflict, where ethnicity is an intrinsic aspect. For instance-
the Arab—Israeli dispute that has lasted through six wars, the conflict over Cyprus and
the rival claims to Kashmir by India and Pakistan. The primary actors in irredentist
54

lOMoARcPSD|17842581
conflicts are states.; b) Secessionist conflicts that lead to interstate conflict by drawing in
third party states, ‘self-appointed’ regional peacekeepers and occasionally the major
powers. For instance- India’s 1971 intervention in the Bangladesh- Pakistan conflict or
the motivations of Indian elites to send troops to Sri Lanka in 1987; c) Anti-colonial
ethnic conflicts are between a highly motivated (and affectively motivated) ethnic group
and a colonial power, or in contemporary situation with neo-colonial power.
There is the potential for variation among ethnic conflicts in terms of violent outcomes. It
is hypothesized that violence is a probable outcome in many but not all interstate conflicts
where ethnic conflict is present. The ethnic conflict between states involves five
observations:-
Observation 1. Ethnic conflicts result in higher levels of violence than non-ethnic
conflicts.’
Observation 2. There is a rank order of ethnic conflicts such that anti-colonial ethnic
conflicts are the least violent, secessionist ethnic conflicts the second
most violent and irredentist conflicts the most violent.
Observation 3. Old state involvement in ethnic conflicts will increase their levels of
violence.
Observation 4. New state involvement in ethnic conflicts will increase their level of
violence.
Observation 5. Economically weak and dependent regions are prone to violent ethnic
conflicts.xxiii
3.4 Peace Resolution and International Conflict

Conflict and even war are by no means are an abnormal part of international life. It has
been calculated that only 270 years of the 3,500 years known to history have been free of
wars. International conflict resolution is concerned with processes of removing tensions
between states or maintaining them at levels consistent with continued peaceful pursuit
by states of their goals (individual or collective). The cooperative aspect is stressed by
Ernst Haas, who re-explored the prospects of contemporary international “functionalism”
and by John Burton, who emphasized on cooperative measures even in oppositional
relations between states pursuing only their own, independent, “nonaligned,” interests in
regional and functional arrangements.
Instruments of International Conflict Resolution:
A) The international law- although week in performance, has been contributing for
conflict resolution at international level. International law means subjection to binding
third-party judgment, save by its own consent, or a third-party decision (or even the less
peremptory “good offices” or mediation). Though each state remains its own judge, this
55

lOMoARcPSD|17842581
gives it no competence over another state; for every other state also enjoys the same
prerogative. It takes two to make a quarrel; and it also takes both disputants to confer
international competence. The Permanent Court of Arbitration—consisting of a regular
framework within which states desiring to arbitrate could select arbitrators from a
standing panel, with related permanent registry services—was established by the first
Hague conference, and well over twenty of its tribunals have functioned.xxiv
B) International Third-Party Arrangement- Mediation are special forms of negotiation in
which a third party plays a role, considered as primitive nature of international
arrangements for conflict resolution. Its most famous success occurred when President
Theodore Roosevelt’s approach to the belligerents helped to end the Russo-Japanese War
in 1905; and its most abject failure, when President Franklin D. Roosevelt’s efforts in
1939 to stop the outbreak of World War II were unavailing. After two generations of
struggle for more effective and peremptory procedures through the League of Nations and
the United Nations, their pre-negotiation and peace-making procedures still play an
important role in conflict resolution.xxv
C) International Adjudication- International commissions of enquiry were provided for by
the Hague Convention of 1899, which established a legal frame within which a
commission could, by agreement of the parties, be appointed to find facts on a particular
dispute. Such commissions proved useful in several instances, mostly naval incidents, of
which the best known was the Anglo-Russian dispute concerning the Dogger Bank
incident during the Russo-Japanese War. Both the League of Nations and the United
Nations adapted this kind of technique to their own organizational arrangements, the
former exploiting it particularly well as a means of procrastination and persuasion.
D) United Nations Peacekeeping and Peace-building- Peacekeeping has proven to be one
of the most effective tools available to the UN to assist countries to navigate the difficult
path from conflict to peace. Today's multidimensional peacekeeping operations are called
upon not only to maintain peace and security, but also to facilitate political processes,
protect civilians, assist in the disarmament, demobilization and reintegration of former
combatants; support constitutional processes and the organization of elections, protect
and promote human rights and assist in restoring the rule of law and extending legitimate
state authority. Peacekeeping operations get their mandates from the UN Security
Council; their troops and police are contributed by Members States; and they are
managed by the Department of Peace Operations and supported by the Department of
Operational Support at UN Headquarters in New York. There are 12 UN peacekeeping
operations currently deployed and there have been a total of 71 deployed since 1948. In
2019, the Secretary-General launched the Action for Peacekeeping Initiative (A4P) to
renew mutual political commitment to peacekeeping operations.
United Nations peace-building activities are aimed at assisting countries emerging from
conflict, reducing the risk of relapsing into conflict and laying the foundation for
56

lOMoARcPSD|17842581
sustainable peace and development. The UN peace-building architecture comprises the

Peace-building Commission, the Peace-building Fund and the Peace-building Support
Office. The Peace-building Support Office assists and supports the Peace-building
Commission with strategic advice and policy guidance, administers the Peace-building
Fund and serves the Secretary-General in coordinating United Nations agencies in their
peace-building efforts.xxvi
i. Karki, Vishnu, “Conflict, Conflict Cycle and Resolution”, Mero Pustak,
https://meropustak.com/app/sec/9/social/unit4.6
ii. Prachi Juneja. “Understanding Conflict - Meaning and Phases of Conflict”.
Management Study. https://www.managementstudyguide.com/understanding-
conflict.htm
iii. Jufle, Natalie, “Conflict and Levels of Analysis The Gulf War in 1991”,
GRIN.com, 2009.
iv. Jervis, Robert. “Perception and Misperception in International Politics”.
Princeton University Press. (2017). New Jersey, United States.
v. Waltz, Kenneth. “Man, the state, and War”. Columbia University Press. (1959).
New York.
vi. Al-Rawashdeh, Mohammad Salim and Al- Majali, Sahar A. “The phenomenon
of International Conflict in International Relations”. The International Journal
of Social Sciences and Humanities Invention (2017). Vol.4 (5): 3488-3502.
vii. Ibid.
viii. K. Boulding, “Conflict and Defense”, New York: Harper and Row, 1962. See
alse: Boulding. K, in North, IESS. 1968: 226-228.
ix. Kenneth E. Boulding, “Organization and Conflict,” Journal of Conflict
Resolution, 1957, Vol. 1:111-121, Quoted in Robert C. North, “Conflict:
Political Aspects”, in IESS, 1968:226-232, p228.
x. Zhao, Haiyue. 2001. “Conception and Type and Solution of International
Conflict.” Songliao Journal Social Science Edition 2: 59-62.
xi. Wang, Yizhou. 1999. “International Politics: History and Theory”. Taipei:
Wunan Company.
xii. Koch, Howard E. Robert C. North, and Dina A. Zinnes. 1960. “Some
Theoretical Notes on Geography and International Conflict.” The Journal of
Conflict Resolution 4, 1:4-15.
xiii. KEOHANE, R. 0. and J. S. NYE (1973) “World Politics and the International
Economic System” in C. F. Bergsten (ed.) The Future of the International
Economic Order: An Agenda for Research. Lexington: D. C. Heath.
57

lOMoARcPSD|17842581
xiv. KINDLEBERGER, C. (1970) Power and Money: The Economics of

International Politics and the Politics of International Economics. New York:
Basic Books.
xv. North, Robert C. and Nazli Choucri, “Economic and Political Factors in
International Conflict and Integration”, International Studies Quarterly, Vol. 27
(4), 1983: 443-461.
xvi. BERGSTEN, F. (1975) The Dilemmas of the Dollar: The Economics and
Politics of United States Alonetary Policy. New York: New York University
Press.
xvii. HIRSCHMAN, A. 0. (1969) National Power and the Structure of Foreign
Trade. Berkeley: University of California Press.
xviii. THUCYDIDES (1951) The Peloponnesian War. New York: Modern Library.
xix. GILPIN, R. (1981) War and Change in World Politics. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
xx. KEOHANE, R. 0. and J. S. NYE (1973) “World Politics and the International
Economic System” in C. F. Bergsten (ed.) The Future of the International
Economic Order: An Agenda for Research. Lexington: D. C. Heath.
xxi. SMOKE, R. (1977) Wars: Controlling Escalation. Cambridge: Harvard
University Press.
xxii. GEORGE, A. L., D. K. HALL and W. E. SIMONS (1971) The Limits of
Coercive Diplomacy: Laos, Cuba, Vietnam. Boston: Little, Brown.
xxiii. David Carment, “The International Dimensions of Ethnic Conflict: Concepts,
Indicators, and Theory”, QC Journal of Peace Research, vol. 30, no. 2, 1993,
pp. 137—150.
xxiv. Encyclopedia, “International Conflict Resolution”
https://www.encyclopedia.com/social-sciences/applied-and-social-sciences-
magazines/international-conflict-resolution.
xxv. Stone, Julius (1954) 1959 Legal Controls of International Conflict: A Treatise
on the Dynamics of Disputes- and War-law. Rev. ed. New York: Rinehart.
xxvi. United Nations, “Maintain International Peace and Security”,
https://www.un.org/en/our-work/maintain-international-peace-and-security.
58

lOMoARcPSD|17842581
Unit-4
a. Negotiations: Trust Building
Pallabi Barah
Outline
1.1 Introduction
1.2 Defining Negotiation: Key Concepts
1.3 Negotiation and Conflict Response: The Process
1.4 Negotiating towards Trust Building
1.5 Conclusion
The act of negotiation is a part of human life. It starts from our family to society and
extends to the international arena. The need for negotiation is rising daily because of
unavoidable conflict situations. The notion of negotiation is the heart of the concept of
conflict response mechanisms. The pressing need to end the conflict through negotiation
is also realised whenever conflict arises. In simple words, negotiation is the process of
resolving dispute permanently by providing and addressing both sides' needs and
demands. There are underlying factors that impact negotiation such as power, rights,
resources. Moreover, negotiation as a process involves various techniques and skills. In
this unit, we will try to understand negotiation in the context of conflict response.
Emphasis will be given to analyse various perspectives, steps and skills related to the idea
of negotiation.
1.1 Introduction
Human life is all about negotiations. Decisions of personals' lives such as who will do the
household chores or cooking the dinner also involve negotiation. We negotiate with the
authority for our leave, payment increment in our professional lives. In the domain of
peace and conflict studies, scholars have typically viewed negotiation as a special form of
conflict resolution mechanism between two or more parties with differing interests
through a collaborative process to create a mutually acceptable agreement. Negotiations
involving two parties are known as bilateral negotiation and more parties as multilateral
negotiation. At the national level, countries negotiate for issues like free trade
agreements, ceasefires, military alliances to make the global economy prosper and
maintain world peace. Here, negotiation is not easy as it involves additional challenges
due to nations' political and cultural backgrounds.
Over the years, conflicts have been rising. Everyone wants to be part of the decision-
making process, and the tendency to accept others decisions is also getting fewer over
time. People differ and use negotiation tactics to handle such differences. But as a
phenomenon, negotiation is not easy to deal with. The strategies or rules used in the
59

lOMoARcPSD|17842581
negotiation process more often leave the negotiating parties in an unsatisfied position.
Multiple techniques are being used in resolving conflicts. Generally, they are divided into
two categories, namely primary and subsidiary. Primary techniques include negotiation,
mediation and arbitration. These techniques are more common. In comparison, subsidiary
techniques are active listening, med-arb (combination of mediation and arbitration) and
mini-trials.1 Though multiple tactics are used to resolve conflicts, negotiation is the most
common one. It aims to build trust among the parties to avoid problematic situations in
the near future.
1.2 Defining Negotiation: Key Concepts

The idea of negotiation can be understood from multiple dimension. It is a context-
dependent phenomenon. As a concept, negotiation refers to interaction between people
with different views and opinions about the same issue to have a mutually agreed
resolution or course of action. It is one of the key techniques of decision making which
involves interpersonal interactions. Generally, conflict situation arises because of
differing viewpoints and lack of coordination and communication. Sometimes it leads to
violent outbursts and havoc. In such a scenario, the critical role played by negotiation is
to avoid such outbreaks by evoking emotions in concerned individuals or parties to
verbalise their opinions towards one another.2 Moreover, negotiation is the key to
resolving conflicts by following proper planning, execution, evaluation. In the words of
Fisher and Ury (1981), ‘Negotiation is a basic means of getting what you want from
others. It is back-and-forth communication designed to reach an agreement when you and
the other side have some interests that are shared and others that are opposed.’3 In this
definition, negotiation is about proper communication and decision making to protect
one’s interests. Whereas Keough (2017) defines negotiation as ‘an interactive process
between interdependent parties in an attempt to produce a joint decision.’4 In its
simplistic form, this definition explained that negotiation accommodates the possibility
that parties engaged in the process are not in conflict with each other but share a common
problem that requires collaborative action. So, the concept of negotiation stands beyond
conflict.
As a technique, negotiation is the most common to conflict resolution. Docherty (2005)
said that ‘ Negotiation involves two or more people or parties who communicate with one
another in order to promote shared understandings, overcome differences, reach
compromises, or make mutually beneficial trade-offs.’5 On similar lines, Zartman (2009)
refers to negotiation as the process of combining conflictual position into a joint
agreement. This is synonymous with conflict resolution and the most common way to
prevent, manage, resolve and transform conflicts.6 Now, to arrive at an agreement, the
negotiation parties follow multiple techniques, also known as negotiation skills. Gourlay
(1987) classified negotiating skills into two categories: planning and interpersonal
behaviour skills. Planning skills include determining conflict's nature and developing
60

lOMoARcPSD|17842581
appropriate strategies; understanding the forces at play; setting targets and managing
deadlock; building and coping with power. The interpersonal behaviour skills include
listening and communication, understanding the negotiation process and appropriate
behaviour, leading and working in a team, coping with stress.7
Negotiation always occurs in a particular context of established relations. It also involves
established structures that include social, legal, or corporate settings. In the negotiation
process, negotiators encounter established relations that are generally peaceful and
legitimate within these structures. Mutually understood norms and rules governing their
interaction. While enforcing these norms and regulations, negotiators consider cultural
backgrounds and the behaviours of the parties to the contract. Such processes help to
have a stable setting for the negotiation process. The stable setting is the key to the
negotiation process. It enables the negotiation process in multiple ways by providing
mutually accepted rules of behaviour, shared norms and many more. But life or situation
does not follow the desired manner. Change is the only constant. In such organisational
and social change cases, the negotiating parties should focus on issues like disputed rules
of behaviour, uncertainty about shared future, controversial institutions and mechanisms.8
Negotiation has certain unique characteristics that make it different from other decision-
making processes. Firstly, it operates unanimously with a threefold choice: yes, no or
continued position. Secondly, it involves an exchange of goods rather than one side
victory. This exchange is done in three ways: concession, compensation, and
construction. Thirdly, the negotiation process operates under certain norms that point
towards equality. It starts with formal structural equality among the parties to behavioural
settings that facilitates the symmetrical exchange of opinions and thoughts.9 Apart from
this, negotiation also has certain key components: two or more parties, limited resource
and conflict of interest, collaborating an agreement to resolve conflict, engagement
between parties, process of offers and counteroffers, and jointly constructed outcome.10
The above discussion shows that negotiation involves various processes and can be
viewed from multiple dimensions. The method of negotiation also has objectives.
According to Iklé (1964), there are five objectives or purposes of negotiation: Firstly, an
extension of existing arrangements. Secondly, the normalisation of agreements to end
violence and establish diplomatic ties. Third, redistribution of agreements to incorporate
new demands at the expense of old ones. Fourth is innovation in agreements to set new
relationships or obligations among the parties. Lastly, effects that do not concern the
arrangements such as propaganda, intelligence.11 So, negotiation is a complex process,
and its success depends on adhering to prescribed objectives and norms.
Depending on situation and context, every negotiation is different. However, the basic
elements remain the same. Negotiation is very similar to our day to day bargain at stores.
If we consider the customer as one side and shopkeeper as the other side, we can easily
understand that bargain is innate to human nature. When we discuss negotiation in the
international domain or in the context of a nation, it involves positional bargaining. All
61

lOMoARcPSD|17842581
the sides of negotiation process know what they want. As argued by Fisher and Ury12,
positional bargaining does not tend to produce good agreements. It increases the
stubbornness of the parties and harms their relationships. In order to avoid such scenarios,
it is always advised to follow some principles to make negotiation more fruitful. The
authors developed four principles of negotiation. They are—
1) Separate the people from the problem: This principle emphasises separating
people from issues as people tend to take issues very personally. This will further
allow the parties to tackle their issues without harming their relationship. While
separating people from the problem, three major problems arise for people. First,
differ in opinion among parties. This can be avoided by considering each other's
viewpoints. The second problem is emotion. There is a need to consider human
emotions in the negotiation process and adopt symbolic gestures to avoid
emotional outbreaks. Communication is the third source of problems for people.
Active listening and proper expression is the key to resolving communication
problems.
2) Focus on Interests: Good agreements are all about focusing on the parties' interest
rather than their positions. If a problem is defined in the terms of interest, then it is
easier to find a solution that satisfies both sides.
3) Generate Options: The parties should come together to generate creative opinions
and possible solutions to the problem. Here, participants can avoid falling into a
win-lose situation by focusing on shared interests.
4) Use Objective Criteria: In negotiation, when there is direct opposition in interests,
the parties should use criteria to resolve conflicts. They can be both legitimate and
practical. These criteria should be made by following fair procedures. While using
objective criteria, each party should keep an open mind and be reasonable and no
use of unfair means like threats or bribes.
Negotiation is a multi-pronged concept. It is beneficial in conflict management,
transformation and resolution between states. Within an organisation, negotiation is the
key to effective functioning and management. The concept of negotiation is context-
based. It can be analysed from multiple perspectives. They are as follows— A) The self-
interest perspective: According to this perspective, negotiation is only necessary because
of conflict. This notion is based on the concept of human nature as self-interested. So in
negotiation, people only think about their self-interest above the community welfare.
B) A discourse analysis perspective: This perspective perceives negotiation as a form of
communication that uses language to structure a decision making process among parties
with differing interests. Here the use of language is the key to achieving mutually
agreeable outcomes. C) The game theory perspective: This approach takes inspiration
from Von Neumann and Morgenstern (1944)’s classical work ‘Theory of Games and
Economic Behaviour’. This perspective assumed that negotiators behave rationally and
62

lOMoARcPSD|17842581
always select the choice that provides optimal utility. D) The decision-analytic
perspective: This approach is based on Howard Raiffs’s (1982) work 'The Art and
Science of Negotiation'. This is an alternative to game theory as it allows negotiators to
understand why people behave in specific ways rather than how should they behave.
E) The principled negotiation perspective: This perspective can be traced from Fisher and
Ury’s (1981) work 'Getting to Yes. Here, emphasis was on principled negotiation
between the parties to have win-win solutions.13 It is evident that as a concept,
negotiation is an evolving one. It can be used in multiple domains and one of the basic
technique of resolving conflicts. It has unique features and core principles.
1.3 Negotiation and Conflict Response: The Process

Conflicts are part of human nature. The word conflict is derived from the Latin word
confligere which means 'to strike together'. In the human realm, conflict occurs whenever
there is difference or rivalry among the parties or people. If we look into the world
history, there are enough evidence to show the presence of conflict. The two world wars
and the cold war have impacted the world scenario tremendously. Conflict changes the
relationship among nations and creates instability in the world order. Conflict tends to
escalate until it reaches one of these three conditions: victory of one side, painful
stalemate, and stable stalemate. Thus, negotiations techniques prevent a violent turn in
conflicts, manage conflicts, and resolve conflicts. In the words of Zartman and Barman
(1982) negotiation is a ‘process in which divergent values are combined into an agreed
decision, and it is based on the idea that there are appropriate stages, sequences,
behaviours, and tactics that can be identified and used to improve the conduct of
negotiations and better the chances of success .’14 So, negotiation goes through multiple
stages and demands particular skills and tactics from the negotiators.
Usually, people use two significant ways to negotiate: soft and hard. The soft negotiator
makes concessions easily to avoid personal conflicts and reach a final agreement. In
contrast, hard negotiators do not easily accept conditions and always hold extreme
positions. In the process, he produces a hard response that exhausts him and affects his
relationship with the other side. In some cases, a mix of hard and soft ways are being
used in negotiation. There is a third way to negotiate, which is discussed in detail by
Roger Fisher and William Ury in their book titled 'Getting to Yes: Negotiating an
agreement without giving in. The third way is known as principled negotiation. Here, the
parties look for mutual gains, but at the same time, it suggests that whenever one’s
interest conflicts, one should insist that the result should be based on some fair standard
independent will of either side. This method is hard to follow but always soft on the
people. It shows the best way to protect your interest while being fair to the opposition.
This method can be applied everywhere regardless of the number of issues and the
number of parties involved. This way is applicable even the other side is more
experienced or less. If both sides learn the core ideas of principled negotiation, it becomes
63

lOMoARcPSD|17842581
easier to follow.15 Sometimes, the parties initially follow the rule and then stop following
decided rules. In such cases, the best way is to avoid making the same mistake and
directly pointed out the opposition's fault in the discussion process. If the opponent is
very adamant about their positional demands, a third party approach helps to resolve the
matter.
There are multiple ways of negotiation. All the types of negotiation process goes through
various stages. Over time, scholars across disciplines defined steps of negotiation. As a
process, it is undertaken by two or more parties. According to Zartman and
Barman(1982), the negotiation process works through a three-pronged model. The first
stage is about situation diagnosis and deciding about trying negotiation. The second stage
involves negotiating formulas, and the final phase calls for implementing the selected
formula. These steps are not always isolated somewhat overlapping one.16 In the
negotiation process, both sides need to focus on multiple stages
The negotiation process happens in a structured way, irrespective of issues or concerns.
The negotiation process in the context of conflict management follows six steps. These
steps include—1) Preparation: In this stage, both parties should be sure about their
situation and position and know the organisation's rules and regulations that facilitate
such negotiation process. Similarly, the organisation also needs to clarify their rules and
policies beforehand. 2) Discussion: In the second stage, both sides put forward their
views and listen to each other's viewpoints. The negotiating parties also jot down the key
points clearly to conclude quickly. 3) Descriptive Goals: This is the stage where goals
and interests are set after hearing each other's points of view. It is required to identify
some common ground to make negotiation successful. 4) Negotiate for WIN-WIN
Outcome: Here, both parties look for ways to have a win-win outcome. They come up
with the best negotiation, but this situation is not always possible. 5) Agreement: Now,
both the parties agreed with the negotiation outcome and accepted each other interests
and viewpoints. 6) Executing a course of action: The parties implement the agreement in
the last stage and work accordingly to avoid further problems.17 These stages happen
systematically and follow one after another.
Different scholars explain multiple steps of the negotiation process. In another account,
Lewicki(1981) views negotiation as a five-step process. The first step is about preparation
and planning. Before the process of negotiation starts, the negotiating parties need to
know the nature of the conflict and their conflicting interests. Also, understanding
opposition parties' goals and expectations is highly recommended. In the second step,
ground rules are defined. In this stage, the negotiating parties decide the rules of
negotiation process along with information like place of negotiation, expected constraints
and many more. During this phase, the parties also exchange their proposals and
demands. The third step deals with clarification and justification. The exchange of
opinions requires both parties to explain and justify their original demands. It is an
64

lOMoARcPSD|17842581
opportunity to inform both sides about the importance of their demand and provide
documentation to support one's position. The next step is about bargaining and problem-
solving. This stage is all about giving and taking to achieve a mutually agreed outcome.
Here both the parties need to make concessions. The last stage is directed towards closure
and implementation. The final step is about formalising the agreement and developing
procedures for further implementation.18 The smooth functioning of these steps depends
on the role of negotiators as well.
As a skill, negotiation can be learnt and refined over time. The role of the negotiator is
also crucial in the entire process as they are the wheels of the process. Through enhanced
awareness and appreciation, it is possible to improve negotiation that fosters
communication, builds relationships, and empowers individuals to achieve shared goals
and quality outcomes. Negotiators plays a key role in negotiation. Depending on the
techniques they use negotiators can be divided into various categories. The first category
is the aggressive opener. In this style, the negotiator starts much before other negotiators
have sat down. This style discomforts other side by making cutting remarks. The long
pause negotiator is another one. This negotiator does not reply immediately after listening
to the other side's demand. This style works best when there is little tension and when
negotiation is in its early stage. Another type of negotiator is putting the mockers on. In
this style, the negotiator mocks and sneer at opposition to cause discomfort. This
technique makes the other party so uptight that they say some regrettable thing. The
interrogator type of negotiator's main objective is to discover the opposition's position.
They mainly use interrogation tactics. Another important category of negotiator is the
cloak of reasonableness. This is a disguise technique for negotiators who initially make
the negotiation seems easy but eventually make impossible demands. This technique
demands quiet and well-modulated voice and pleasant manner of the negotiator. Divide
and conquer negotiator aims to produce dissension amongst the opposition. Here, the
opposition teams pay more attention to their internal disagreements than disagreements
with the opposition. The last type of negotiator is known as Billy Bunter. This kind of
negotiator pretends to be dense and, by doing so, exasperates the opposition.19
Negotiator plays a key role in making negotiation successful. They carefully observe and
study situations and follow multiple strategies to have decisions in their favour. Scholars
around the world suggested multiple strategies for negotiators. Pruitt (1983) has
recommended four strategies for negotiators. The first strategy is problem-solving. This
strategy is about finding the most suitable formula for reconciling the two parties interest
and demands. While deciding on the procedure, many factors needed to be considered,
such as supply dimension, cost-cutting, logrolling etc. The second strategy is contending.
Through this strategy, the negotiator talks about persuading aggressive behaviour of both
the parties and convincing one other to have a decision on their side. This is also known
as positional bargaining. Constant efforts are made to dominate the other party using
pressure tactics, persuasive arguments, threats, demonstrations. The third technique is
65

lOMoARcPSD|17842581
yielding. It involves reducing underlying demands and goals to make the negotiation
faster and successful. This is a straightforward operation. The last type of strategy is
inaction. Inaction wastes time and sometimes results in failed negotiation or suspension.
This may delay agreement and breakdown in negotiation and eventually lead to break
off.20 Apart from these strategies, Ikle (1964) also give extensive guidelines for negotiators to
make negotiation effective and successful. These include rules such as never killing a negotiator,
avoiding status disputes, adhering to agreed agenda, and honouring partial agreements. Ikle’s
guidelines also discuss serious qualities for negotiators such as maintaining flexibility,
reciprocation, returning favours, refraining from lies. The guidelines also include
negotiating in good faith, avoiding emotionalism and rudeness, and upholding community
spirit.21 The key responsibility of the negotiator is to bring pace in the negotiation process and
resolve conflicts. The personality and skills of a negotiator are related to successful
negotiation.
1.4 Negotiation and Trust Building

Trust is the core mechanism to have a fruitful negotiation. Without trust-building, the
negotiating parties can not resolve conflicts. Trust within the party is also important. As a
process, trust-building brings all the members together and create trust based on activities
and exercises. Trust is vital to any peaceful and effective relationship. Mutual trust is a
fundamental condition to international agreements among nations. There is no unified
definition of trust. Scholars agree that trust is an attitude that involves a willingness to
place the fate of one's interest under the control of others. This willingness is based on a
belief that no parties or people will use their discretion to harm others' interests.22 Trust is
also a context-based concept. In communal relationships, trust is based on the assumption
that each party is committed to the welfare of the other and will act accordingly. In
exchange relationships, all the parties act according to their interest but believe that they
will maintain a relationship in a trustworthy manner. But in a relationship with a potential
enemy, it is challenging to build trust as they doubt each other interests. With the help of
proper planning and strategies, it is possible to create trust among enemies to facilitate
negotiation.
Trust building in the context of negotiation and conflict resolution has specific dilemmas.
Conflict situation arises because of mistrust. So, building trust among enemies is not an
easy task. Even to enter a peace process, mutual trust is required. To achieve this, each
party needs some reassurance from the other side, but this feeling does not come
independently. Trust between conflicting parties can be built through unofficial
diplomacy and problem-solving workshops. Another way to build trust is through third
party negotiations. They work as a repository of trust and bridge mutual distrust among
contending parties. To be a reliable third party, the institution or organisation needs to
have a reliable background over the year. For example- the United Nations can be
considered as a platform that provides space for conflicting interests and their
66

lOMoARcPSD|17842581
settlement.23 Moreover, appropriate acknowledgements, symbolic gestures, reciprocity

also help build trust among the parties in the negotiation process. Similarly, Wheeler also
argued that four key drivers or challenges to trust-building in both intrastate and interstate
relationships are security dilemma, defensive attitude, ambiguous symbolism, and
ideological fundamentalism.24 All the parties need to consider their behaviour and avoid
fear-provoking actions to prevent such challenges.
Trust-building is a central concern in domestic and international politics. It is central to
the decision-making process. According to Farrell and Knight, trust is a set of
expectations held by one party that another party or parties will behave in an appropriate
manner with regard to a specific issue.'25 Trust becomes problematic in the absence of
norms and violation of promises. In the realm of international relations, various schools
of thought perceive trust differently. For Realists, the international system is anarchical
and without embedded norms. Trust is the core strategy to deter certain behaviours while
dealing with others. For them, reputation is considered the primary source of trust and
credibility depends on the reputation for past commitments. Liberals believe that
institution has the potential to overcome anarchy, and those who are part of institutions
will follow their norms. In contrast, constructivists argue that domestic and international
law is embedded in the belief and traditions of societies.
Trust is central to the negotiation process. Conflict situation arises because there is no
trust among the parties. The negotiator needs to adhere to various techniques to build
trust and finalise an agreement. Negotiators can gain trust by having detailed information
about the background of the opposition. This will help to create acceptable conditions for
both parties. Another essential quality is managing reputation. The reputation of the
negotiators plays a vital role in trust-building. At times, there is a need to lower one’s
demand to build a trusted environment. A proper explanation of one’s demands helps the
opposition trust the other party. Lastly, the maximum mutual gain is the core of trust-
building in negotiations.
1.5 Conclusion
Negotiation and conflict are fundamental concepts to understanding the relationships
among nations. For the smooth functioning of an organisation conflict response
mechanism also needs to be implemented. During the negotiation process, the parties may
become upset or feel vulnerable, and sometimes they express their anger. These
circumstances can be avoided by effective communication. Through proper
communication, trust can be built up among the parties and eventually lead to successful
negotiation. Sometimes, self-reflection helps respond to the opposition’s dissatisfaction in
a better way. Sincere effort to understand the behaviour of other parties and consideration
of their emotions make the negotiation process more workable. Negotiation is primarily
understood concerning conflict resolution, but it is required to understand it as a
67

lOMoARcPSD|17842581
standalone and context-based concept. Generally, negotiation only talks about the
process, but its existence is beyond conflict resolution. Definitions need to take
cognisance of the actors of the negotiation process, i.e. the negotiators and their highly
demanding roles and responsibilities.
1. Burgess, H., & Burgess, G. M. (1997). Encyclopedia of conflict resolution.
2. Gray, B. (2003). Negotiating with your nemesis. Negotiation Journal, 19(4), pp.293.
3. Fisher, R., & Ury, W. (1981). Getting to yes, pp.6.
4. Keough, C. M. (2017). Negotiation and bargaining, pp.1.
5. Docherty, J.S.(2005). The Little Book of Strategic Negotiation,pp.2.
6. Zartman, I. W. (2009). Conflict resolution and negotiation, pp.322.
7. Gourlay, R. (1987). Negotiations and Bargaining. Management Decision, 25(3), pp.16.
8. Docherty, J.S.(2005). The Little Book of Strategic Negotiation, pp.3-4.
9. Zartman, I. W. (2009). Conflict resolution and negotiation, pp.324.
10. Mills. C. E. (2019). Negotiation. In O. Hargie (ed.) The Handbook of Communication Skills,
pp.405.
11. Iklé, F. C. (1964). How nations negotiate.
12. Fisher, R., & Ury, W. (1981). Getting to yes: How to negotiate agreement without giving in.
Random House.
13. Mills. C. E. (2019). Negotiation. In O. Hargie (ed.) The Handbook of Communication Skills,
pp.406-09.
14. Zartman, I. W., & Berman, M. R. (1982). The practical negotiator, pp.2.
15. Fisher, R., & Ury, W. (1981). Getting to yes, pp.6-7.
16. Zartman, I. W., & Berman, M. R. (1982). The practical negotiator.
17. Tabassum, L. (2020). The importance of negotiation and Conflict Management. Journal of
Management and Science, 1(1),pp.15-16.
18. Lewicki, R.J.(1981).Bargaining and Negotiation. Exchange: The Organizational Behavior
Teaching Journal 6(2),pp.39-40.
19. Gourlay, R. (1987). Negotiations and Bargaining. Management Decision, 25(3),pp.19-20.
20. Pruitt, D. G. (1983). Strategic choice in negotiation. American Behavioural Scientist, 27(2),
pp.168-172.
21. Iklé, F. C. (1964). How nations negotiate, pp.87.
22. Hoffman, A.M.(2002). A Conceptualisation of Trust in International Relations. European Journal
of International Relations8(3), pp.376-77.
23. Kelman, C.H. (2005). Building trust among enemies: The central challenge for international
conflict resolution. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 25, pp.644-649.
24. Wheeler, N.J.(2012). Trust-Building in International Relations. Peace Prints: South Asian Journal
of Peacebuilding, 4(2).
25. Farrell, H. & Knight, J. (2003). Trust, Institutions and Institutional Change: Industrial Districts
and the Social Capital Hypothesis. Politics and Society, 31(4).
68

lOMoARcPSD|17842581
Questions:
1. Define the concept of negotiation. What are the principles of negotiation?
2. What are the stages of negotiation process?
3. Critically reflect on negotiation as a technique of conflict response.
4. Discuss the linkages between negotiation and trust building.
5. What is the role of negotiator in the negotiation process?
References:
 Burgess, H., & Burgess, G. M. (1997). Encyclopedia of conflict resolution. ABC-
CLIO.
 Cleary, M., Lees, D., & Sayers, J. (2018). The Art of Negotiation. Issues in
Mental Health Nursing, 39(10), 910–912.
 Docherty, J.S.(2005). The Little Book of Strategic Negotiation: Negotiating
During Turbulent Times. Intercourse, PA: Good Books.
 Farrell, H. & Knight, J. (2003). Trust, Institutions and Institutional Change:
Industrial Districts and the Social Capital Hypothesis. Politics and Society, 31(4),
537-566.
 Fisher, R., & Ury, W. (1981). Getting to yes: How to negotiate agreement without
giving in. Random House .
 Gourlay, R. (1987). Negotiations and Bargaining. Management Decision, 25(3),
16–27.
 Gray, B. (2003). Negotiating with your nemesis. Negotiation Journal, 19(4), 299–
310.
 Iklé, F. C. (1964). How nations negotiate. Kraus International Publication.
 Kelman, C.H.(2005). Building trust among enemies: The central challenge for
international conflict resolution. International Journal of Intercultural Relations,
25, 639-650.
 Keough, C. M. (2017). Negotiation and bargaining. In Craig R. Scott and Laurie
Lewis (Eds.), International Encyclopedia of Organizational Communication. John
Wiley and Sons.
 Hoffman, A.M.(2002). A Conceptualisation of Trust in International Relations.
European Journal of International Relations8(3),375-401.
 Lewicki, R.J.(1981).Bargaining and Negotiation. Exchange: The Organizational
Behavior Teaching Journal 6(2), 33-42.
69

lOMoARcPSD|17842581
 Mills. C. E. (2019). Negotiation. In O. Hargie (ed.) The Handbook of

Communication Skills. (pp. 399-422). London, UK: Routledge.
 Pruitt, D. G. (1983). Strategic choice in negotiation. American Behavioural
Scientist, 27(2), 167–194.
 Reychler, L., & Paffenholz, T. (2001). Peacebuilding: A field guide. Rienner.
 Tabassum, L. (2020). The importance of negotiation and Conflict Management.
Journal of Management and Science, 1(1), 15–19.
 Wheeler, N.J.(2012). Trust-Building in International Relations. Peace Prints:
South Asian Journal of Peacebuilding, 4(2).
 Zartman, I. W. (2009). Conflict resolution and negotiation. In J. Bercovitch, V.
Kremenyuk, & I. W. Zartman (Ed.), The Sage Hand Book of Conflict
Resolution (pp. 322–339). Sage Publication.
 Zartman, I. W., & Berman, M. R. (1982). The practical negotiator. Yale
University Press.
70

lOMoARcPSD|17842581
b. Mediation: Skill Building and Active Listening

Pallabi Barah
Outline
2.1 Introduction
2.2 Defining Mediation: Concepts and Approaches
2.3 Mediation Process: Different Stages
2.4 Skills for Mediation: The role of Mediator
2.5 Conclusion
In all societies, there is a need to resolve conflicts irrespective of any factors. From
certain viewpoints, conflict may bring benefits to some people. Still, it can be destructive
and involves a high amount of costs. So, there is a constant need to resolve conflict.
However, conflicts can be managed violently, but people are generally interested in non-
violent means and peaceful settlement of disputes. Mediation is one such means through
which conflict can be handled peacefully. Mediation is practised by various actors,
including individuals, state agencies, and international organisations. Successful
mediation promotes diplomacy and leads to peaceful settlement or agreement. This unit
will attempt to understand mediation as a form of conflict response mechanism by
exploring related concepts and skills.
2.1 Introduction
Conflict resolution aims at satisfying human needs as it believes that the unfulfillment of
conditions is the root cause of conflicts. Conflict is a subjective and context-dependent
phenomenon. At any stage, conflict brings harm to society and concerning parties.
Multiple techniques are adopted to resolve or avoid conflicting situations. Mediation is
considered one such way to handle conflict in a non-violent way. It is a form of art with a
vision. Mediation is defined as the intervention of a skilled and impartial intermediary to
facilitate mutually acceptable settlement between disputed parties. It is essentially a non-
coercive and non-binding approach to conflict response. It is primarily a task-oriented
method directed towards solving problems among parties. Like negotiation, mediation
also can be bilateral and multilateral intervention. Etymologically mediation comes from
the Latin language. It refers to the gist of mediators' work, differentiating between
mediation and other forms of third party intervention, and lastly, describing mediators'
attributes. Parties enter into mediation with different motives. The most common
rationale is that they want to resolve the conflict but cannot do it in their ways. More
often, parties enter into mediation because of other factors such as needing time to pursue
alternative strategies or simply trying to misuse mediation to advance their unilateral
interests. So, the first task of the mediator is to know such hidden motives of conflicting
71

lOMoARcPSD|17842581
parties. Apart from this, mediators need to have essential qualities like impartiality and
prominent identity in the field.
2.2 Defining Mediation: Concepts and Approaches

Mediation is different from other forms of unassisted facilitated discussions between
people to improve their relationships. It is a goal-oriented process focused on reaching
tangible agreements and outcomes between the parties. It aims at improving relationships
by facilitating interactions during the negotiation process. It also enhances
communication among the parties to understand preferred procedures for resolving
differences. This led to reaching mutually acceptable agreements. Various authors define
the concept of mediation. While describing, they perceive mediation in multiple ways,
such as mediation as third-party intervention, mediation as transformative action, or
peacemaking process. The third-party aspect of mediation is found in the works of
Christopher Moore. According to Moore (1996), mediation is a form of third party
intervention employed widely irrespective of region and phases of history.1 Religious
leaders, community leaders all have played a significant role as mediators. In Western
societies, mediation has been practised at the interpersonal level involving issues like
divorce, custody issues, corporate battles, and many more. On a similar line, Linda Singer
(1990) defines it as a ‘form of third-party assistance (that) involves an outsider to the
dispute who lacks the power to make decisions for the parties.’2 Bingham (1985) defines
mediation as the ‘assistance of a 'neutral' third party to a negotiation.’3 In another
account, Mitchell (1981) defines mediation as ‘any intermediatory activity undertaken by
the third party with the primary intention of achieving some compromise settlement of
the issues at stake between the parties or at least ending disruptive conflict behaviour.’4
Blake and Mouton (1985) define mediation as a process ‘involving third party
intervention who first investigates and defines the problem and then usually approaches
each group separately with recommendations designed to provide a mutually acceptable
solution.’5 Here, mediation as a form of third party intervention is explored.
Mediation as a transformative process inhibits the potentiality to bring positive change.
As Bush and Folger (1994) point out in their work on the transformative potential of the
discipline, mediation continues to be generally understood as ‘an informal process in
which a neutral third-party with no power to impose a resolution helps the disputing
parties try to reach a mutually acceptable settlement.’6 They emphasise the transformative
aspect of mediation. They pointed out the potential of mediation in resolving disputes
among parties with greater strength and compassion. In such cases, mediation offers the
capacity to empower all the sides to the agreement and recognition of each other's
problems and values. It brings changes at the individual level that further envisages a new
moral and social vision that values interpersonal relationships than personal satisfaction.
The transformative aspect of mediation is also related to bringing peace. Douglas (1957)
defines mediation as a form of peacemaking in which an outsider to a dispute intervenes
72

lOMoARcPSD|17842581
on his own or accepts the invitation of disputing parties to assist them in reaching
agreement.’7 In addition to this, Youngs (1967) defines mediation as ‘the process where
any action taken by an actor who is not a direct party to the crisis, that is designed to
reduce or remove one or more of the problems of the bargaining relationship, and
therefore to facilitate the termination of the crisis itself.’8 Mediation is a trusted way to
bring transformation and peace by resolving conflicts. Authors like Bush and Fogler9
(1994) provide four stories about why people meditate. The first story is known as the
satisfaction story. According to this story, mediation is a powerful tool for satisfying
human needs and reducing suffering from disputes. The second story is about social
justice. This story describes mediation as an effective means of organising people around
a common interest and building community ties. The transformative storey explores the
unique quality of mediation as it can transform the conflict by strengthening both the
parties and society. The last story depicts mediation as oppression. According to this
story, mediation has turned out to be a dangerous instrument for increasing the state's
power over the individual.
Mediation has long historical roots and is strongly influenced by religious and cultural
practices. In all cultures and religions, they have some mechanism to mediate conflicting
interests. Some societies still have customary conflict resolution systems. Third parties
often help parties reach a voluntary settlement of the conflict by exchanging views and
facilitating information. However, in customary setup, the third parties have the authority
granted by community institutions and sometimes by the government. They can give
advisory recommendations or binding decisions. Various communities belonging to
different parts of the world have used mediation techniques from time immemorial. In the
case of Jewish communities, they used mediation from biblical times to resolve civil and
religious differences. On similar lines, the catholic Church in western Europe was a
central mediating institution in the medieval period of history. They were vested with the
authority to mediate family disputes, criminal cases and diplomatic disputes among the
nobility. Later in Europe, during the Renaissance era, entities like guilds and associations
played the mediator role in resolving disputes between members and workers. The
Islamic world also has a record of using mediation methods. Many traditional tribal
societies of the Middle East used a range of institutionalised ritual conflict resolution
processes in family, business, land, and religious views. Mediation has been widely
practised in the countries of the Global south also. In countries like India, Sri Lanka,
China, and Japan, Hindu and Buddhist philosophy emphasised social consensus and
moral persuasion. The usage of mediation in the modern era extends beyond Western
societies. Many non-Western cultures prefer highly developed informal and formal
mediation processes to resolve conflicts regularly.10 Before 1965, mediation was used
only in labour management. In the late 1960s, civic leaders and the justice system
explored mediation's potentiality. A state-centric focus on mediation had started in the
late 1970s when there was increased emphasis on war and diplomacy. As a result of such
73

lOMoARcPSD|17842581
historical development, western approaches to mediation make a distinction between

actors at two levels. State-level actors include government and international, regional
organisations. Whereas, Civil society level actors include NGOs, research institutes and
individuals.11 Mediation has a long history in the arena of international relations. It has
developed parallelly with the nation-state system and is increasingly employed in various
fields of importance. Moreover, diplomats also need to consider mediation as a part of
their activity in dealing with other diplomats. So, international mediation is performed by
a host of actors like state representatives, regional organisations, the United Nations.
There are multiple schools of mediation. Here the word school refers to mediation
practitioners who share a similar philosophy, thought, goals and style of dispute
resolution. They can be divided into three schools based on such orientations: procedural,
relationship, and substantive. Under each of the schools, there are variations also. The
first type of school is focused on the mediation process and centred on providing process
assistance to the parties, commonly known as facilitative mediation. Moore, Folberg and
Taylor are prominent proponents of this school of thought. The second school of
mediation focuses on improving the relationship. They address psychological and
relational issues, improve interactions and establish a positive environment and respectful
relationship among disputing parties. This school has several sub-schools: therapeutic
mediation, transformative mediation, narrative mediation, and restorative mediation. The
last school of mediation focused on providing a substantive assessment of issues in
dispute. This school also has sub-schools, namely advisory mediation, evaluative
mediation, customary or religiously based mediation.12 These schools or approaches to
mediation differ from each other based on their goals and orientation.
2.3 Mediation Process: Different Stages

Various actors perform the process of mediation in different ways. States usually practise
forms of official diplomacy. Mediators are diplomats who advise conflicting parties and
try to formulate an agreement. There are two types of mediation—Track I and Track II.
Track I mediation is used by states and is oriented towards the outcome. This approach
aims at bringing the representatives of conflicting parties together to mediate a cease-fire
and peace accord. Another type of Track I mediation is power-oriented. This approach
explicitly uses force to achieve the outcome. Track II mediation is non-official and
practised mainly by NGOs and non-organised individuals. This approach aims at solving
problems through workshops. Here, the mediator focuses on the needs of the parties.13
The process of mediation involves four sets of activities. The first one understands the
conflict itself. Here, the mediator must grasp the history and other relevant information
about the conflict, including important symbols and turning points. The mediator must
understand the issues that divide the parties and their perceptions and misperceptions.
Another important activity is understanding the actors. The mediator must be responsible
for conflict resolution. For effective mediation, the mediator needs to devise multiple
74

lOMoARcPSD|17842581
techniques to include different actors in the process. Part of an effective mediation

strategy is finding constructive forms of inclusion for different actors. Mediators need to
identify international actors such as other states, international organisations, local parties,
which might influence the mediation process. Also, other players like diasporas, NGOs
and media. The third activity of the mediation process is understanding the larger context.
Peace settlements may include transformative elements, and that will impact society. For
managing conflict, the mediator should consider institutions and processes of society that
are already dealing with conflict in a non-violent manner. The last category of activity is
understanding the sources of power. Conflict situation arises because of power play, and
power has many facets like control of armed forces, territorial control, control over
resources and diplomatic support.14 So, the mediator should pay attention to such power
sources for effective mediation.
All kinds of human interaction, especially those with specific goals, need to go through
various developmental stages. On similar lines, mediation as a process has two stages.
But each stage consists of multiple tasks, goals and activities. The stages are as follows—
A) Preparation stage: In this stage of mediation, the mediator makes initial contact
with the parties to know their background and nature of the conflict. During this stage,
the mediator performs various activities— firstly, making initial contact with parties. The
mediator performs tasks like making introductions, creating a positive environment,
developing credibility, educating the parties about their roles to make initial contact. In
addition to this, the mediator needs to make certain moves like providing information to
the parties, asking for willingness to have a further talk about the dispute, ask for a
commitment to try mediation. The second set of activities deals with collecting and
analysing background information. Here, the mediator performs tasks that include
obtaining information, identifying key parties, clarifying issues of importance and
moving towards an effective conflict resolution strategy. Mediation plan designing is the
third activity performed in the preparation stage of mediation. The mediator involves
developing a general plan, planning the mediator's opening statement, developing
strategies to handle specific problems in the beginning. Apart from this, the mediator
makes moves such as considering the complexity of the issues at hand, determining
parties' capacities to advocate their interest, assessing the base of power and influence for
each party, identifying opportunities for collaboration.
B) Mediation stage: Formal mediation begins at the first stage only. This stage has
seven sub-stages. The first substage is about the beginning of the mediation. During this,
the mediator will create a positive tone, establish a safe and comfortable space to talk,
and begin a joint meeting. Moreover, the mediator will welcome the parties to the
mediation venue, introduce them formally, and clarify the mediator's role in the process.
The second sub-stage presents parties' initial perspectives and develops an agenda. The
tasks that need to undertake here include identifying potential information for the parties,
75

lOMoARcPSD|17842581
framing issues to be discussed and agreeing on a potential sequence for the discussion of
the problems. The third set of activities aims at educating about issues, needs and
interests. Major tasks during this stage are making an effective exchange of information,
framing joint statements, etc. Generate options and problem-solving is the next step in the
stage. Here, the mediator performs activities such as developing awareness, detaching
parties from positions, proposing procedures. In the fifth stage, evaluating and refining
options for agreements is required. The mediator undertakes roles such as reviewing
parties' needs and interests, applying objective standards to narrow down choices,
persuading parties to drop unacceptable positions and exploring the best alternative. The
next step is reaching agreements and achieving closure. This step's central goals and tasks
are implementing final procedures, achieving substantive closure, and memorialising
agreements. The last step of the mediation stage is implementing and monitoring
agreements and developing a mechanism to resolve potential conflicts in the future. The
mediator will identify actions to take if compliance does not happen. Moreover, the
mechanism will be developed to deal with future disputes.15
The third party is key to the process of negotiation. This third party often comes from a
different culture and background from the parties. Many factors are essential to
understanding the process of third party interventions. Firstly, the role of culture is vital
to the process. Culture encompasses elements like beliefs, norms, practices and ways of
life. This culture differs from place to place. In mediation, the third party needs to be
conscious of the culture of negotiating parties. Another factor is power dynamics. In all
third party interventions, it is essential to maintain some power balance for effective
operation. But it is better to be mindful about using such power as it contradicts the value
of autonomy. The third issue about such intervention is the biased nature of the third
party. For better functioning, the third party should be impartial and neutral. Such traits
make the reputation of the third party better. Lastly, timing is essential for dispute
resolution. However, mediation efforts are welcome only after the failure of parties'
attempts or in cases of a violent eruption. For better execution, the mediator needs to
know the timing for intervention.16 Moreover, to perform mediation, there has to be
specific motivation. These motivations operate at two levels, namely the individual level
and institutional level. Individual-level motivation includes altruism, ego-enhancement
and material gain. In comparison, institutional level motivation has factors like the United
Nations' role and prestige of a state. However, in all cases, the mediator receives benefits
from the process like improved status or outcomes like an advancement of security
interests.17 After the mediation process ends, it is required to evaluate the process. The
next concern that comes here is how to assess such a process. Kressel and Pruitt (1989)
made a list of indicators to evaluate the success of mediation. In the case of outcome
indicators like settlement rates, compliance rates, and disputant satisfaction are important
ones to consider. In addition to this, the nature of the agreement is another indicator to
76

lOMoARcPSD|17842581
consider as mediation often claims to produce a greater degree of compromises and equal
sharing of resources.18 Such evaluation will help to mediate in better ways.
2.4 Skills for Mediation: The role of Mediator

Mediation is about engagement between parties and mediator develop through multiple
stages. Each mediation stage contains various goals and tasks that parties need to carry
out before proceeding to the next step. The stages and tasks of mediation are hard to
identify quickly. But thorough observation may help to identify distinct stages and
associate tasks. Generally, the mediator performs multiple activities that can be put under
two categories, namely noncontingent and contingent activities. The mediator does the
first activity to initiate the process. Whereas the latter includes activities in response to
special problems in mediation. Mediation is a conflict resolution process that involves a
mutually acceptable third party. This third party has no authority to make binding
decisions for disputants but intervene in a conflict to assist the parties to end the dispute.
They are generally independent of disputants. This characteristic of a mediator
distinguishes them from a judge or arbitrator who has the authority to enforce decisions
by law or government support. This kind of intervention paves the way for enhanced
communication and improved relationships. This is an extension of the negotiation
process and is commonly initiated when disputing parties cannot start a talk or solve their
issues on their own.
Mediators, as a centre of the negotiation process, undertake multiple tasks. In the process,
the mediator maintains a relationship with disputing parties. Depending on such
relationships, Moore (1986) identifies three types of mediators. The first type is social
network mediators. They are related to the disputed parties and must maintain peaceful
relations between them. Both intermediaries and parties are generally part of a continuing
and shared social network. This kind of mediator often has a personal obligation to the
parties to assist in the process. The authority of such a mediator lies in the relationship
with the parties and mutual trust and respect. Such mediators include community leaders,
religious figures, and personal friends are falling into this category of mediators.
Authoritative mediators are the second type of mediators with a formal relationship with
the conflicting parties and have some authority over the parties but do not use this
authoritative power in the process. They strongly influence the dispute resolution process.
In general, there are three types of authoritative mediators: reputation/status/position-
based, administrative/managerial and vested-interest intermediaries. Examples here
include corporate managers, organisational supervisors, agency officials, and
representatives of powerful states in the international community. The last category is
independent mediators who provide objective consultation to the parties. This kind of
mediator includes management mediators, family doctors and third parties in complex
environmental disputes. This type of mediator is widely preferred because of its fair
procedures and impartial third parties.19 In a path breaking study on mediators,
77

lOMoARcPSD|17842581
Honeyman (1988) assigned teacher/school board mediation cases to five different

mediators. After close observation, several hypotheses were formed. It was found that
they usually perform five different activities. The first activity is investigation. Mediators
engage in intensive investigation of facts behind disputes, and they do this by questioning
spokespersons from each party. Empathy is the second element through which mediators
establish a connection with disputants. Each mediator showed their willingness to hear
and discuss matters concerning the parties or individual team members. The third activity
is persuasion at the earliest level. Here, mediators attempt to obtain concessions during
the early stage. The fourth activity of the mediator is invention. They try to create
proposed solutions after having enough knowledge about the parties' situation. The last
activity found performed by mediators is distraction. They all found a need to distract the
parties regularly through various skills like cracking a joke, telling a story etc.20 In sum,
dividing mediation into five elements immensely helped the mediator do better. It also
has compared the task performed by those five mediators to construct and refine the
criteria to select mediators.
Mediator performs an array of tasks. Mediation is the most common form of third party
intervention. It aims at bringing durable peace, the peace that persists over time. Durable
peace has both long term and short term outcomes. Two factors are vital to creating
durable peace, namely power dynamics and spoiler management. The primary role of
mediation is to balance power. The second role of the mediator is to manage all kinds of
spoilers.21 Moreover, they should encourage positional bargaining. In the mediation
process, the mediator needs to consider the political implications of intervention and act
independently. In addition to this, a mediator needs to undertake seven tasks. The first
task is about gathering background information. This means the mediator needs to collect
all possible information about disputant parties, like their background and interests. The
second task is to facilitate communication. The mediator needs to meet the disputants,
explain the mediation process to them, and answer their queries. For enhanced
communication, the mediator needs to listen to disputants' questions and establish an
atmosphere for constructive criticism while maintaining neutrality and respect for each
other. Another task is to communicate information to others. Here, mediators refer
disputants to other services to resolve their specific issues. The next mission is to analyse
gathered information. Now, the mediator will differentiate significant and insignificant
issues and analyse them accordingly. The fifth task is to facilitate agreement. The
mediator will assist the parties to develop solutions and evaluating them. During the
process, the parties will be informed about limitations to the possible agreement and the
consequences of not signing an agreement. Another essential task of a mediator is
managing cases. The mediator will analyse the scope, intensity and contentiousness of a
case and ask the parties to determine whether mediation services are appropriate or not.
The last task for a mediator is to draft agreements between disputed parties.22 The
suggested activity list for the mediator is described in various accounts across various
78

lOMoARcPSD|17842581
disciplines. In this context, a meaningful analysis was given by Kriesberg to understand

mediation at the international level. According to the author, mediator activities is highly
related to the stage of conflict expression. It includes various activities like de-escalation,
initiating negotiations, conducting negotiations and finally implementing agreements. He
also defines three forms of mediation based on the identity of the mediator: formal
mediators, informal third parties and quasi-mediators.23 So, depending on the level of
mediation, the mediator is expected to perform different activities to resolve conflicts.
The mediator needs to have specific skills and qualities to perform the aforesaid activities
in the mediation process. The success of agreement is directly linked to the behaviour and
skills of the mediator. Multiple studies have been conducted to understand the desired
qualities of a mediator. To be a good mediator, one needs to have specific skills. Building
credibility is vital as trust and credibility are essential to conflict mediation. Without this,
it is challenging to build a relationship with the different parties to the conflict. A
mediator can earn trust and credibility by performing competently, consistently and
communicating properly while maintaining transparency and confidentiality. Mediators
need to develop a broad portfolio of skills like active listening, paraphrasing and others.
Moreover, there is a need to communicate, coordinate and cooperate with other mediators
to ensure a unified and coherent mediation effort. So, mediators' acceptability in the
mediation process is subjected to several factors like impartiality, independence, lack of
connections, unbiased attitude, neutrality, fairness and objectivity. A mediator's task is to
assist disputants in identifying, understanding, and articulating their needs and interest to
each other. Further, the mediator helps parties with conflicting interests to find a mutually
agreeable solution. However, the mediator also has authority but of a different type. Their
authority resides in their personality, credibility, trustworthiness and expertise in
enhancing negotiation. Here the authority is not granted by some law but by the parties
themselves.24 In addition to this, the disputant parties expect different qualities from
mediators. Western mediation models prefer a mediator with qualities like an unbiased
attitude and neutral towards contested issues. In customary disputes, they want someone
biased towards maintaining norms, traditions and community welfare over individual
party's interest. Sometimes, they want an intermediary who helps to develop equitable
solutions.25 For a good mediator, the quality of active listening is a must. Active listening
refers to the process of attentive listening. Many times people are distracted or listen to
others issues halfway only. In a conflict situation, active listening helps the mediator
grasp the problem quickly and resolve it. It is a structured form of listening and
responding to the speaker. Active listening can be helpful in most conversations. It avoids
misunderstandings and escalation of disputes. In addition to this, it opens up people to
speak more, and in a conflict situation, it is needed.26 The mediator's primary tasks are
communication, analysing information, and facilitating agreement. These tasks also have
subsets of skills to achieve them. Touval and Zartman proposed another typology about
the functions and roles of mediators in 1985. They have divided the mediator's behaviour
79

lOMoARcPSD|17842581
into three categories: communication, formulation, and manipulation. A mediator will

require all these skills to help move the parties through the negotiation process and reach
the final implementation stage.27 To perform the aforementioned tasks, the mediator
needs to have certain qualities. These qualities include reasoning, problem-solving,
writing, oral and non-verbal communication, interviewing, sensitivity, integrity,
impartiality, commitment. In addition to this, there are ways to evaluate the performance
of mediators in the process of mediation. With the help of parameters like investigation,
empathy, impartiality, generating opinions, generating agreements, it is possible to
evaluate mediation. The list further extends to incorporate other essential criteria such as
managing interactions, substantive knowledge and design choices.
2.5 Conclusion
Third-party interventions are widespread in all fields. Mediation is one type of third party
mediation only. Mediation inhibits specific characteristics that differentiate it from other
such processes. It can be seen as an extension and continuation of peaceful conflict
management. Mediation is a non-coercive, non-violent and non-binding form of
intervention. Mediator enters into the process with a motive to affect, change, resolve or
modify it in some ways. They bring wise ideas, a trusted knowledge base, resources and
interest in the process. It is a voluntary form of conflict management. In the mediation
process, the mediator is expected to perform various activities such as communication,
coordination, analysing information and others. Moreover, the mediator should have
skills and qualities like impartiality, commitment, etc.
1. Moore, C. J. (1986). The Mediation Process.
2. Singer, L.(1990). Settling Disputes: Conflict Resolution In Business, Families, And The Legal
System. Pp.20
3. Bingham, G. (1985). Resolving Environmental Disputes: A Decade of Experience. Pp.5.
4. Mitchell, C.R. (1981). The structure of international conflict. Pp.287.
5. Blake, R.A. and Mouton, J.S. (1985). Solving costly organisational conflicts. Pp.15.
6. Bush, R.A.B. and Folger J.P. (1994). The Promise of Mediation: Responding to Conflict Through
Empowerment and Recognition.
7. Douglas, A. (1957). The peaceful settlement of industrial and intergroup disputes. Conflict
Resolution, 1(1), Pp.70.
8. Young, O.R.(1967). The Intermediaries: Third Parties in International Crises. Pp.34.
9. Bush, R.A.B. and Folger J.P. (1994). The Promise of Mediation: Responding to Conflict Through
Empowerment and Recognition. Pp. 7-17.
10. Moore, C. J. (1986). The Mediation Process.
11. Paffenholz, T. (2001). Selecting Approaches to Mediation – Western Approaches to negotiation
and mediation. Pp.75.
12. Moore, C. J. (1986). The Mediation Process. Pp.47-53.
13. Paffenholz, T. (2001). Selecting Approaches to Mediation – Western Approaches to negotiation
and mediation.pp.77-78.
80

lOMoARcPSD|17842581
14. Smith, A.L. and Smock, D.R. (2008). Managing a mediation process. Pp.9-17.
15. Moore, C. J. (1986). The Mediation Process.pp.37-40.
16. Fisher,R.J. 2001. Methods of Third-Party Intervention. Pp.17-21.
17. Mitchell, C. R. (1988). The motives for mediation.
18. Kressel, K., Pruitt, D. and Associates. (Eds.). (1989). Meditation Research: The Process and
Effectiveness of Third-Party Intervention.
19. Moore, C. J. (1986). The Mediation Process. Pp. 37-40.
20. Honeyman, C. (1988). Five Elements of Mediation. Pp. 153-54.
21. Hoffman, E. (2010). The Mediator's Handbook for Durable Peace.
22. Honeyman, C. (1993). A consensus on mediators' qualifications. Pp. 300-01.
23. Kriesberg, L. (1996). Varieties of mediating activities and mediators in international relations.
24. Moore, C. J. (1986). The Mediation Process. Pp.31-32.
25. Comaroff, J. and Roberts, S. (1981). Rules and Processes.
26. Burgess, H.(2013). Active Listening.
27. Touval, S. and Zartman, I.W.(Eds.). (1985). International Mediation in Theory and Practice.
Questions:
1. What is mediation? Define various approaches to mediation.
2. Describe multiple stages of the mediation process.
3. Elaborate the role of the mediator in mediation process.
4. What are the skills required for mediation process?
5. Discuss the potentiality of mediation in resolving conflicts.
References:
 Bercovitch, J. (2008). Mediation and conflict resolution. In I William Zartman,
Jacob Bercovitch and Victor Kremenyuk (Eds.). The SAGE Handbook of Conflict
Resolution (pp.340-357). Sage Publishers.
 Bingham, G. (1985). Resolving Environmental Disputes: A Decade of Experience.
Conservation Foundation.
 Blake, R.A. and Mouton, J.S. (1985). Solving costly organisational conflicts. San
Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
 Burgess, H.(2013). Active Listening. Available at
https://www.beyondintractability.org/coreknowledge/active-listening.
 Bush, R.A.B. and Folger J.P. (1994). The Promise of Mediation: Responding to
Conflict Through Empowerment and Recognition. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-
Bass.
 Bush, R.A.B. and Folger J.P. (2004). The Promise of Mediation: The
Transformative Approach to Conflict. San Francisco: Wiley.
 Comaroff, J. and Roberts, S. (1981). Rules and Processes: The Cultural Logic of
Dispute in an African Context. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
81

lOMoARcPSD|17842581
 Douglas, A. (1957). The peaceful settlement of industrial and intergroup disputes.

Conflict Resolution, 1(1), 69-81.
 Fisher, R. J. 2001. Methods of Third-Party Intervention. In B. Austin, M. Fischer
and H. J. Giessmann (Eds.). Advancing Conflict Transformation: The Berghof
Handbook II, pp.157-182.
 Hoffman, E. (2010). The Mediator's Handbook for Durable Peace. Canadian
International Institute of Applied Negotiation.
 Honeyman, C. (1993). A consensus on mediators’ qualifications. Negotiation
Journal, 9, 295-308.
 Honeyman, C. (1988). Five Elements of Mediation. Negotiation Journal, 4(2),
141-160.
 Kressel, K., Pruitt, D. and Associates. (Eds.). (1989). Meditation Research: The
Process and Effectiveness of Third-Party Intervention. San Francisco, CA:
Jossey-Bass.
 Kriesberg, L. (1996). Varieties of mediating activities and mediators in
international relations. In J. Bercovitch (Ed.). Resolving International Conflicts:
The Theory and Practice of Meditation (pp.219-233). Boulder, CO: Lynne
Rienner.
 Mitchell, C. R. (1988). The motives for mediation. In C. R. Mitchell and K.
Webb. (Eds.). New Approaches to International Mediation (pp. 29-51). New
York: Greenwood Press.
 Mitchell, C.R. (1981). The structure of international conflict. London:Macmillan.
 Moore, C. J. (1986). The Mediation Process. CA: Jossey-Bass.
 Paffenholz, T. (2001). Selecting Approaches to Mediation – Western Approaches
to negotiation and mediation. In L. Reychler and T. Paffenholz (Eds.).
Peacebuilding: A Field Guide (pp.75-81). Boulder, London: Lynne Rienner
Publishers.
 Singer,L.(1990). Settling Disputes: Conflict Resolution In Business, Families, And
The Legal System. Taylor and Francis.
 Smith, A.L. and Smock, D.R. (2008). Managing a mediation process. United
States Institute of Peace.
 Touval, S. and Zartman, I.W.(Eds.). (1985). International Mediation in Theory
and Practice. Boulder, CO: Westview.
 Young, O.R. (1967). The Intermediaries: Third Parties in International Crises.
Center of International Studies, Princeton University.
82

lOMoARcPSD|17842581
c. Track I, Track II & Multi Track Diplomacy

Pallabi Barah
Outline
3.1 Introduction
3.2 Defining Diplomacy
3.3 Track I Diplomacy
3.4 Track II Diplomacy
3.5 Multi-Track Diplomacy
3.6 Conclusion
Diplomacy is an intrinsic part of foreign policy. Every country tries to incorporate the
elements of diplomacy in their foreign policies to promote national interest peacefully. It
is a sub-discipline of international relations and a key determinant of foreign policy. The
primary purpose of diplomacy is to preserve peace and avoid conflicting situations.
Diplomacy can be perceived as an effective method of communication and finding
solutions in international relations without using harsh ways. In the narrow sense,
diplomacy is usually formed through active diplomatic consultations and agreements
conducted by a country's foreign ministry and embassies. In a broad sense, the diplomacy
theory is used in international relations and carried out by international organisations like
United Nations and the European Union. In this unit, we will try to understand the
conceptual contours of diplomacy and its historical trajectory in conflict response.
Moreover, a detailed analysis of different types of diplomacy is another important aim of
this unit.
3.1 Introduction
Diplomacy is an essentially political activity and a significant ingredient of power. Its
central purpose is to enable states to secure the objectives of their foreign policies without
using force or propaganda. It is achieved through enhanced communication between
diplomats and other officials. Diplomacy is beyond what a diplomat does. It is carried out
by other officials and individuals also. Diplomatic activity is meant to advance national
interests with practices of persuasion. Diplomacy is associated with the management of
relations between countries and other actors. Relations management is done through
advice, design and realisation of foreign politics and coordinating and ensuring specific
and broad interests. Diplomacy is a master institution and the engine room of
international relations. Yet diplomacy has received surprisingly little attention among
political scientists specialising in international relations.
Diplomacy as an institution can be understood as a relatively stable collection of social
practices consisting of easily recognised roles, underlying norms, and rules for defining
83

lOMoARcPSD|17842581
appropriate behaviour in governing relations among the actors. Diplomacy is a response

to a common problem of living separately and wanting to do so while conducting
relations with others. Exchange is the central tenant of diplomacy.1 So, the leading role of
diplomacy has been the peaceful settlement of disputes. The states have developed
diverse methods of peaceful settlements. They are good offices, inquiry, diplomatic
mediation, conciliation, arbitration and judicial settlement.
3.2 Defining Diplomacy

Diplomacy aims at ensuring the continuity in relations between states. The word
diplomacy originated from the ancient Greek word "diploö". Ernest Mason Satow, a
German diplomat, defined the theory of diplomacy as ‘peaceful conduct of relations
between states is called diplomacy. In this, diplomatic functions must be complete.’2
Each country maintains such relations through ministries, organisations and institutes
focused on this issue. Diplomats are the soul of diplomacy with certain personality traits
needed for associated activities. Diplomats need to show their attributes to make the
negotiation successful. Diplomacy is used in both official and unofficial negotiations.
Charm, persuasion, confidentiality constitute the essential feature of desired
communicative behaviour from diplomats.
Various authors have defined the concept of diplomacy over the years. In his remarkable
work titled ‘The Prince', Machiavelli talked about the importance of diplomacy in
statecraft. He defined diplomacy as cheating and hypocrisy. In addition to this,
Machiavelli saw diplomacy as a modern policy. In the context of international relations,
Morgenthau (1985)3 defines diplomacy as the management of relations between states
and other factors. From a state perspective, diplomacy is concerned with advising,
shaping and implementing foreign policies. States articulate interests and coordinate to
secure particular interests through their representatives and other actors. They use
techniques like correspondence, private talks, exchanges of view, lobbying, visits, threats
and other related activities. Headley Bull puts forward another definition of diplomacy.
He defines diplomacy as ‘the conduct of relations between states and other entities
involved in world politics through official policies and peaceful means.’4 In simple
words, diplomacy can be defined as a conduct of international relations to promote
peaceful relations among nations. It is a set of practices, institutions and discourses
essential for understanding the evolution of the international system.
Historically, the usage of diplomacy can be traced during the Middle Ages in America,
Asia, and Africa. Diplomacy in its modern form has originated in the Italian peninsula in
the late fifteenth century. Its main features in these centuries were the dependence of
communications on messengers and merchant caravans, diplomatic immunity on codes of
hospitality, and treaty observance on the terror of the gods under whose gaze they were
confirmed. However, during these centuries, diplomacy remained rudimentary because of
84

lOMoARcPSD|17842581
slow, laborious, unpredictable, and insecure communications. In the Greek city-state

system of the fourth and fifth centuries BCE, conditions favoured more sophisticated
diplomacy. At that time, diplomatic immunity became a norm, and it employed local
citizens known as proxenos. In medieval Europe, Byzantium, the Eastern Roman Empire,
led the development of diplomacy, and Venice followed it. However, diplomacy
remained chiefly in the hands of special envoys, limited by time and task. In the late
fifteenth century AD, the Italian city-state system favoured further development of
diplomacy in its modern form. The hyper-insecurity of the rich but poorly defended
Italian states and repeated invasions by foreign powers after 1494 induced the process of
diplomacy. This period saw the birth of the genuine resident embassy, a resident mission
headed by a citizen of the prince or republic it served. This was the first fully developed
diplomacy system and the basis of modern bilateral diplomacy. The early twentieth-
century French diplomatic system follows the Italian diplomacy system.5
The modern usage of diplomacy was seen from the fifteenth century onwards due to the
intensification of diplomatic activity in Europe and increasing awareness among the
existing monarchies about the efficiency of diplomatic relations. However, during the
Renaissance, diplomatic behaviour was also seen in the Italian city-states. In the sixteenth
century, the French diplomatic system established some basic features of modern
diplomacy: firstly, the institutionalisation of the permanent diplomatic missions and
defining the diplomatic protocol and procedural rules; secondly, the importance of
secrecy as personal caution and discretion of diplomats; thirdly the extension privileges
and immunities for the ambassadors; and lastly, the professionalisation and administrative
centralisation of diplomatic services. The two world wars bring tremendous changes in
diplomacy as well. After World War I, a transition was observed in diplomacy from old
to new diplomacy. The states have become more aware of their independence and
increasingly interested in obtaining popular support. The colonial wars appeared as a
classic failure of old diplomacy. Multiple factors caused the transformation of diplomacy
after world war II. The United Nations contributed immensely by introducing collective
security and multilateral diplomacy through its organs like the Security Council, General
Assembly and specialised agencies. In addition to this, the Cold War brought an
ideologically divided world and new international security organisations and placed the
Soviet Union and the United States in prominent diplomatic positions. Critical factors for
the emergence of new diplomacy include the increasing role of modern intelligence,
espionage, and diplomatic management of nuclear weapons. The creation of newly
independent states in Asia and Africa following the decolonisation wave posed a
challenge to the Western bias of contemporary diplomacy. Reform in diplomatic agenda
is also induced by growing economic and technological interdependence and the need to
promote international cooperation by creating international institutions. The growing
relevance of non-state actors such as MNCs, NGOs and widespread communication
technologies is equally responsible for the emergence of a new era of diplomacy.6 The
85

lOMoARcPSD|17842581
ability to conduct diplomatic relations is the essence of modern nation-states and the
attributes of state sovereignty. From historical records, diplomacy predates the modern
nation-state. The origins of diplomacy can be traced from multiple public and private
communication practices among different political entities existing since ancient times.
These practices underwent historical transformations until they became the attribute of
the sovereign nation-states.
Henry Kissinger tried to trace the origin of diplomacy. According to Kissinger(2003),7
the concept of diplomacy can be traced back to ancient Greece and Rome. It came along
with the process of people organising themselves into groups. At that time, the necessity
of regularising contacts with representatives of other groups became urgent. Even the
earliest civilisations had prescribed rules for interaction among themselves. During World
War II, US President Franklin Roosevelt sought to establish a new type of diplomacy. But
it was ended up conforming to the old European system than to the Atlantic charter. Since
World War II, the United Nations has remained a symbol of an ideal new diplomatic
system. Multiple summits were signed between the two superpowers during the Cold War
era. This summitry is undoubtedly the main evolving characteristic of modern diplomacy
and the epitome of public diplomacy. Currently, globalisation and economic
interdependence bring changes to the patterns of diplomacy. Now, diplomats are required
to have a set of skills. Earlier diplomats negotiated in tandem with the political ideology
of their government. In present times, the negotiation process is being transparent towards
the public. Whereas the traditional diplomacy before globalisation, the diplomats were
decided based on their family and social status. In contrast to this, today, it is based on the
specialised education of the diplomats. The key to conducting successful diplomacy is to
adjust to the new game.
Further diplomacy can be divided into two broad categories depending on the time frame:
ancient diplomacy and new diplomacy. The first type of diplomacy was found in Ancient
Greece, Rome, Ancient Egypt and the Hittites. Diplomacy in ancient Greece was through
ambassadors, who seemed to be a consular institution. In Rome, bilateral diplomacy was
used against foreigners in the form of ‘Ius Gentium’ law and against own people in the
form of ‘civitasgentium.’ The new form of diplomacy emerged in the seventeenth and
eighteenth centuries. It was closely associated with the French revolution. With the
Vienna Congress held in 1818, the official foundations for international organisations
were laid in Europe. In addition to this, the wave of globalisation pushed the process of
diplomacy to a new level. Many variations of diplomacy have been observed over the
years. Some of them are mediation diplomacy, multilateral diplomacy, public diplomacy,
civic diplomacy, cultural diplomacy, environmental diplomacy and many more.8
Diplomacy took a different shape depending on situational demands. It takes coercive
form also. The proponents of coercive diplomacy formulated strategies for coercive
diplomatic actions. Firstly, they try to persuade the opponent to stop the hostile activity.
After that, they seek the reversal of the action already accomplished. Lastly, they seek to
86

lOMoARcPSD|17842581
terminate the opponent's antagonistic behaviour by promoting change in the adversary’s

domestic political system. So, diplomacy can be divided on the basis of various factors
like actors, organisations, states.
3.3 Track I Diplomacy

Track-one diplomacy is a diplomatic way used in the process of conflict resolution. It is
also known as official diplomacy. In this process, diplomats are appointed by
organisations. The primary task of appointed diplomats in the negotiation process is to
resolve the conflict or suggest conflict resolution. Here, diplomats perform activities
similar to that of mediation. If one or more parties do not adhere to the measures offered
by diplomats, appropriate measures can be applied based on dispute against the state.
Such measures include tactics like the embargo, expulsion from international
organisations, using military force with UNSC resolution. These measures help to subside
violence in conflict situations. The most important feature that distinguishes Track I
diplomacy from other forms of diplomacy is its formal application at the state-to-state
level. It follows a specific protocol with the signatory parties. It is considered the primary
peace-making tool of a state's foreign policy. This diplomacy track is carried out by
diplomats, high-ranking government officials, and heads of states to control political
power. Some prominent Track I players are the United Nations, regional economic and
political groups like European Union, the Arab League, the African Union, and many
others.
De Magalhaes (1988) describes official diplomacy as 'an instrument of foreign policy for
the establishment and development of contacts between the governments of different
states through the use of intermediaries mutually recognised by the respective parties.'9
This kind of diplomacy was observed during the resolution of disputes in Kosovo. In
2004, a diplomat envoy was appointed to Kosovo with the United Nations Security
Council's decision to deal with the tension between Serbia and Kosovo. The diplomat's
duty here was to prepare a report by collecting the necessary situation regarding the
conflict and conflict process here. This diplomat appointed by the UNSC was a
Norwegian national named Ambassador Kai Eide. By 2005, the diplomat completed the
report and forwarded it to UN Secretary-General Kofi Anna. The problem of conflict and
conflict has been clearly stated in this report. According to the report, the UN has started
negotiations to solve the problem between Serbia and Kosovo.10
The purpose and intentions of Track I diplomatic efforts vary greatly depending on
situational demands. It may be used coercively and involve sanctions, ultimatums, and
psychological intimidation. Sometimes, it may be used persuasively involving
argumentation or compromise. It is also used to adjust states' relationships to reach
mutual agreements. A third-party state may use the Track I diplomacy to help bring an
agreement between other states. The Track I diplomacy varies according to how these
87

lOMoARcPSD|17842581
Track I roles are carried out. Official interactions may involve senior head of state level,
ministerial level, or lower-level officials. The types of Track I diplomacy interaction
ranges from written communication to formal meetings and casual conversations at each
level. Many official negotiations involve a combination of interaction forms. In conflict
resolution, the application of Track I diplomacy is shaped by the interwoven web of
international relationships that forms the basis of international conflicts. In this context,
diplomats perform many roles and utilise diverse techniques. In the negotiation process,
Track I diplomats can act as the primary parties to negotiations, support primary parties,
or act as third parties. These multiple roles often complicate Track I diplomacy's
application to conflict resolution. Track I negotiators may bring considerable influence,
concrete incentives, and other resources to the process of negotiation.11 In contrast to
Track II diplomacy, Track I diplomacy include substantial positive incentives such as
humanitarian aid, weapons sales, and trade relations. However, it also has significant
negative incentives such as sanctions, expulsion from international organisations, and
even military force.
States involve their diplomats in a conflict to support one or more of the direct parties to
the conflict. States try to shift the power structure of the conflict by shaping the
negotiations. They provide multiple supports depending on the existing power structure.
A supportive state provides power to a weaker party to create symmetry. In addition to
this, states give international support to a group or party in the form of political, military
or financial aid. Moreover, Track I diplomats offer legitimacy to the contending parties
without losing their face or being involved in the negotiation process unless each party is
ready to commit to an agreement. In Track I diplomacy, states may intervene as third
parties to help resolve a conflict situation. Here, the third party performs roles depending
on the context and goals of negotiations. The Track I diplomats in third-party roles can
seek to support victims. They influence the international community and help the victims
uphold their voices. Such diplomats may support the establishment of ceasefires, raising
voices against human rights abuses, genocide and other forms of violence. They have the
power to bring the issues in focus through various commissions and tribunals to ensure
justice.
Track I Diplomacy was developed as a tool to improve relations among nations. It has
multiple strengths and drawbacks also. The first positive aspect of this diplomacy lies in
its ability to use political power to influence the direction of negotiations and outcomes.
This power might include using the threat and military force against a party depending on
situational demands. Secondly, Track I Diplomacy can access material and financial
resources, which helps negotiations. Another strength of such diplomacy is that it can
employ in-depth knowledge concerning parties' interests. This is possible because of the
use of various intelligence sources. Lastly, mediators of Track I diplomacy are competent
in using broad knowledge of their own and conflicting parties' foreign policies. However,
Track I diplomacy has multiple weaknesses also. The first weakness is that its conflict
88

lOMoARcPSD|17842581
resolution approaches are corrupted by power. Here, power can suppress weaker parties'
underlying issues, which further undermine the sustainability of peace processes. The
second disadvantage of such a diplomatic process is associated with diplomatic missions.
These diplomatic missions closed down at the peak of the conflict, reducing
communication. Thirdly, the officials cannot speak against their country. As a result,
there may be rigidity or delay in the negotiation process. Lastly, Track I diplomacy is
affected by electoral cycles.12
Davidson and Montville marked the distinction between Track I and Track II diplomacy.
According to them, Track II diplomacy is unofficial, non-structured and works as a
supplement to Track I endeavours. They also pointed out that Track II is only a
supplement but not replacement to Track I diplomacy. Further, they wrote, ‘reasonable
and altruistic interaction with foreign countries cannot be an alternative to traditional
track-one diplomacy, with its official posturing and its underlying threat of the use of
force.’13 Track I actors are powerful in terms of resources and status. They can intervene
in multiple ways like militarily, giving or withholding legitimacy, aid or trade loans and
many more. Whereas, Track II parties are less threatening and work more flexibly and
unofficially. They cannot coerce the conflicting parties. More importantly, they often lack
resources and funding for their longer-term work. The actors of track I diplomacy are
governmental officials, representatives of inter-governmental organisations, and third-
party governments. Track II diplomacy actors include non-governmental and unofficial
groups and individuals.
3.4 Track II Diplomacy

Track II is a complex and multifaceted diplomatic process. Its key concepts and ideas
have evolved and include many activities within the broad framework of the terminology.
Much of the literature concerning Track II diplomacy defines this as a conflict resolution
mechanism and others as a mechanism for regional security. These two sets of literature
are largely separate from each other. Montville (1991) defines Track Two Diplomacy as
‘unofficial, informal interaction between members of adversary groups or nations that
aim to develop strategies, to influence public opinion, organise human and material
resources in ways that might help resolve their conflict.’14 Most importantly, Track II
Diplomacy is intended to provide a bridge or complement official Track I negotiations.
Track II diplomacy is also known as inter-communal diplomacy in international relations.
According to Joseph V. Montville, this kind of diplomacy lane includes informal
negotiations between states or nations in conflict in the international arena to resolve the
problem. The two most influential figures in the development of Track II diplomacy have
been John Burton and Hebert Kelman. They used this diplomacy to resolve the conflict
between Palestine and Israel since 1993. The primary condition for this track requires the
willingness of the conflicting states to achieve long term peace. The main motive of this
89

lOMoARcPSD|17842581
Track II diplomacy is to end conflict and produce a permanent solution.15 Over the years,
multiple attempts have been made to define Track II diplomacy. Some attempts have
focused on developing the activity from various case studies that used such a track. The
problem is that no two Track II processes are precisely identical. Some of them are
widely different. Other attempts have focused on defining the actors in a Track II
diplomatic process as the prime focus. They have tried to explain the roles of conflicting
parties and third parties. One way to define Track II diplomacy as a way to support Track
I diplomacy. So, Track II can be defined as any activities that support directly or
indirectly Track I efforts. Authors such as Kelman, Saunders, and Fisher argued that their
ideas of interactive problem solving, interactive conflict resolution, and circum-
negotiation could be pretty different from those usually found in Track I. Of course, a
pressing concern is how Track I and Track II processes should cooperate. This is a
sensitive issue and should be approached on a case-by-case basis. There are benefits to
such cooperation between the tracks, resulting in more effective multilevel peace-making.
But such collaboration also has potential drawbacks like confusion among the actors and
may result in misunderstandings.16
Track II diplomacy or private diplomacy is independent. It is favoured because of many
reasons. Firstly, the actors in such diplomacy can successfully complement or replace
governments and international organisations when these are prevented from taking part in
conflict resolution. Secondly, traditional diplomatic methods such as negotiation,
mediation, and conflict management have proven ineffective many times, hence the need
for new approaches. Some actors favour private diplomats over state actors for mediation
as they need rapid and swift intervention. The actors in Track II diplomacy are private
people. They are often experienced mediators and negotiators, such as former heads of
state or government, who often act through non-state groups, such as think tanks, non-
governmental organisations (NGOs), the private sector and religious organisations.
The strengths of Track II Diplomacy have been explored by Montville (1991), Ury
(1999), Sanders (1991), Ryan (1995), and Lederach (1997). Firstly, Track II parties are
not inhibited by political power, so they can express their viewpoints freely, especially on
issues that affect their communities and families. Secondly, Track II diplomatic officials
do not fear losing constituencies because they are the constituency. The third strength of
such diplomacy is that it empowers socially, economically, and politically
disenfranchised groups by providing them with a platform to raise their voice towards
generating peace. The next strength is the effectiveness of such a process in both stages of
the conflict, i.e. pre and post-stage. It is an incredible tool to prevent conflicts and post-
conflict peacebuilding. Lastly, such diplomacy involves grassroots and middle leaders
who directly contact the conflict. Moreover, it is not affected by electoral cycles.
Regardless of its strengths, it also shows specific weaknesses. The first weakness
involves the limited ability of Track II diplomats in influencing foreign policy and
political power structures. Secondly, such interventions can take too long to yield results.
90

lOMoARcPSD|17842581
The third disadvantage of Track II diplomacy is the limited ability to bring changes at the
war stage of a conflict. Fourthly, Track II diplomats rarely have any resources necessary
for sustained leverage during negotiations and the implementation of agreements. Fifthly,
Track II diplomacy is not effective in authoritarian regimes. The sixth weakness is that
such actors are not accountable to the public because it lacks political power. Lastly,
Track II organisations lack coordination.17
3.5 Multi-Track Diplomacy

Multi-track diplomacy expands the notion of Track II diplomacy or citizens' diplomacy. It
is a holistic approach to diplomacy and involves multiple channels and stakeholders to
pursue the diplomatic goal. This approach is instrumental in resolving prolonged pending
conflicts. The multi-track system originated as a result of inefficient government
mediation. It was first introduced by a foreign service officer named Joe Montville in
1981. He distinguished between Track I and Track II diplomacy by defining the first one
as official government action and later one as unofficial peacebuilding activities. Multi-
Track diplomacy views international peace-making processes as a living system. It
perceives multi-track diplomacy as a web of interconnected activities, individuals,
institutions, and communities that operate together to attain world peace.
Diamond and McDonald's (1996) framework on multi-track diplomacy added more tracks
to the notion of Track II diplomacy. They came up with total of nine tracks. The nine
tracks include government, professional conflict resolution, business actors, private
citizens, researchers, activists, religious leaders, funders, and people working in public
opinion and communication. Further, these nine tracks in the Multi Track diplomacy
include a range of actors and processes. Track 1 of multi-track diplomacy is associated
with the Government or Peace-making through Diplomacy. Here, policymaking and
peacebuilding are expressed through formal governmental process aspects. The next
includes nongovernment/professional or peace-making through conflict resolution. Here,
international conflicts are attempts to analyse, prevent, resolve, and manage by non-state
actors. Track 3 involves business or peace-making through Commerce. In this field, the
potential effects of business on peacebuilding are explored. Here, peacebuilding is done
by providing economic opportunities, international friendship and understanding,
informal channels of communication. Track 4 of multi-track diplomacy is private citizen
or peace-making through personal involvement. This includes various ways in which
individual citizens become involved in the peace process. Moreover, they are involved in
the process through activities such as citizen diplomacy, exchange programs, private
voluntary organisations and many others. Track 5 is research, training, and education or
peace-making through Learning. It includes three related worlds of research, training and
education. The Track 6 is activism or peace-making through advocacy. This track covers
the field of peace and environmental activism on issues like disarmament, human rights,
social and economic justice, etc. Track 7 is religion or peace-making through faith in
91

lOMoARcPSD|17842581
action. This looks into the beliefs and peace-oriented actions of spiritual and religious
communities. Track 8 is funding or peace-making through providing resources. This
refers to the funding community that offers financial support for many of the activities
undertaken by other tracks of diplomacy. The last track is communications and the media,
or peace-making through information. This shows how public opinion gets shaped and
expressed by the media.18 In the last decade, the international community has been faced
with more guerrilla warfare, secessionist attempts and other types of intra-state violence.
The traditional practices of diplomacy are unable to deal with these challenges. Hence,
Multi-track diplomacy is the need of the hour to deal with such diverse conflictual issues.
3.6 Conclusion
Diplomacy has a long history of regulating economic and cultural relations among the
nations. Diplomatic activities are generally carried out through the foreign ministries of
the countries. Decisions made by following diplomatic tracks shape the country's image
in the international domain. It is seen that diplomatic activities are divided into ‘old
period diplomacy’ and ‘new period diplomacy’. Ancient diplomacy activities are in the
form of Ad-hoc diplomacy, whereas new forms of diplomacy are diverse in nature.
Further, it is divided into Track I, Track II and Multitrack diplomacy based on the level of
involvement between actors and states. It is an integral part of foreign policy. Diplomacy
as a tool is used in both negotiation and mediation process. It is a key technique to
conflict response mechanism and has the potentiality to bring changes in the international
world order. In addition to this, diplomacy as a skill is prerequisite to officials and
individuals who is associated with conflict resolution. Moreover, this skill helps nations
to mediate effectively on issues like nuclear proliferation, terrorism, environmental crisis,
economic disputes and many others. In today’s world, no state can neglect the importance
of diplomacy in daily interactions with other actors.
1. Jönsson, C. and Hall M.(2005). Essence of Diplomacy. Pp. 26.
2. Barratt, J. (1985). South African Diplomacy at the UN.
3. Morgenthau, H. (1985). Politics among nations: The struggle for peace and power.
4. Bull, H. (1977). The Anarchical Society: A Study of Order in World Politics. Pp. 156.
5. Berridge, G.R.( 2015). Diplomacy Theory and Practice.
6. Cornago, N.(2008). Diplomacy. In Lester Kurtz (Ed.) Encyclopedia of Violence, Peace, and
Conflict. Pp.575-76.
7. Kissinger, H. (2003) Diplomacy. Pp. 52.
8. ABDURAHMANLI, E.(2021). Definition of diplomacy and types of diplomacy used between
states. Pp. 583-85.
9. Magalhães, J. De.(1988). The Pure Concept of Diplomacy.
10. ABDURAHMANLI, E.(2021). Definition of diplomacy and types of diplomacy used between
states. Pp. 596.
11. Nan, SA (2003).Track I Diplomacy.
92

lOMoARcPSD|17842581
12. Mapendere, J.(2006). Track One and a Half Diplomacy and the Complementarity of Tracks. Pp.
67-68.
13. Davidson, W. D. and Montville, J. D. (1981-82), Foreign policy according to Freud. Pp. 155.
14. Montville, J. (1991). Track Two Diplomacy The Arrow and the Olive Branch: A case for Track
Two Diplomacy.
15. YILMAZ, E. (2016). Inter-social diplomacy in dispute resolution.
16. Jones, P.( 2015). Track Two Diplomacy in Theory and Practice. Pp. 21.
17. Mapendere, J.(2006). Track One and a Half Diplomacy and the Complementarity of Tracks.
Pp.68.
18. Mc Donald, J. W. (2012). The Institute for Multi-Track Diplomacy. Pp.67-68.
Questions:
1. Critically examine the concept of diplomacy.
2. What is diplomacy? Discuss different types of diplomacy.
3. What is Track I diplomacy? How is it different from Track II diplomacy?
4. Discuss the relevance of Track II diplomacy in international relations.
5. What is Multi Track diplomacy? Discuss Diamond and McDonald's framework on
multi-track diplomacy.
References:
 ABDURAHMANLI, E.(2021). Definition if diplomacy and types of diplomacy used
between states. Anadolu Akademi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, 3(3), 580-603.
 Barratt, J. (1985). South African Diplomacy at the UN. Londra: Palgrave Macmillan,
Londra.
 Berridge, G.R.( 2015). Diplomacy Theory and Practice. Palgrave Macmillan.
 Bull, H. (1977). The Anarchical Society: A Study of Order in World Politics. New York:
Columbia University Press.
 Codrean, C. (2017). Diploma: A Brief Analysis of the types of Diplomacy. The
Annals of the University of Oradea. Economic Sciences, 26(2), 279-283.
 Cornago, N.(2008). Diplomacy. In Lester Kurtz (Ed.) Encyclopedia of Violence, Peace,
and Conflict. Elsevier.
 Davidson, W. D. and Montville, J. D. (1981-82), Foreign policy according to Freud.
Foreign Policy,45, 145-157.
 Diamond, L. and McDonald, J. W. (1996). Multi-track diplomacy: A systems approach to
peace. London: Kumarian Press.
 Jönsson, C. and Hall M.(2005). Essence of Diplomacy. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
 Jones, P.( 2015). Track Two Diplomacy in Theory and Practice. Stanford, California:
Stanford University Press.
 Kissinger, H. (2003). Diplomacy. Bucharest: ALL Publishing House.
93

lOMoARcPSD|17842581
 Magalhães, J. De. (1988). The Pure Concept of Diplomacy. Greenwood

Publishing Group.
 Montville, J. (1991). Track Two Diplomacy The Arrow and the Olive Branch: A case for
Track Two Diplomacy. In Volkan MD, J. Montville, & D. A. Julius (Eds.) The
Psychodynamics of International Relations: Vol. 2. Unofficial diplomacy at work.
Massachusetts: Lexington Books.
 Mapendere, J.(2006). Track One and a Half Diplomacy and the Complementarity
of Tracks. Culture of Peace Online Journal, 2(1), 66-81.
 Mc Donald, J. W. (2012). The Institute for Multi-Track Diplomacy. Journal of
Conflictology, 3(2), 66-70.
 Morgenthau, H. (1985). Politics among nations: The struggle for peace and power (6th
ed.). New York: Knopf.
 Nan, SA (2003).Track I Diplomacy. In Guy Burgess and Heidi Burgess (Eds.) Beyond
Intractability. Conflict Information Consortium, University of Colorado, Boulder.
 Stanzel, V. (Ed.).(2018). New Realities in Foreign Affairs: Diplomacy in the 21st
Century. Stiftung Wissenschaft und Politik.
 YILMAZ, E. (2016). Inter-social diplomacy in dispute resolution. Akademik Fener, 43.
94

lOMoARcPSD|17842581
d. Gandhian Methods
Pallabi Barah
Outline
4.1 Introduction
4.2 Gandhian Philosophy: A Brief Overview
4.3 Gandhian Approach to Conflict Resolution: Satyagraha
4.4 Conclusion
Conflict is a situation between various parties with differences and disagreements in
opinion and interests. Such disputes often result in negative behaviours until at least one
party recognises the incompatibility. Conflict is an inevitable part of human history.
Primarily, conflicts may result in destruction, loss of human lives and properties, and rift
in relationships. Conflict is one of the engines of the evolution of human history and is a
matter of perception. Conflict resolution can be perceived as a method and process of
peaceful ending of the conflict. Human beings can only realise their inner humane being
in the presence of peace. Even wars across the world repeatedly prove the impotence of
superior force in the hands of massive nonviolent resistance. Gandhi firmly believed in
the potentiality of nonviolent means in achieving long-lasting peace. He devoted his
entire life to propagating nonviolent techniques to resolve conflicts. In the contemporary
world, the relevance of Gandhian methods is widely discussed, especially the concept of
Satyagraha in terms of resolving conflicts.
Conflict resolution is the best mechanism for social justice, harmony, cooperation, and
peacebuilding. It has thrust upon the idea that conflicts should be resolved only by
adopting peaceful means, not through violence. In this unit, an in-depth analysis of
Gandhian methods of conflict resolution will be discussed.
4.1 Introduction
Conflict is a norm of human life, and human beings constantly try to resolve conflicts
through both violent and nonviolent means. Conflict resolution can be defined as the
situation where the conflicting parties agree to resolve their mutual disputes. The conflict
resolution approaches pointed out strategies that help the parties exit from chaos and
destruction and aim to achieve a satisfying solution for all parties. Gandhi is famous for
his involvement with nonviolent ways of resolving conflicts. His technique of conflict
resolution is known as Satyagraha. Gandhi was well aware of the increasing influence of
materialistic culture and impact of the modern way of life on societal bonding. The term
satyagraha is based on the notion of truth and was coined by Gandhi to move forward to
passive resistance. According to Gandhi, the critical difference between the two lies in
posing resistance.
95

lOMoARcPSD|17842581
Satyagraha was essentially a positive and active form of resistance, whereas the other one
is passive in nature. In Gandhi's words, 'Satyagraha and its offshoots, non-cooperation
and civil resistance, are nothing but new names for the law of suffering. Non-violence in
its dynamic condition means conscious suffering. It does not mean meek submission to
the will of the evil-doer, but it means the pitting of one's whole soul against the will of the
tyrant. I have therefore ventured to place before India the ancient law of self-sacrifice.’1
Gandhi was well aware of the rigorous process through which one can adopt the tactics of
Satyagraha. Thus, he laid down different ideas for the perfect satyagrahi and the average
satyagrahi. In addition to this, Gandhi advised the masses that it was enough to follow
their leaders faithfully and make a possible effort to inculcate such ideals in their lives.
Mahatma Gandhi's model of conflict resolution is unique. Conflict resolution without war
is a distant dream without applying Gandhian norms and values. Gandhi used to resolve
conflict by incorporating the method of negotiation, meditation and arbitration.
4.2 Gandhian Philosophy: A Brief Overview

Gandhian philosophy consists of many relevant concepts. He was born on 2nd October
1869 and went to London to complete his study. In 1980, Gandhi came to India as a
lawyer. His attempts at conflict resolution started in South Africa and were based on
nonviolent Satyagraha. Gandhian way of conflict resolution has a significant impact on
peace research and conflict resolution techniques. He often hailed as the Father of Nation.
Gandhi believed that any conflict could be resolved peacefully through mutual trust and
bilateral negotiation in any conflict situation. Apart from approaches to conflict
resolution, Gandhi propagated many related concepts such as truth, non-violence, faith in
human goodness. Gandhi's overarching goal throughout his life was Sarvodaya which
translates to the welfare of all or the upliftment of all. Three principles guided his
writings and actions: Satya or truth, Ahimsa or non-violence, and Tapasya or self-
suffering. The first principle is the basis of Gandhian Satyagraha and refers to
understanding others' viewpoints involving the same situations. Secondly, an integral part
of Gandhian philosophy is the concept of Ahimsa. It was essential to Gandhi's
peacebuilding efforts due to several reasons like it does not intend to harm others,
dynamic and positive in nature. Gandhi insisted on nonviolent means to achieve just ends
throughout his life. The last principle of Gandhian Sarvodaya is Tapasya, or self-
suffering. Gandhi viewed self-suffering as a viable solution to confront the violence that
comes on the way to remove social injustices. He prefers the willingness to endure
suffering than violent retaliation.2
The modern world faces violence, terrorism, ecological crisis, and wars. Gandhi
demonstrated the practical applicability of non-violence to all fields to do away with such
crises throughout the world. In Gandhian terms, the concept of non-violence has
ecological importance and enables people to live with nature without exploiting it. It is an
alternative solution to violence and terrorism. The technique of non-violence is essential
96

lOMoARcPSD|17842581
to restore humanity and achieve lasting global peace.3 Gandhi's views on non-violence
were evolved over time. In his immediate domestic, social and political circles, he tried to
overcome the opposition by persuasion and love. In 1906, after enacting the humiliating
Asiatic Registration law, he evolved the idea of Satyagraha more profoundly and used
nonviolent methods to address social and political injustices. Gandhi applied this method
for the cause of the Indian minority in South Africa. But he had not yet thought of using
non-violence to resolve conflicts between nation-states. By 1914, Gandhi's views on non-
violence had reached the stage where he couldn't engage in killing and war. At the same
time, he recognised that most of his countrymen did not share this attitude. Indian
political leaders were divided into' moderate' and 'extremist' groups. But Gandhi
vehemently opposed the idea of political bargaining with the British, and he hoped that
Britain would give India her due when the World war was over. During the two decades,
spanned across the First and the Second World Wars, Gandhi's belief in the potentialities
of non-violence grew with more excellent reflection and experience. Such emphasis was
given when Gandhi preferred means over the end goal. In November 193, Gandhi
highlighted the strength of non-violence by saying that he would buy the country's
independence at the cost of non-violence. 4
Gandhi suggested a moral alternative to the concept of violence. The existing methods of
violence and physical power as means to resolve conflicts. The achievements of science
and technology have marked the futility of war. In fact, in present times, it means total
devastation. Such fault lines in violence have raised concerns about exploring ways to
resolve conflicts without inviting disaster. Gandhian methods can fill this gap in conflict
resolution. Gandhi applied his theory of unity and purity of means to achieve a righteous
end. Even if people are involved in the war to get justice, it can not be realised through
impure means. Thus, he rejects the concept of just war to resolve conflict. Even the use of
nuclear weapons cannot prevent war. In Gandhian view, the use of atomic weapons might
create a temporary aversion to war, but the world would resort to violence as soon as the
feeling of aversion is over. Thus Gandhi rejects war as a method of conflict resolution
and suggests Satyagraha based on the principle of non-violence. Therefore, he advised the
use of nonviolent action in a conflict situation. In conflict situations, success can be
achieved through nonviolent action in three different ways. The first way is
accommodating the opponents. In this technique, the opponent does not believe in the
changes but believes it is best to give in. The following technique is nonviolent coercion.
Here, the opponent wants to continue the struggle but cannot because they have lost the
sources of power and means of control. The last way is conversion. In conversion, the
opponent has changed inwardly to the degree that they want to make the desired by the
nonviolent activist.
97

lOMoARcPSD|17842581
Satyagraha is Gandhi's technique of nonviolent activism. The term has variously been
translated as 'passive resistance', 'nonviolent resistance', 'nonviolent direct action', and
even 'militant non-violence'.5 For Gandhi, it was not only a method of conducting conflict
but a way of life. Galtung6 summarises Gandhi's conflict norms in terms of integrative
conflict resolution. It consists of three significant criteria. The first norm relates to the
goals of conflicts and how states should act in conflicts. Moreover, this norm also defines
common and compatible goals and try to understand the opponent's goals. It sees conflict
as an opportunity to meet the opponents and transform society and oneself. The second
norm is associated with conflict struggle. Here, the basic urge is to act non-violently, not
damaging property and non-cooperation with the evil. The final norm is focused on
resolving conflicts without any delay. It is highly recommended to seek negotiation and
positive social transformation rather than dragging the conflict. The parties should always
show the will to compromise on non-essential elements and admit their mistakes. One
should be generous with the opponent and never coerce them; instead, convert them into
a believer of the cause.
Gandhian theory of nonviolent power represents a much-needed perspective to criticise
dominant contemporary modes of representing power in terms of violence. His
understanding of power offers both a theoretical and a practical approach to the problem
of peacebuilding in today's global society. The most valuable contribution of this theory
is its critique of dominant discourses on the power that equates power with violence.
Gandhi focused on the moral aspect of power. According to the Gandhian perspective,
nonviolent direct action is the most effective way to counter power networks. Gandhian
understanding of peace building involves using nonviolent means to secure a sustainable
solution.7 In addition to this, such a solution may assure satisfaction, security and quality
of life.
4.3 Gandhian Approach to Conflict Resolution: Satyagraha

Conflict can be defined as a psychological condition in which two or more individuals
start fighting over any issue of mutual interest. Conflict is of different four types
depending on the level of interaction among the parties or actors. Conflict can be
classified into categories like interpersonal, intrapersonal, intergroup and intergroup.
Interpersonal conflict means conflict between two individuals. Such conflict occurs due
to differences in people's nature and personalities and resulting differences in choices and
opinions. The second category of conflict is interpersonal conflict. Here, conflict occurs
within an individual and appears in the person's mind. This conflict is psychological, and
individual fights with their inner thoughts and value system. Such a type of conflict is
complicated to handle as it happens within the minds of human beings. The next category
of conflict is intragroup conflicts. This kind of conflict occurs within the same group of
different people. This is happened due to incompatibilities and misunderstandings among
the group members. Members of the same group having differences in ideas and thoughts
98

lOMoARcPSD|17842581
led to such conflicts. Intergroup conflict is the last category of conflict. Such conflict
arises between the different departments of the same organisation.
Conflicts are understood as an omnipresent part of human interaction. It is more about
regulation or settlement of such disputes than its elimination. Research suggests two
approaches to conflict, namely the subjectivist and the objectivist approach. The
objectivist approach to conflict looks for the origin of conflict in society's social and
political structure. This approach considers that the goals can be thoroughly compatible.
In contrast, the subjectivist approach focuses primarily on the incompatibility of goals
and differences by the parties in dispute. The level of incompatibility is the most crucial
variable in different stages of conflict resolution. In addition to this, conflict resolution is
possible in two ways. The first one is using violent means like weapons, destruction and
denial of truth. The nonviolent ways of conflict resolution involve accommodation and
conversion of opponents. Gandhi developed Satyagraha as the most pragmatic and potent
technique of conflict resolution. Conflict resolution through Satyagraha is based on three
assumptions. They are: (a) some elements of common interest to the disputants always
exist; (b) an appeal to the heart and mind; and (c) Satyagrahis are capable of carrying
Satyagraha to the end. The concept of Satyagraha has consisted of multiple related
concepts and ideas.
The word Satyagraha consists of Satya, which means truth, and Graha, which means
insistence or firmness. According to Gandhi, it is the soul force and consists of elements
like truth, non-violence and many others. Satyagraha aims at the relentless search for
truth rather than victory. It is also described as nonviolent resistance, but Gandhi made a
point to differentiate it from passive resistance. Satyagraha is applicable to resolve
conflicts like interpersonal, intrapersonal and others. But the basic unit is individual.
Training for all kinds of Satyagraha begins with the solution of intrapersonal conflicts in
a peaceful manner. Gandhi focused on the ideal of non-violence, and the beginning of
practising this starts at one's home. Satyagraha is ethical. Its main objective is to convert,
not coerce. It aims to restructure the opposing elements to achieve a satisfactory situation
for both parties. Moreover, it seeks to liquidate antagonisms but not the antagonists
themselves. In the words of Bondurant, the main objective of Satyagraha is not to assert
propositions but to create possibilities. In addition to this, Satyagraha is gentle, and it
never wounds. It should not result from anger and never be fussy, impatient, or
vociferous. Satyagraha stood opposite to compulsion and was conceived as a complete
substitute for violence. In this process, the satyagrahis will not be impatient with the
opponent or himself.
Conflict resolution denotes resolving conflict without having a war. Gandhi practised
various methods for resolving any type of conflict. He devoted his entire life to the
betterment and welfare of society. He used to adhere to the principle of peace and non-
violence and believed in the potentiality of non-violence in attaining peaceful world
99

lOMoARcPSD|17842581
order. Gandhian approach to conflict resolution encompasses different prospects. They

are non-cooperation, civil disobedience, fasting, negotiation, persuasion, conversion, self-
suffering and nonviolent actions. Non-cooperation is a vital tool of Satyagraha. Non-
cooperation makes the satyagrahi ready to accept any consequences in their fight against
injustice. Gandhi started his non-cooperation movement in India in 1920. Nonviolent
non-cooperation, as proposed by Gandhi, entails a process through which the satyagrahis
refuse to participate in opponents' activities. This refusal involves boycotting the
opponent's economic, political, social and educational institutions. Non-cooperation is of
two types. In the first type, opponents can achieve their objective without the satyagrahi's
co-operation. This aims at the self-purification of the satyagrahi. In the second instance,
the opponents cannot achieve their aim without the satyagrahi's co-operation. All these
movements intend to maintain the value of non-violence and the conversion of
adversaries. The next step is the civil disobedience movement. When the idea of the non-
cooperation movement failed, then Gandhi started the civil disobedience movement. This
technique involves the violation of government laws and non-payment of taxes. The most
remarkable example of civil disobedience in India is the 1930s salt Satyagraha. Fasting is
the most effective weapon used by satyagrahis against injustice or evil forces. Fasting
means the suffering of self, and it results in self-purification. Gandhi observed seventeen
fasts on various occasions. The first public fasting of Gandhi happened during the
Ahmadabad mill workers' strike. It is a severe and life-endangering form of resistance. To
observe, a person needs to have qualities like discipline, stamina, courage and
fearlessness from death. The following way in the Gandhian concept of conflict
resolution is negotiation. It is one of the primary steps. Gandhi established specific
ground rules for the smooth managing of the negotiation process to resolve the conflict.
Mutual respect with the opponent is the prerequisite to having a successful negotiation
process. If the negotiation fails in achieving its goals, then next comes persuasion. Both
parties are willing to welcome their opposition for settlement but unwilling to go.
Persuasion gets success only due to ignorance of the wrong thing or removing selfishness.
Conversion holds a high value in the Gandhian method of conflict resolution. In this
technique, both parties are motivated to convert their conflicting interests so that they can
understand each other position at the same time. The next technique is self-suffering.
Satyagraha is a method of converting the opponents by appealing to their better selves
through self-suffering. The idea of Satyagraha does not believe in inflicting pain on
others. The last approach is the adoption of nonviolent action in the process of conflict
resolution.
Gandhi developed Satyagraha as an adequate substitute for conflict resolution. It is a
technique of action characterised by its commitment to truthful and nonviolent means,
including self-suffering. It seeks to operate within a conflict situation. The force of
satyagraha methods is essentially different from violent means during the conflict.
Satyagraha may use any form of nonviolent means. The most commonly employed
100

lOMoARcPSD|17842581
nonviolent means during the nationalist movement in India were non-cooperation and
civil disobedience. Satyagraha had been recognised as an efficacious method. The
methods of Satyagraha can be broadly classified into four categories, namely purificatory
and penitential devices, non-cooperation, methods of civil disobedience and the
constructive programme. The purificatory and penitential devices include pledges,
prayers and fasts. The pledge is about the declaration made by satyagrahis to abstain from
uncovering truth and not recognise injustices. A pledge could take the form of a prayer.
The second category of methods involves non-cooperation techniques such as hartal,
boycott, strikes and fasting unto death. Civil disobedience includes picketing, marches,
non-payment of taxes, and deliberate defiance of a specific law. The last category of the
Satyagraha method focuses on constructive programmes. Without constructive
programmes, the idea of civil disobedience might be paralysed.8
The fundamental concepts associated with Satyagraha are truth, non-violence, self-
suffering, faith in human goodness and many others. The first basic concept is truth.
Truth is the essence of Satyagraha. The more truthful we are, the more we are nearer to
God. God is the absolute truth and all-pervading reality. It is not right to coerce others.
Differences would be bridged through discipline and humility, and the conflict resolved
through non-violence and self-suffering. Inquest for truth, Satyagraha demands public
admission of mistakes. The second key concept is non-violence. Non-violence or Ahimsa
focused on the means, as one is bound to reach the end sooner or later. Violence begets
violence, and it is closely linked with hatred. It is not possible to justify the use of
violence. In a conflict situation, violence hits the sinner rather than the sin. In the account
of Gandhi, violence was not accepted as a cleansing force. He further asserted that those
who practice non-violence must be prepared to sacrifice their all except honour.
Nonviolent resistance makes the conflict resolution process more successful and helps
achieve greater peace. The Gandhian concept of Ahimsa is not merely a negative state of
harmlessness but a positive state of love and even doing good to the evil-doer. But it does
not suffice to help the wrong-doer to continue following the wrong way or tolerating it.
The active state of Ahimsa requires you to resist the wrong-doer. The first step in non-
violence is cultivating it in our daily lives. Non-violence is never a method of coercion
but of conversion. However, non-cooperation means such as boycotts, strikes and fasts
may involve implicit moral coercion. Therefore, Gandhi insisted on the rightness of cause
and means than the end. Creative self-suffering is the next important concept to
understand Satyagraha better, as it opens up the inner understanding of man. However,
self-suffering does not mean mere submission to the will of the evil-doer. Instead, it
prefers putting one's whole soul against the will of the tyrant. In self-suffering, the user is
the only person who suffers. He does not make others suffer for his mistakes, which
keeps the resistance nonviolent. By doing so, Satyagrahis transformed their opponent's
conscience and tried to convert them indirectly. The next basis of Satyagraha is faith in
human goodness. It believes that the opponent is open to reason and has a conscience to
101

lOMoARcPSD|17842581
respond to any noble and friendly action. Every one of us has both good and bad traits.
Hence, the opponent should be given the same chances. Even if the opponent plays wrong
many times, Satyagrahi is ready to trust him every time he plays. Belief in the goodness
of human nature is the essence of Satyagraha. In addition to this, means and ends are also
essential to consider. According to Gandhi, means are everything. If one takes care of the
means, the end will bear good results. The progress towards the goal will be proportionate
to the purity of means. The last element of Satyagraha is fearlessness. According to
Gandhi, possession of arms was a sign of fear and cowardice, and they could never be
moral. A violent person may become nonviolent someday, but the same does not happen
to a coward. Non-violence stands opposite to cowardice. Even using violence in self-
defence or for the defence of others can be seen as an act of bravery and better than
cowardly submission.
The principles of Satyagraha can be applied to various conflict situations and their
resolution. Each category of conflict has specific characteristics and may require a more
detailed approach. Salient features of the application of Satyagraha in different categories
of conflicts vary depending on the types of conflict. In the case of Interpersonal conflicts,
Satyagraha depends on how its values have been internalised rather than conscious
adoption of tactics. Gandhi advised that one should ceaselessly strive to realise Ahimsa in
every walk of life and act most naturally in a crisis. Moreover, non-violence is based on
the point that nobody is unjust and evil in his own eyes, and hence it is unfair to hate him.
One can start practising non-violence in personal relationships. There is a need to replace
the emotion of fear with trust. In most conflicts, both parties want to dominate because of
fear and insecurity. Therefore, non-violence aims not to harm the opponents or impose
decisions on them. Rather it helps both parties to secure a creative and truthful
relationship. The use of Satyagraha in resolving legal disputes consists of the primary
institutional solution to conflict resolution. Compared to the Western methods of conflict
resolution, Gandhi's Satyagraha is based on the Indian tradition focused on dialogue,
mediation, compromise. In comparison, the Western approach perceives legal resolution
of conflicts involving articulation and confrontation and victory over the other. The
courts may not be even doing their intended job. Hence, in the absence of effective
alternative modes of resolving disputes, disputants may resort to violence. It is time to
revamp many traditional forms of dispute settlement mechanisms. The techniques of
Satyagraha is also used in resolving industrial conflicts. Such conflicts within the industry
often lead to strikes and protests and impact the employees. Industrial disputes have their
outcome as a continued viable agreement between management and employees. For
Gandhi, labour should have the same status and dignity as capital to avoid industrial
disputes. He advised workers to be organised to achieve their outcomes. To maintain
good relations, neither side should have the power to dominate. Satyagraha is also used
against the state and is known as civil disobedience. In the political realm, nonviolent
struggles generally consist in opposing evil in the shape of unjust laws. Gandhi
102

lOMoARcPSD|17842581
emphasised that civil disobedience must be sincere, respectful, restrained, and based on
some well-understood principle. Here, a Satyagrahi exhausts all other means before
resorts to Satyagraha. The person remains ready for negotiations, appeals to public
opinion and states his case calmly before others. And only then resort to Satyagraha. The
last type of conflict where Satyagraha can be used is Inter-nation conflicts. In the world
order, conflict among nations is prevalent. In the context of World War II, Gandhi
suggested that all violence is terrible and must be condemned in the abstract. A believer
in Ahimsa has to distinguish between the aggressor and the defender. Taking side with
the defender in a nonviolent manner is the next step. A Satyagrahi fights without using
weapons and aiming at the conversion of the opponent. Nowadays, modern war
technology makes the idea of defence obsolete. Nations use arms to eliminate the source
of conflicts. But Gandhi favoured complete unilateral disarmament.
Gandhi propounded the philosophy of Satyagraha a hundred years back. It is essential to
understand his philosophy of Satyagraha so that we can apply such techniques in our day
to day conflict mitigation. Non-violence is both science and art. It has a long history and
rich philosophy behind it. As practised by Gandhi, Satyagraha was a technique of action
designed to set in motion a process to achieve lasting peace. It emerged from the
realisation that violence produces more violence. Satyagraha replaced brute force with
soul force through self-suffering as the objective and arousing the inherent capacity of the
opponent.
Nonviolent actions invite the parties to a dialogue to resolve their issues mutually. Non-
coercive means to conflict response is conducted in a way that opponents are allowed or
encouraged to realise their human potential. The basic tenets and rules of a Satyagraha
campaign, as opposed to a Duragraha, can be summarised in the ten points. First, violence
is invited from the opponents if they are humiliated or provoked. A satyagrahi must
appeal to their heart, not make them fear. Secondly, a violent attitude should be avoided
by a would-be satyagrahi. The sincere undertaking of a conflict along Gandhian lines
requires an affirmative answer to the question. Third, opponents are less likely to use
violent means if they understand the satyagrahi's case and conduct it in a better way.
Fourth, the vital interests which opponents have in common should be formulated, and
co-operation should be established on this basis. In all conflicts, the central principle of
Satyagraha is to attempt to find validity in the opponent's position. Fifth, opponents
should not be judged harder than themselves. The golden rule here is mutual toleration,
looking into Truth from different angles. Conscience is not similar for everyone.
Therefore, it is advisable to not impose the same conduct on everybody as this may
interfere with one's freedom of conscience. The six bases of Satyagraha suggests trusting
the opponents. Satyagraha is based on making a man trustworthy by trusting him first.
The Satyagrahi need not wait endlessly for conversion to occur. When it reaches the limit,
the satyagrahi will take risks and conceive plans of active Satyagraha. Seventh, an
unwillingness to compromise on non-essentials decreases the likelihood of converting the
103

lOMoARcPSD|17842581
opponent. A Satyagrahi never misses or can never miss a chance of compromise on

honourable terms. Gandhi himself believed in compromises. The next basis of Satyagraha
can be understood as the conversion of an opponent. Opponents are more likely to use
violence if they lose in the cause of the satyagrahi. Therefore, genuine Satyagraha cannot
be used in an unjust cause as it quests for the truth. Ninth, the best way of convincing an
opponent is to show the satyagrahi's sincerity and intent to make sacrifices for the given
cause. Lastly, Satyagrahi never uses the weakness of opponents to exploit them. Intrigue
and manipulation of opinion should be rejected, and advantage should not be taken of an
opponent's weak moments.9
Satyagraha is a method to address grievances and establish political order. The process of
Satyagraha involves multiple steps to confront unjust laws and policies. It starts with an
effort to resolve the conflict through established channels and accepted protocols. This
step is followed by an active propaganda campaign involving demonstrations, parades,
and a final appeal to the opponent to make them aware of subsequent processes if an
agreement is not finalised. The last step involves actions such as boycotts, strikes, and
other forms of non-cooperation activities.10 The future of Satyagraha depends on the
intent of satyagrahis. Gandhi pleaded for the abolition of all violence and duplicity in the
affairs of man and nations. He declared that truth and non-violence were good for the
entire humanity. Gandhi saw no safer and better approach to conflict resolution than
through innocence, non-violence and love. Moreover, he warned people not to be
dogmatic about the truth one sees. He lives through non-violence. His passion for non-
violence translates itself into service, suffering and sacrifice for others. Thus, he devoted
his life to pursuing truth through service and sacrifice.
4.4 Conclusion
Gandhi's conflict resolution methodology was based on non-violence and peace.
According to his conflict resolution approach, both the parties willingly accept each
other's standpoints and promise not to create a hostile situation in the future. The present
era we are living in is full of competition. Such competitiveness in human beings led to
conflict like situations. Individual life is full of worldly ambitions and competitions, and
to preserve their interests, they end up promoting conflict, which erupts in violent
situations. Conflicts create imbalances in society. For resolving disputes, Gandhi adopted
the method of Satyagraha. Satyagraha is a way of conflict resolution that helps
individuals resolve conflict peacefully while upholding good values. For Satyagrahis,
non-violence was the most critical weapon as described by Gandhi. He is optimistic about
the potential of nonviolent means in resolving disputes of social, economic and political
importance. Non-violence has the power to integrate societies and make people grow
prosperously. His teachings and thoughts are precursors to developing peaceful ways of
conflict response. In addition to this, Gandhian norms and values help people gain mutual
trust and moral power.
104

lOMoARcPSD|17842581
1. Bandyopadhyaya, J. (1969). Social and Political Thought of Gandhi. Pp. 224

2. Bondurant, J. V. (1959). Conquest of Violence: The Gandhian Philosophy of Conflict.
3. Ibid., 36.
4. Nanda, B. R. (1985). Gandhi and his critics. Pp.116-17.
5. Weber, T. (1991). Conflict Resolution and Gandhian Ethics. Pp.2.
6. Galtung, J. (1992). The Way is the Goal: Gandhi Today. Pp. 94-96.
7. Steger, M. B. (2001). Peacebuilding and Non-violence: Gandhi's Perspective on Power. Pp. 314-
19.
8. Iyer, R. N. (1973). The Moral and Political Thought of Mahatma Gandhi. Pp.305.
9. Weber, T. (2001). Gandhian Philosophy, Conflict Resolution Theory and Practical Approaches to
Negotiation. Pp. 505-06.
10. Mayton II, D.M. (2001). Gandhi as Peacebuilder: The Social Psychology of Satyagraha. Pp. 309-
10.
Questions:
1. Discuss the fundamental concepts in Gandhian philosophy and practice.
2. Discuss and describe Gandhian idea of nonviolent action.
3. What is conflict resolution? Discuss Gandhi’s views on conflict resolution.
4. Write a note on the concept of Satyagraha as an approach to conflict response.
5. What are the bases of Gandhian Satyagraha?
References:
 Bandyopadhyaya, J. (1969). Social and Political Thought of Gandhi. New Delhi: Allied
Publishers.
 Bondurant, J. V. (1959). Conquest of Violence: The Gandhian Philosophy of Conflict.
Bombay: Oxford University Press.
 Galtung, J. (1992). The Way is the Goal: Gandhi Today. Ahmedabad: Gujarat Vidyapith
Peace Research Centre.
 Hardiman, D. (2003). Gandhi in his time and ours. Permanent Black.
 Iyer, R. N. (1973). The Moral and Political Thought of Mahatma Gandhi. Delhi: Oxford
University Press.
 Mayton II, D.M. (2001). Gandhi as Peacebuilder: The Social Psychology of Satyagraha.
In Daniel J. Christie, Richard V. Wagner and Deborah Du Nann Winter (Eds.) Peace,
conflict, and violence, pp. 307-313. New Jersey: Prentice Hall Inc.
 Nanda, B. R. (1985). Gandhi and his critics. New Delhi: Oxford University Press.
 Steger, M. B. (2001). Peacebuilding and Non-violence: Gandhi's Perspective on Power.
In Daniel J. Christie, Richard V. Wagner and Deborah Du Nann Winter (Eds.) Peace,
conflict, and violence, pp. 314-323. New Jersey: Prentice Hall Inc.
105

lOMoARcPSD|17842581
 Weber, T. (1991). Conflict Resolution and Gandhian Ethics. New Delhi: Gandhi Peace
Foundation.
 Weber, T. (2001). Gandhian Philosophy, Conflict Resolution Theory and Practical
Approaches to Negotiation. Journal of Peace Research, 38(4), 493-513.
i
Wolff, Stefan, Simona Ross and Asbjorn Wee, “Subnational governance and Conflict: The
Merits of Subnational Governance as a Catalyst for Peace”, World Bank Group, 2020.
https://openknowledge.worldbank.org/bitstream/handle/10986/34436/Subnational-Governance-
and-Conflict-The-Merits-of-Subnational-Governance-as-a-Catalyst-for-
Peace.pdf?sequence=5&isAllowed=y.
ii
Ibid.
iii
Bhatiya, Neil, “Subnational Conflict and the International Community: The Limits of Aid in a
Warzone”, The Century Foundation, June 19, 2013.
https://tcf.org/content/commentary/subnational-conflict-and-the-international-community-the-
limits-of-aid-in-a-warzone/?agreed=1.
iv
Parks, Thomas, Nat Colletta and Ben Oppenheim, “The Contested Corners of Asia: Subnational
conflict and International Development Assistance”, The Asia Foundation, October 2013.
https://asiafoundation.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/The-Contested-Corners-of-
Asia_Executive-Summary.pdf.
v
Baldwin, Clive, Chris Chapman and Zoë Gray, “Minority Rights: The Key to Conflict
Prevention” (2007) , Minority Rights Group International, https://www.minorityrights.org/wp-
content/uploads/old-site-downloads/download-174-Minority-Rights-The-Key-to-Conflict-
Prevention.pdf.
vi
Ibid.
vii
Reilly, Ben and Andrew Reynolds (2000), “Electoral Systems and Conflict in Divided
Societies” in International Conflict Resolution After the Cold War, Paul C. Stern and Daniel
Druckman, The National Academic Press. Washington DC. https://doi.org/10.17226/9897.
viii
Fjelde, Hanne and Desiree Nilsson, “Rebels against Rebels: Explaining Violence between
Rebel Groups”, Journal of Conflict Resolution, 2012, Vol. 56(4): 604-628. DOI:
10.1177/0022002712439496.
ix
Brosche, Johan and Emma Elfversson, “Communal conflict, civil war, and the state”, AJCR,
2012. https://www.accord.org.za/ajcr-issues/communal-conflict-civil-war-and-the-state/.
x
Ibid.
xi
Klosowicz, Robert, “Identity, Ethnic Conflict and Communal Conflict in Sub- Saharan Africa”,
Politeja, April 2021, Vo. 17 (5 (68)): 73-92.
xii
Ibid.
xiii
Parks, Thomas, Nat Colletta and Ben Oppenheim, “The Contested Corners of Asia:
Subnational conflict and International Development Assistance”, The Asia Foundation, October
2013. https://asiafoundation.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/The-Contested-Corners-of-
Asia_Executive-Summary.pdf.
xiv
Barron, Patrick, “How do conflicts and economic growth go together in Asia?”, DW News, 8
August 2014. https://www.dw.com/en/how-do-conflicts-and-economic-growth-go-together-in-
asia/a-17841158.
106

lOMoARcPSD|17842581
xv
Davis, Ian, “Armed conflict and peace processes in Asia and Oceania”, SIPRI Yearbook 2021.
https://www.sipri.org/yearbook/2021/04.
xvi
United Nations Peacekeeping, “Preventing Conflicts”,
https://peacekeeping.un.org/en/preventing-conflicts.
xvii
Hultman, Lisa, Jacob Kathman and Megan Shannon, “Beyond Keeping Peace: United Nations
Effectiveness in the
Midst of Fighting”, American Political Science Association, 2014, Vol. 108 (4).
http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0003055414000446.
xviii
Ibid.
xix
Gehring, Kai, Lennart Kaplan and Melvin H.L. Wong, “Aid and Conflict at the Sub-National
Level: Evidence from World Bank and Chinese Development Projects in Africa”, Working Paper
Aid Data, March 2019.
https://reliefweb.int/sites/reliefweb.int/files/resources/WPS70_Aid_and_Conflict_at_the_Sub-
National_Level.pdf.
xx
Wolff, Stefan, Simona Ross and Asbjorn Wee, “Subnational governance and Conflict: The
Merits of Subnational Governance as a Catalyst for Peace”, World Bank Group, 2020.
https://openknowledge.worldbank.org/bitstream/handle/10986/34436/Subnational-Governance-
and-Conflict-The-Merits-of-Subnational-Governance-as-a-Catalyst-for-
Peace.pdf?sequence=5&isAllowed=y.
xxi
Ibid.
Objective Questions
1. Which among these is not a determinant of sub-national conflict?
a) Ethnicity b) Identity c) Culture d) Religion
2. What is the most reliable solution to sub-national conflict?
a) World Bank Funding
b) Chinese/ or other countries bilateral aiding
c) UN assistance
d) Sub-national governance
Subjective Questions
1. Define Sub-national Conflict? What are their types?
2. Discuss the role of United Nations in dealing with sub-national conflicts, and
maintaining the peace.
3. Do foreign donors and aiding contribute to further the sub-national conflict or
control it? Discuss.
4. What is the difference between Inter-state and Intra-state or subnational conflict?
Explain.
107

Pol Science

Uploaded by

Document Information

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

Pol Science

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

lOMoARcPSD|17842581

Peace and conflict resolution (University of Delhi)

Scan to open on Studocu

Studocu is not sponsored or endorsed by any college or university

B.A.(Programme) Semester-VI Political Science

SKILL ENHANCEMENT COURSE (SEC)

SCHOOL OF OPEN LEARNING

Department of Political Science

Editor: Dr. Mangal Deo

Downloaded by Nitigya Thakur (nitigyathakur25@gmail.com)

Skill Enhancement Course (SEC)

Unit-3 : Levels of Conflict

Unit-4 : Conflict Responses: Skills and Techniques

SCHOOL OF OPEN LEARNING

Downloaded by Nitigya Thakur (nitigyathakur25@gmail.com)

Downloaded by Nitigya Thakur (nitigyathakur25@gmail.com)

2) Inter-personal Conflict: Interpersonal conflict occurs between two or more

Downloaded by Nitigya Thakur (nitigyathakur25@gmail.com)

Downloaded by Nitigya Thakur (nitigyathakur25@gmail.com)

between Conflict Resolution, Management and Transformation, which is a specialized

Downloaded by Nitigya Thakur (nitigyathakur25@gmail.com)

2.2 Conflict Resolution

Downloaded by Nitigya Thakur (nitigyathakur25@gmail.com)

Downloaded by Nitigya Thakur (nitigyathakur25@gmail.com)

regulates. The withdrawing party is not likely, however, to see it as a matter of

2.3 Conflict Transformation

Downloaded by Nitigya Thakur (nitigyathakur25@gmail.com)

Downloaded by Nitigya Thakur (nitigyathakur25@gmail.com)

Downloaded by Nitigya Thakur (nitigyathakur25@gmail.com)

(3) Structural, or changes in the underlying structural patterns and decision

2.4 Conflict Management

Downloaded by Nitigya Thakur (nitigyathakur25@gmail.com)

Houseman (2007) perceives conflict management as a difference between relevant ideas

Downloaded by Nitigya Thakur (nitigyathakur25@gmail.com)

Downloaded by Nitigya Thakur (nitigyathakur25@gmail.com)

healthcare analogy, conflict management is like the containment of a pandemic. This

Downloaded by Nitigya Thakur (nitigyathakur25@gmail.com)

Downloaded by Nitigya Thakur (nitigyathakur25@gmail.com)

c. Peace Building: Meaning and Concept

Downloaded by Nitigya Thakur (nitigyathakur25@gmail.com)

3.2 Learning Objectives

3.3 Peace building: Genesis, Evolution and Definitions

Downloaded by Nitigya Thakur (nitigyathakur25@gmail.com)

Downloaded by Nitigya Thakur (nitigyathakur25@gmail.com)

Source: UN Peace building: an Orientation

3.3.1 Peace building: Some Definitions

Downloaded by Nitigya Thakur (nitigyathakur25@gmail.com)

According to International Alert, an independent international peace building

Downloaded by Nitigya Thakur (nitigyathakur25@gmail.com)

to establish sustainable peace. Thus peacekeepers are engaged in a wide range of

The activities often initiated and facilitated by peacekeepers are:

Downloaded by Nitigya Thakur (nitigyathakur25@gmail.com)

Downloaded by Nitigya Thakur (nitigyathakur25@gmail.com)

Downloaded by Nitigya Thakur (nitigyathakur25@gmail.com)

Downloaded by Nitigya Thakur (nitigyathakur25@gmail.com)

communication, they fail to serve any purpose. No stakeholder, no matter how

3.4 Principles of Peace building

Downloaded by Nitigya Thakur (nitigyathakur25@gmail.com)

4. Principle of Strategic Framework—Adhering to the principle of strategic

3.5 Dimensions of Peace building

Downloaded by Nitigya Thakur (nitigyathakur25@gmail.com)

★ The relational dimension—In situations of conflict and war, relationships get

Downloaded by Nitigya Thakur (nitigyathakur25@gmail.com)

3.6 Peace building Agents