2. Read the text again. Structure the information in the form of a mind map. Use your mind map to summarise the text.

* Appendix 1 p. 145

Unit 7. Conflict resolution

1. Read the text and answer the questions.

1. What are the main components of conflict resolution?

2. What methods and strategies do conflict resolution specialists use?

3. What is the role of mediator in conflict resolution?

4. What institutions and organisations can be engaged in conflict resolution?

5. Can war be a tool of conflict resolution?

Conflict resolution is the process of ending, changing, alleviating, or preventing conflict among different parties. In international politics, conflict is ever present in several forms, ranging from simple disagreement to outright genocide. Johan Galtung identified three components to conflict resolution: (i) peacemaking, (2) peacekeeping, and (3) peace building. According to William Zartman, conflict resolution depends upon "removing the causes as well as the manifestations of conflict between parties and eliminating the sources of incompatibility in their positions."

Because of the permanence of conflict in politics, conflict resolution specialists suggest that those engaged in a particular conflict must disconnect a given conflict from the concept of justice as well as accept that involved parties have legitimate concerns. Separating the legitimate concerns from the notion of justice is necessary because justice is subjective and sometimes clashes with the notion of peacemaking. Conflict resolution is a long-term prospect, and thus it can involve numerous methods such as mediation, negotiation, peacekeeping, and diplomacy. All of these methods have several prerequisites. First, the people engaged in conflict resolution need to recognise the legitimacy of claims of all parties involved in the conflict. Another prerequisite is for practitioners to recognise the impact of personalities, personal beliefs, and ideologies upon the conflict. Yet another prerequisite is to understand that conflicts can be transformed, albeit after the process of conflict resolution has started. Finally, people engaged in conflict resolution must recognise that third parties not directly involved in the conflict could be vital in the outcome of the resolution.

Various mediation strategies, according to Jacob Bergovich, can be grouped in the following categories. First, communication strategies include making contact with the parties, being neutral, gaining the trust and confidence of the parties, and clarifying the issues at stake. Second, formulation strategies include various protocol issues such as the time, place, and order of the meetings; controlling the physical environment; and establishing mutually accepted procedures. And third, manipulation strategies include altering the expectations held by the parties, manipulating the time, making the parties aware of the cost of nonagreement, promising resources for agreement, and threatening withdrawal.

Individuals comprise the first actor in conflict resolution by acting as mediators. For example, former president Jimmy Carter, on behalf of his Carter Center, has acted as a mediator in several conflicts, most recently in the Sudan. Groups such as the Quakers in the Cyprus dispute or organisations such as the International Negotiation Network (INN) can also provide assistance to the parties engaged in conflict resolution.

States are the most common actors in conflict resolution. States can be invited to become mediators in a given conflict such as former U.S. secretaries of state Warren Christopher and Cyrus Vance and former British foreign secretaries Peter Carrington and David Owen in Yugoslavia as well as several presidents of the United States in the Palestinian-Israeli conflict. Several world-renowned state mediated agreements have been reached, most famously the Camp David Accords, which led to the sharing of the Nobel Peace Prize by the leaders of Israel and Egypt.

Institutions and organisations can be engaged in conflict resolution, especially since some conflicts are complex and include several parties. International organisations have conducted conflict resolution negotiations, especially the United Nations (UN). Regional organisations have also played an active role in conflict resolution, such as the Organisation for American States, which has been involved in conflict resolution between the United States and Venezuela, or the Arab League, which is involved in the Arab-Israeli conflict. Transnational organisations are also involved in conflict resolution; these include nongovernmental or quasi-governmental organisations such as Amnesty International, the International Committee of the Red Cross, or the INN. State sponsored organisations, such as regional or international courts, also conduct conflict resolution. For instance, the European Court of Human Rights and the International Court of Justice are entities that often help resolve conflicts after they have occurred by holding the perpetrators of human rights violations accountable.

Yet another group of theorists believe that war itself can be a tool of conflict resolution since the end of wars is ultimately peace. In his seminal work “Give War a Chance”, Edward Luttwak argued that outside intervention to resolve conflicts usually tends to perpetuate war, not stop it. In Luttwak’s opinion, most low intensity wars would run their normal course, ending in either capitulation on one side or the exhaustion of both and, thus, leading to a lasting peace. When the international community interrupts this, they basically allow the regrouping and rearming of warring factions and, thus, the wars continuation. Joseph Nye reached a similar conclusion, from a different perspective, in his call for the United States to scale down interventionism in small regional wars, which ultimately may not serve the U.S. “national interest”. There is, however, serious disagreement on what constitutes a small war, and whether such wars pose a threat to the wider international community, as well as what constitutes national interest.