Conflict resolution methods

Diplomatic actions taken to prevent disputes from escalating or limiting spread of conflict

Decision making by adjudicator (judge, court, administrative tribunal). Decides the outcome of the dispute by a final, binding and enforceable solution.

Voluntary intervention: both parties have to agree to submit the dispute to an intervention. Limited task given to an arbitrator.

Track 1

Official discussions, high level political and military leaders

Track 2

1.5 Official & unofficial work together

Unofficial dialogue, influential academics, religious and ngo leaders, other civil society actors. Debate freely

Track 3

Individuals and private groups encourage interaction and mutual understanding between parties. Involves awareness raising. Meetings, media exposure, etc.

Multitrack diplomacy (several simultaneously)

What is the historical relationship?

Who should be represented?

Do the parties have subsystems?

Do the parties have similar attributes (EU members) or are they very different (democracy vs dictatorship)

Are they committed to a broader regional grouping or set of values (EU)?

POWER RELATIONSHIPS (Zartman)

Negotiations work best under a mutually hurting stalemate Asymmetry of power makes it more difficult: if the rebellion exceeds the grievances the rebellion itself becomes the motivation, and governments have other interests as well.

Power assymetry > increasing commitement > narrow possibilities for negotiation

Ripe for resolution:

- Structural element (MHStalemate)
- Party element (presence valid spokesperson)
- Potential alternative outcome (formula way out)

Not fixed, may change over time

Parties often disagree on what the fundamental cause of the conflict it

Tangible issues (territory) are easier to solve than intangible issues (religion)

Environment in which conflict and negotiations are taking place. Additional factors that shape the context: history of the conflict, previous interactions of the parties, involvement of outside actors, etc.

Phases: Articulation, mobilization, insurgency, warfare (Zartman)

Agenda: the government has many other issues besides the conflict

1. Low or decreasing probability of attaining conflict goals through violent struggle, withdrawal or avoidance.

Some kind of turningpoint: inconclusive victory/defeat, loss of foreign support, increase of foreign pressure, etc.

2. A decreasing value of the conflict goals.

3. Presence of common and compatible interests between the parties, or at least a possibility of a settlement offering mutual advantages over continued conflict.

4. Flexibility by each of the conflict parties leadership to actually consider and embark upon a negotiation process.

5. When a dispute is long or very complex.

6. The parties own conflict management efforts have failed or reached an impasse. The antagonism between the conflict parties is so severe it prevents conflict management or direct negotiations.

7. A mediator must be available and willing to intervene in a dispute or conflict. There must be an opportunity for this mediator to get involved or intervene. If the parties wish to avoid any outside intervention, mediation won’t take place.

8. Parties calculate that it will help them reach a better settlement that they can reach on their own, because:

The mediator will provide them a face-saving way out of the conflict.

The mediator is seen as a means of influencing their opponent.

Rejecting mediation will result in greater harm than accepting it.

Conflict prevention

Structural or diplomatic measures to keep intrastate or interstate tensions and disputes from escalating into violent conflict

Peacemaking

Address conflicts in progress, bring hostile parties to agreement

Peace enforcement

Coercive measures including the use of military force

Peacekeeping

Technique to preserve the peace where fighting has been halted, and to assist in implementing agreements achieved by the peacemakers

Peacebuilding

Range of measures to reduce the risk of lapsing or relapsing into conflict and to lay the foundation for sustainable peace and development

Characteristics

Associated with period 1945-1988, but still used today

Precursors: League of Nations & UN observer missions

Normally missions dispatched after a ceasefire was signed. Form of third party intervention aimed at controlling the manifestation of violence

Ambiguous term: UN Charter not specifically mentioned

Main tasks

Observation

Discourages unreasonable behaviour

Provides first-hand information

Separation of forces

Buffer zone in which only the UN operates

Discourages ceasefire breaches

Moral barrier

hostile actions would be attacking not only the opposite party but also the international community

Key principles

Consent of the parties

Strict impartiality

Non use of force (except self-defence)

Evaluation

Success depends on criteriia

Contribution to limitation of armed conflict

Successfull

Ability to promote resolution of the underlying issues

Unsuccessful

Control over process and outcome

Limiting the spread of violence

UN impartiality

Implementation of peace agreements

The third presence that supervises ceasefires and separates parties can lead to renewed confidence between the parties and help them establish a dialogue.

Gives UN relevance

Prove to be effective

Reputation of impartiality and professionalism in Cold War period

Freezing of conflict

Remove incentives for negotiation

Practical/operational problems (many countries, languages, etc)

Financial problems

Organisational problems

UN works by consensus (mandates watered down)

Limited by its own principle of impartiality

sometimes long term member is needed to set up a mission

Complex peace operations which combine

Peacemaking: using diplomatic methods to bring method to an halt, like mediations.

Peace enforcement (sometimes)

Peacekeeping: military operations designed to oversee ceasefires or the implementation of peace agreements.

Peacebuilding: range of activities designed to address the roots of conflict and to create the conditions to create a durable and stable peace.

Actors

Not only military forces playing a role, also other actos (organizations, NGOs, etc) that are involved.

Tasks

Expanded tasks, involving other activities (delivering aid rebuilding infrastructure, repatriation refugees, capturing war criminals, etc).

Aims

Instead of neutral interposition, targeted directly at preventing human rights abuses and enforcing peace.

Principles

TPK is based on consent, impartiality and non-use of force. In HI forces are often used and needed to protect civilians, they are given the authority to use violence.

Context

HI often take place in an active phase of conflict, where there hasn't been a ceasefire (like TPK).

Basis of HI

Charter basis is ambiguous

Political basis: end of Cold War and expansion of UN's role in conflict resolution

End of a super power hostility

Increasing demand for UN services

Wide spread of optimism

Involvement in the late 80sin active conflicts set precedent

Legal normative basis: lies in changes to the international order

Human rights gained momentum in the 90s

Theoretical basis: lessons learnt from PK operations in the 80s-90s forces the UN to accept new tasks and expand its role

WHEN & HOW to intervene?

Legal

non intervention vs. human rights

2 unproblematic cases: complete state failure and genocide

All other cases problematic: can we intervene?

Normative

HI should not make matters worse (ex. Iraq)

Political

UN aims for consensus and states can block proposed solutions. Politically sensititve. Ex military needed but not interested

Operational

Institutional limitations in the way the UN operates: complex command structures from different countries, haven't trained together, financing, resources available, etc.

Inexpensive (very little budget)

Bad reputation for no reason

Public remembers failure more vividly

Also affects budget (ex. US reduced it)

PK are sent to the most difficult places

Makes it harder to get high rates of success (wouldnt make sense to send them where there would be peace anyway)

Objective track record is positive

11 out of 16 successful missions

Research

Quantitative
UN effective

General consensus in the literature

Quantitative research analyses a full range of cases, including failures.

Qualitative
Bleak picture

Methodological approaches define the results

Different sets of cases analysed

Often only explicit cases of failure

Different types of questions

Perception of the mediator by the parties

Independent: ensure neutral agreements, look for both interests

Positive attitude & disposition

Legitimacy, credible

Context complexity calls for context specific analysis

Subjectivity of success (idea of success linked to intangible factors such as justice or personal satisfaction)

Multiplicity of mediation styles

Multiplicity of mediation aims and scope

Intangible results can't be quantified

Confidentiality

Humanitarian intervention NOT = Humanitarian assistance

Uncertainty on the characteristics of the agreed outcome

Lack of motivation (conflict better serves party's interests)

Absence of acceptable solution

Entrapment: party invested to much in the conflict and doesn't wanna sacrifice it

Deadlock itself increases tension and parties become more inflexible