The SAGE Handbook of Conflict Resolution

Handbooks

Edited by: Jacob Bercovitch, Victor Kremenyuk & I William Zartman

  • Citations
  • Add to My List
  • Text Size

  • Chapters
  • Front Matter
  • Back Matter
  • Subject Index
  • Part I: History and Methods of Study

    Part II: Issues and Sources of Conflict

    Part III: Methods of Managing Conflict

    Part IV: Current Features and Dilemmas in the Study of Conflict Resolution

  • International Advisory Board

    • John Darby, University of Notre Dame
    • Morton Deutsch, Columbia University
    • Daniel Druckman, George Mason University
    • Alain Pekar Lempereur, École Supérieure de Sciences Economiques et Commerciales
    • Jack Levy, Rutgers University
    • Jane Holl Lute, United Nations
    • Harald Müller, Hessische Stiftung Friedens- und Konfliktforschung
    • Dean G. Pruitt, George Mason University
    • James Rosenau, George Washington University
    • Bruce Russett, Yale University
    • Beth Simmons, Harvard University
    • J. David Singer, University of Michigan
    • Raimo Väyrynen, Academy of Finland
    • Peter Wallensteen, Uppsala University

    Copyright

    View Copyright Page

    Dedication

    This book is dedicated to all the Nobel Peace Prize Laureates, in the hopes of furthering greater Conflict Resolution.

    • 2007 – Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Al Gore
    • 2006 – Muhammad Yunus, Grameen Bank
    • 2005 – International Atomic Energy Agency, Mohamed El Baradei
    • 2004 – Wangari Maathai
    • 2003 – Shirin Ebadi
    • 2002 – Jimmy Carter
    • 2001 – United Nations, Kofi Annan
    • 2000 – Kim Dae-jung
    • 1999 – Médecins Sans Frontières
    • 1998 – John Hume, David Trimble
    • 1997 – International Campaign to Ban Landmines, Jody Williams
    • 1996 – Carlos Filipe Ximenes Belo, José Ramos-Horta
    • 1995 – Joseph Rotblat, Pugwash Conferences on Science and World Affairs
    • 1994 – Yasser Arafat, Shimon Peres, Yitzhak Rabin
    • 1993 – Nelson Mandela, F.W. de Klerk
    • 1992 – Rigoberta Menchú Tum
    • 1991 – Aung San Suu Kyi
    • 1990 – Mikhail Gorbachev
    • 1989 – The 14th Dalai Lama
    • 1988 – United Nations Peacekeeping Forces
    • 1987 – Óscar Arias Sánchez
    • 1986 – Elie Wiesel
    • 1985 – International Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War
    • 1984 – Desmond Tutu
    • 1983 – Lech Walesa
    • 1982 – Alva Myrdal, Alfonso Garcã Robles
    • 1981 – Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees
    • 1980 – Adolfo Pérez Esquivel
    • 1979 – Mother Teresa
    • 1978 – Anwar al-Sadat, Menachem Begin
    • 1977 – Amnesty International
    • 1976 – Betty Williams, Mairead Corrigan
    • 1975 – Andrei Sakharov
    • 1974 – Sean MacBride, Eisaku Sato
    • 1973 – Henry Kissinger, Le Duc Tho
    • 1972∗
    • 1971 – Willy Brandt
    • 1970 – Norman Borlaug
    • 1969 – International Labour Organization
    • 1968 – René Cassin
    • 1967∗∗
    • 1966∗
    • 1965 – United Nations Children's Fund
    • 1964 – Martin Luther King Jr.
    • 1963 – International Committee of the Red Cross, League of Red Cross Societies
    • 1962 – Linus Pauling
    • 1961 – Dag Hammarskjald
    • 1960 – Albert Lutuli
    • 1959 – Philip Noel-Baker
    • 1958 – Georges Pire
    • 1957 – Lester Bowles Pearson
    • 1956∗∗
    • 1955∗
    • 1954 – Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees
    • 1953 – George C. Marshall
    • 1952 – Albert Schweitzer
    • 1951 – Léon Jouhaux
    • 1950 – Ralph Bunche
    • 1949 – Lord Boyd Orr
    • 1948∗∗
    • 1947 – Friends Service Council, American Friends Service Committee
    • 1946 – Emily Greene Balch, John R. Mott
    • 1945 – Cordell Hull
    • 1944 – International Committee of the Red Cross
    • 1939 – 1943∗∗
    • 1938 – Nansen International Office for Refugees
    • 1937 – Robert Cecil
    • 1936 – Carlos Saavedra Lamas
    • 1935 – Carl von Ossietzky
    • 1934 – Arthur Henderson
    • 1933 – Sir Norman Angell
    • 1932∗
    • 1931 – Jane Addams, Nicholas Murray Butler
    • 1930 – Nathan Saderblom
    • 1929 – Frank B. Kellogg
    • 1928∗
    • 1927 – Ferdinand Buisson, Ludwig Quidde
    • 1926 – Aristide Briand, Gustav Stresemann
    • 1925 – Sir Austen Chamberlain, Charles G. Dawes
    • 1923 – 1924∗
    • 1922 – Fridtjof Nansen
    • 1921 – Hjalmar Branting, Christian Lange
    • 1920 – Léon Bourgeois
    • 1919 – Woodrow Wilson
    • 1918∗
    • 1917 – International Committee of the Red Cross
    • 1914 – 1916∗
    • 1913 – Henri La Fontaine
    • 1912 – Elihu Root
    • 1911 – Tobias Asser, Alfred Fried
    • 1910 – Permanent International Peace Bureau
    • 1909 – Auguste Beernaert, Paul Henri d'Estournelles de Constant
    • 1908 – Klas Pontus Arnoldson, Fredrik Bajer
    • 1907 – Ernesto Teodoro Moneta, Louis Renault
    • 1906 – Theodore Roosevelt
    • 1905 – Bertha von Suttner
    • 1904 – Institute of International Law
    • 1903 – Randal Cremer
    • 1902 – Élie Ducommun, Albert Gobat
    • 1901 – Henry Dunant, Frédéric Passy

    ∗ The prize money was allocated 1/3 to the Main Fund and 2/3 to the Special Fund of this prize section.

    ∗∗ The prize money was allocated to the Main Fund.

    Author Biographies

    Editors

    Jacob Bercovitch is professor of International Relations, and Fellow of the Royal Society, at the University of Canterbury in Christchurch, New Zealand. He received his PhD from the London School of Economics. His main research interests are in the areas of international conflict resolution and mediation. He is former vice president of the International Studies Association, and the author or editor of 12 books and about 100 articles on these issues. He has held fellowships from London, Harvard, Georgetown, the US Institute of Peace, and the Hebrew University in Jerusalem. His most recent publication is Conflict Management, Security and Third Party Intervention in East Asia (Routledge, 2008).

    Victor Kremenyuk is Russian historian and political scientist, professor and Deputy Director of the Institute for US and Canadian studies of the Russian Academy of Sciences. His areas of interest include international relations, conflict studies, risk and crisis control, and international negotiation. He has published almost 250 works in Russian, English, Chinese, Arabic, French, and Swedish. Since 1983, he is associated with IIASA Process of International Negotiation Programme, is editor of the state-of-the-art International Negotiation: Analysis, Approaches, Issues (two editions at the Jossey Bass in 1991 and 2002), and is winner of the 2002 Book Award at the CPR Institute for Dispute Resolution (New York) and for several other books. He is also winner of the Soviet National Prize for Science and Technology (1980), and of the Russian government prize for the strategic risk analysis (2004). He was included into the list of leading intellectuals of 2007, compiled by the International Biographical Centre, Cambridge, UK.

    I. William Zartman is Jacob Blaustein Professor of Conflict Resolution and International Organization at the Nitze School of Advanced International Studies at Johns Hopkins University. He is the author of The Practical Negotiator, The 50% Solution, Cowardly Lions: Missed Opportunities to Prevent Deadly Conflict and State Collapse, and Ripe for Resolution, editor of The Negotiation Process and Positive Sum, among other books, and co-editor of Diplomacy Games, a recent book in the PIN Series. Professor Zartman is a member of the Steering Committee of the (PIN) at (IIASA). He is organizer of the Washington Interest in Negotiations (WIN) Group and was a distinguished fellow at the US Institute of Peace. He received his PhD from Yale University and an honorary doctorate from the Catholic University at Louvain.

    Contributing Authors
    Part I

    Louis Kriesberg (PhD, 1953, University of Chicago) is Professor Emeritus of Sociology, Maxwell Professor Emeritus of Social Conflict Studies, and founding director of the Program on the Analysis and Resolution of Conflicts (1986–1994), all at Syracuse University. In addition to over 125 book chapters and articles, his published books include: Constructive Conflicts (1998, 2003, 2007), International Conflict Resolution (1992), Timing the De-Escalation of International Conflicts (co-ed., 1991), Intractable Conflicts and Their Transformation (co-ed., 1989), and Social Conflicts (1973, 1982). His current research interests include the transformation of violent civil conflicts, alternative American foreign policies, intractable conflicts, and reconciliation.

    Christer Jönsson is professor of Political science at Lund University, Sweden. He earned his PhD at Lund University in 1975, and has been visiting professor at Kyung Hee University, Seoul, and Stanford University. His research interests include international negotiation, diplomacy, and the role of transnational networks in international cooperation. He has published numerous books, articles, and book chapters, and is the co-author of Organizing European Space (2000) and Essence of Diplomacy (2005).

    J. David Singer is Professor Emeritus of Political Science at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor. He holds a BA from Duke University (1946) and a DPhil from New York University (1956). His interests include world politics, war and peace, and quantitative history. He has authored more than twenty books on these issues.

    Jack S. Levy (PhD, University of Wisconsin Madison, USA) is Board of Governors' Professor of Political Science at Rutgers University, and Senior Associate at the Saltzman Institute of War and Peace Studies at Columbia University. He is president of the International Studies Association (2007 – 08) and past president of the Peace Science Society (2005 – 06). His current research interests include preventive war, balance of power theory, power transition theory, the evolution of war, the militarization of commercial rivalries, applications of prospect theory to international relations, time horizons and discounting, intelligence failure, the causes of World Wars I & II, and qualitative methodology. See http://www.rci.rutgers.edu/~jacklevy/

    Rudolf Avenhaus is professor of Statistics and Operations Research at the University of the Federal Armed Forces Munich, Germany. Prior to his academic appointment in1980, he was research assistant at the Universities of Karlsruhe and Geneva, Research Scholar at the Nuclear Research Center, Karlsruhe, and Lecturer at the University of Mannheim. From 1973 to 1975 and again in 1980, he worked at the International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis (IIASA). Professor Avenhaus has written numerous scientific journal publications, as well as Material Accountability (1977), Safeguards Systems Analysis (1987), Compliance Quantified (together with M. Canty, 1996), Verifying Treaty Compliance (ed. with N. Kyriakopoulos, M. Richard and G. Stein, 2006). In 1989 and 1990, he was Chairman of his Faculty, in 1993 and 1994, Vice President, and in 1994, Acting President of his University. Since 1996, he has been a member of the Steering Committee of the Processes of International Negotiations (PIN) Program of IIASA.

    Dean G. Pruitt is Distinguished Scholar in Residence at the Institute for Conflict Analysis and Resolution at George Mason University and SUNY Distinguished Professor Emeritus in the Department of Psychology at the University at Buffalo: State University of New York. He has a PhD from Yale University and taught social psychology at the University of Delaware and the University at Buffalo for 41 years. He has received the Lifetime Achievement Award from the International Association for Conflict Management and the Harold D. Lasswell Award for Distinguished Scientific Contribution to Political Psychology from the International Society of Political Psychology. He is author or co-author of Negotiation Behavior, Negotiation in Social Conflict, and Social Conflict: Escalation, Stalemate, and Settlement (1st, 2nd, and 3rd editions); co-editor of Mediation Research and Theory and Research on the Causes of War; and author of more than 100 articles and chapters. His areas of interest are social conflict, negotiation, and mediation. He is currently working on case studies of peace processes in ethno-political conflict.

    Daniel Druckman is a professor in the Department of Public and International Affairs at George Mason University. He has been the Vernon M. and Minnie I. Lynch Professor of Conflict Resolution at George Mason, where he has coordinated the doctoral program at the Institute for Conflict Analysis and Resolution. He is also a professor at the University of Queensland in Brisbane, Australia, a member of the faculty at Sabanci University in Istanbul, and a visiting professor at National Yunlin University of Science and Technology in Taiwan and at the University of Melbourne in Australia. He received a PhD from Northwestern University and was awarded a best-in-field prize from the American Institutes for Research for his doctoral dissertation. He has published widely on such topics as negotiating behavior, nationalism and group identity, human performance, peacekeeping, political stability, nonverbal communication, and research methodology. He is a board member or associate editor of eight journals and coedits a new book series on International Negotiation. He received the 1995 Otto Klineberg award for Intercultural and International Relations from the Society for the Psychological Analysis of Social Issues for his work on nationalism, a Teaching Excellence award in 1998 from George Mason, an award for the outstanding article published in 2001 from the International Association for Conflict Management (IACM), and the 2006 outstanding book award for Doing Research: Methods of Inquiry for Conflict Analysis. He is the recipient of the 2003 Lifetime Achievement award from the IACM.

    Tamra Pearson d'Estrée, PhD in Social Psychology, Harvard University, is Henry R. Luce Professor of Conflict Resolution at the University of Denver, and the Director of their Conflict Resolution Institute's Center for Research and Practice. She has also held faculty appointments at the Institute for Conflict Analysis and Resolution (ICAR) at George Mason University, and the Psychology Department at the University of Arizona. Her research interests lie at the intersection of conflict resolution and social psychology, including work on social identity, intergroup relations, and conflict resolution processes, as well as on evaluation research and reflective practice. She is the author, with Bonnie G. Colby, of Braving the Currents: Evaluating Conflict Resolution in the River Basins of the American West (Kluwer), as well as several book chapters and articles in various interdisciplinary journals. She has led trainings and facilitated interactive problem-solving workshops in various intercommunal conflict contexts including Israel – Palestine, Ethiopia, and in US intertribal disputes, and she has directed and/or evaluated projects aimed at conflict resolution capacity- and institution-building in Israel – Palestine, Ukraine, and Georgia. She has consulted for UNESCO and UNDP on conflict resolution activities in regional conflicts. She is currently working with community mediation centers in Colorado to develop a common evaluation framework, and directs two externally funded projects partnering the University of Denver with universities abroad to develop their countries' mediation capacities: University of West Indies, Trinidad and Tobago (State Dept-funded); and Tbilisi State University, Georgia (USAID/HED-funded).

    Richard Jackson is reader in International Politics at Aberystwyth University, UK. He obtained his PhD in Political Science from the University of Canterbury, New Zealand. He is the founding editor of the journal Critical Studies on Terrorism. His current research interests include the discourses of terrorism, international conflict resolution, and the social construction of contemporary war.

    Part II

    John A. Vasquez is the Thomas B. Mackie Scholar in International Relations at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. His PhD is from the Maxwell School, Syracuse University. He has published widely on causes of war, territorial disputes, peace research, and international relations theory. His most recent book is The Steps to War: An Empirical Study (with Paul D. Senese), Princeton University Press, 2008.

    Philippe Le Billon (MBA Paris, PhD Oxford) is assistant professor at the University of British Columbia with the Department of Geography and the Liu Institute for Global Issues. Before joining UBC, he was a research associate with the Overseas Development Institute (ODI) and the International Institute for Strategic Studies (IISS), having previously worked on humanitarian and resource management issues inAngola, Cambodia, Sierra Leone, and the formerYugoslavia.

    Gunnar Sjöstedt is senior research fellow at the Swedish Institute of International Affairs and also associate professor of political science at the University of Stockholm. His research work is concerned with processes of international cooperation and consultations in which negotiations represent an important element. He has studied the OECD as a communication system and the external role of the European community, as well as the transformation of the international trade regime incorporated in GATT and its external relations. He is the editor of International Environmental Negotiations and the co-editor of Negotiating International Regimes, the second and fourth books, respectively, in the PIN series.

    Donald Rothchild, who sadly passed away in February 2007, was professor of Political Science at the University of California, Davis. His recent books include authoring Managing Ethnic Conflict in Africa: Pressures and Incentives for Cooperation (Brookings, 1997); Sovereignty as Responsibility: Conflict Management in Africa (co-author, Brookings, 1996), and co-editing International Spread of Ethnic Conflict: Fear, Diffusion, and Escalation (Princeton, 1998); Ending civil wars: The Implementation of Peace Agreements (Lynne Rienner, 2002); Sustainable Peace: Power and Democracy after Civil Wars (Cornell, 2005); and Africa – US Relations: Strategic Encounters (Lynne Rienner, 2006).

    S. Ayse Kadayifci-Orellana is currently assistant professor in the field of Peace and Conflict Resolution at the School of International Service at American University, Washington, DC. She is also one of the founding members and the associate director of Salam Institute for Peace and Justice, a non-profit organization for research, education, and practice on issues related to conflict resolution, nonviolence, and development with a focus on bridging differences between Muslim and non-Muslim communities. She received her PhD from American University's School of International Service in Washington, DC in 2002 with a Master's degree in Conflict Analysis from University of Kent in Canterbury, England. Dr Kadayifci-Orellana has authored Standing on an Isthmus: Islamic Narratives of War and Peace in the Palestinian Territories and co-authored the edited volume, Anthology on Islam and Peace and Conflict Resolution in Islam: Precept and Practice. Her research interests include cultural and religious traditions and conflict resolution, Islamic approaches to peace and conflict resolution, interfaith dialogue, among others. She has facilitated dialogues and conflict resolution workshops between Israelis and Palestinians, conducted Islamic conflict resolution training workshops to imams and Muslim youth leaders in the United States, organized and participated in interfaith and intra-Muslim dialogues, and organized and participated in the first American Muslim Delegation to Iran (November 2007)

    Part III

    Michael S. Lund is Senior Specialist for Conflict and Peacebuilding, Management Systems International, Inc. and Consulting Program Manager, Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars. He does research and consulting for governments and international organizations. He is author of Preventing Violent Conflicts: A Strategy for Preventive Diplomacy (USIP Press, 1996) and numerous book chapters, assessments, and evaluations. He has edited and contributed to several books, including Critical Connections: Security and Development, a comparison of seven countries (Lynne Rienner, forthcoming, 2008). His analyses have been commissioned by the US Department of State, CIA, USAID, US Council on Foreign Relations, Carnegie Commission for Preventing Deadly Conflicts, World Bank, United Nations (UNDP, UNDPA), European Commission, OSCE, and many more. Lund worked in the US Congress, federal agencies, and the Urban Institute, and was the founding Director of the Jennings Randolph Fellows Program and a Senior Scholar at the US Institute of Peace. He has a BD from Yale University and a PhD in Political Science from the University of Chicago, and has taught at Cornell, UCLA, the University of Maryland, George Mason University, and Johns Hopkins School of Advanced International Affairs.

    Franz Cede is a retired Ambassador, a former legal advisor to the Austrian Ministry for Foreign Affairs and former Austrian Ambassador to Russia, Belgium, and NATO. He is affiliated to the German Society of International Law and Austrian Institute for European Security Policy. He holds a doctorate in Law (University of Innsbruck, 1968), and an MA in International Affairs (School of Advanced International Studies SAIS, Washington, DC, 1972). His main research interests are international law, European affairs, and international security policy.

    Harold H. Saunders is president of the International Institute for Sustained Dialogue and has conducted sustained non-official dialogues among people in conflict since ending a 25-year career in foreign affairs in the US government in 1981. From 1974 to 1979, he was intensively involved in the Arab – Israeli peace process, flying on the Kissinger shuttles, and, as Assistant Secretary of State, he was a principal drafter of the Camp David accords in 1978 and a mediator of the Egyptian – Israeli peace treaty. He holds a BA from Princeton and a PhD in American Studies from Yale. He is author of A Public Peace Process: Sustained Dialogue to Transform Racial and Ethnic Conflicts (1999) and Politics is About Relationship: A Blueprint for the Citizens' Century (2005).

    Andrea Bartoli is Drucie French Cumbie Chair of Conflict Analysis and Resolution. He is currently working at the Institute for Conflict Analysis and Resolution, George Mason University. Dr Bartoli completed his Italian dottorato di ricerca (PhD. equivalent) at the University of Milan and his laurea (BA – MA equivalent) at the University of Rome. His main research interest is peacemaking and genocide prevention. Dr Bartoli is studying the emergence of peace in Mozambique. In collaboration with the Dynamical System Teams, he is developing new research methodologies to understand more accurately how peace emerges. He has initiated a series of workshops on the Genocide Prevention Program and on Peacemaking, a project that engages government officials from 192 UN member states on genocide prevention. He has been involved in numerous conflict resolution activities as a member of the Community of St Egidio.

    Connie Peck is the principal coordinator of the UNITAR Programme in Peacemaking and Preventive Diplomacy, which she founded in 1993, and which provides advanced training to UN staff and diplomats. Her most recent books are On Being a Special Representative of the UN Secretary-General; Sustainable Peace: The Role of the United Nations and Regional Organizations in Preventing Conflict; Increasing the Effectiveness of the International Court of Justice; and The United Nations as a Dispute Settlement System: Improving Mechanisms for the Prevention and Resolution of Conflict.

    Part IV

    William A. Donohue is currently a Distinguished Professor of Communication at Michigan State University. He received his PhD in 1976 from the Ohio State University in Communication. Bill's work lies primarily in the areas of mediation, crisis negotiation, and counterterrorism. He has worked extensively with several state and federal agencies in both training and research activities related to violence prevention and hostage negotiation. He has authored over 70 publications dealing with various communication and conflict issues and has won several awards for his scholarship from national and international professional associations. Bill is an active member of the International Association for Conflict Management and is currently its president. He is on the editorial board of several journals in the areas of conflict management and communication and serves on the steering committee of the Processes of International Negotiation program that functions within the International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis.

    Eytan Gilboa (PhD, Harvard University) is professor and Chair of the Communication Program and Director of the Center for International Communication at Bar-Ilan University. He is also a Visiting Professor of Public Diplomacy at the University of Southern California. His research interests include mass communication aspects of conflict and diplomacy.

    David L. Rousseau is associate professor in the Department of Political Science at the University at Albany (SUNY: State University at New York). He holds a PhD from the University of Michigan and an MPP from the Kennedy School of Government at Harvard University. Dr Rousseau is the author of Democracy and War: Institutions, Norms, and the Evolution of International Conflict (Stanford University Press, 2005) and Identifying Threats and Threatening Identities: The Social Construction of Realism and Liberalism (Stanford University Press, 2006). His research interests include the democratic peace, identity, constructivism, interdependence, weapons of mass destruction, argumentation, and research methodologies.

    David Kinsella (PhD, Yale University, 1993) is professor of Political Science in the Hatfield School of Government at Portland State University and Editor-in-Chief of International Studies Perspectives, a journal of the International Studies Association. He is co-author of World Politics: The Menu for Choice, co-editor of The Morality of War: A Reader, and has published widely in scholarly journals. His most recent research has focused on illicit arms trade networks and the implications for violent conflict and arms control.

    Fen Osler Hampson is professor and director of the Norman Paterson School of International Affairs, Carleton University. A graduate of the University of Toronto and the London School of Economics, he received his PhD in political science from Harvard University. He is the author or co-author of eight books on international affairs and the editor/co-editor of 23 other volumes. His most recent books are Taming Intractable Conflict: Mediation in the Hardest Cases (with Chester Crocker and Pamela Aall) and Grasping the Nettle: Analyzing Cases of Intractable Conflict (co-edited with Crocker and Aall), both published by the United States Institute of Peace Press. His research interests are in the fields of conflict management and international negotiation.

    Guy Olivier Faure is professor of Sociology at the Sorbonne University, Paris V, where he teaches ‘International Negotiation’, ‘Conflict Resolution’, and ‘Strategic Thinking and Action.’ He is a member of the editorial board of three major international journals dealing with negotiation theory and practice: International Negotiation (Washington), Negotiation Journal (Harvard, Cambridge), and Group Decision and Negotiation (New York). His major research interests are business and diplomatic negotiations, especially with China, focusing on strategies and cultural issues. He has authored, co-authored, and edited a dozen books and over 50 articles. Among his most recent publications are How People Negotiate (Kluwer Academic), Escalation and Negotiation (Cambridge University Press) with I. William Zartman, and La négociation décloisonnée (Paris, Publibook). Together with the late Jeffrey Z. Rubin, he edited Culture and Negotiation, the third volume in the PIN series. His works have been published in 11 different languages.

    Paul F. Diehl is Henning Larsen Professor of Political Science and University Distinguished Teacher/Scholar at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. He received his PhD in Political Science at the University of Michigan in 1983. His areas of expertise include the causes of war, UN peacekeeping, and international law.

    Valérie Rosoux has a PhD from the Université Catholique de Louvain (UCL), Belgium, in International Relations. She graduated in Political Science and Philosophy. She is a research fellow at the Belgian National Fund for Scientific Research (FNRS) and teaches International Negotiation at UCL. Her main research interest is memory and Conflict Resolution. Her latest publications concern the Franco-German, Franco-Algerian, and Rwandan cases. She is the author of several books and articles about the transformation of relations between former belligerents, the latest of which are “The Figure of the Rescuer in Rwanda”, International Social Science Journal, no. 189, 2008; “Rwanda : l'impossible ‘mémoire nationale’?”; Ethnologie française, XXXVII, no. 3, 2007, 409 – 415; “Human rights and the ‘work of memory’ in international relations”, International Journal of Human Rights, vol. 3, no. 2, June 2004, 159 – 170; and “Memory and International Negotiation: the Franco-German Case”, in I.W. Zartman and V. Kremenyuk (ed.), Peace versus Justice. Negotiating Forward-and Backward-Looking Outcomes (Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield, 2005, 155 – 177).

    Scott Sigmund Gartner is a professor of Political Science at the University of California, Davis, where he teaches courses on US National Security and International Relations. He received his PhD from the University of Michigan. His two main research topics are the effects of dispute management on peace and conflict (e.g. Gartner and Bercovitch, International Studies Quarterly, 2006) and the interactive relationship between war and domestic politics (e.g. Gartner, American Political Science Review, 2008). He is author of Strategic Assessment in War (Yale University Press, 1999), and co-editor of The Historical Statistics of the United States (Cambridge University Press, 2006) and the forthcoming International Conflict Mediation: New Approaches and Findings (Routledge).

    Cecilia Albin (PhD, SAIS, Johns Hopkins, 1993) is professor of Peace and Conflict Research at Uppsala University, Sweden. Her main research interests include international negotiation, issues of justice and ethics, and international cooperation over global issues. Among her publications are Justice and Fairness in International Negotiation (Cambridge, 2001) and Negotiating International Cooperation: Global Public Goods and Fairness (Cambridge, 2003).

    Kristian Skrede Gleditsch (PhD in Political Science, University of Colorado, Boulder, 1999) is professor in the Department of Government, University of Essex (2005 to date) and Research Associate at the Centre for the Study of Civil War, PRIO (2003 to date). His research interests include conflict and cooperation, democratization, and spatial dimensions of social and political processes. He is the author of All International Politics is Local: The Diffusion of Conflict, Integration, and Democratization (University of Michigan Press, 2002). His articles have appeared in American Journal of Political Science, American Political Science Review, Annals of the Association of American Geographers, International Interactions, International Organization, Internasjonal Politikk, International Studies Quarterly, Journal of Conflict Resolution, Journal of Peace Research, Political Analysis, and Political Psychology.

    Eileen F. Babbitt is professor of International Conflict Management Practice and Director of the International Negotiation and Conflict Resolution Program at the Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy at Tufts University. She is also a Faculty Associate of the Program on Negotiation at the Harvard Law School where she co-directs the Project on International Institutions and Conflict Management. Her research interests include identity-based conflicts; co-existence and trust-building in the aftermath of civil war; and the interface between human rights concerns and peace-building. Dr Babbitt holds a Master's Degree in Public Policy from the Kennedy School of Government at Harvard University, and a PhD from MIT.

    Paul Meerts graduated in Political Science at the University of Leyden in The Netherlands. His position is with the Netherlands Institute of International Relations “Clingendael”. As a member (since 1999) of the PIN Steering Committee, he participates in PIN research on a structural basis with a special focus on issues like the evolution of interstate negotiation, the connection between negotiation and warfare, as well as negotiation processes in the European Union and other multilateral regimes. As trainer (Clingendael) and professor (College of Europe) in Diplomatic Negotiation, he works with diplomats/civil servants and (post-)graduate students around the globe.

    Co-Authors

    Karin Aggestam is an associate professor in political science and director of Peace and Conflict Studies at Lund University, Sweden. She has published widely in international journals and edited volumes in the fields of negotiation, diplomacy, conflict theory, and the Middle East peace process. She is presently coordinating a large EU project on just and durable peace in the Middle East and Western Balkans within the Seventh Framework Programme.

    Molly M. Melin received her PhD in Political Science from the University of California at Davis in 2008. Her research and teaching interests are in the areas of international relations and political methodology, with emphasis on international conflict and conflict management. She is also interested in international organizations and foreign policy decision-making. Her current research focuses on third-party interventions in ongoing international conflicts and the dynamics of conflict expansion.

    Brandon Valeriano is an assistant professor at the University of Illinois at Chicago. He completed his PhD at Vanderbilt University in 2003 in the field of International Relations. He has previously taught at Vanderbilt and Texas State University. Dr Valeriano's main research interests are in the causes of war and peace. His book in progress is an exploration of the onset of all interstate rivalries from 1816 to 1992. Other ongoing research looks at classification systems of war, complex rivalries, immigration, and Latino foreign policy issues.

    Chester A. Crocker is the James R. Schlesinger Professor of Strategic Studies at Georgetown University where his teaching and research focus on conflict management and regional security issues. He served as chairman of the board of the United States Institute of Peace (1992 – 2004), and continues as a member of its board. From 1981 to 1989, he was US Assistant Secretary of State for African Affairs. As such, he was the principal diplomatic architect and mediator in the prolonged negotiations among Angola, Cuba, and South Africa that led to Namibia's transition to independence, and to the withdrawal of Cuban forces from Angola. He serves on the boards of ASA Ltd., a NYSE-listed, closed-end fund focused on gold mining; Universal Corporation, Inc., a leading independent trading company in tobacco, agricultural and lumber products; Good Governance Group Ltd; and First Africa Holdings Ltd. He serves on the advisory board of the National Defense University in Washington.

    Acknowledgements

    As we survey the stacks of massive contributions in front of us, we realize that the book represents what is known about conflict resolution today. It embodies the ideas, insights, and experiences of some of the best scholars and practitioners of the field. Pleased as we are with it, we cannot but be aware of the many debts we have incurred in completing a task of this magnitude. It is a pleasure to acknowledge all the people and organizations who have helped us. Above all, we owe a tremendous debt to all our distinguished colleagues and friends who contributed chapters for this volume, and worked within our guidelines and requests without too many complaints. Their contributions have been truly outstanding, and it was a pleasure to work with such a dedicated and professional group of people. Lucy Robinson and Sage Publications have commissioned us to produce this volume. We are grateful to them for their vote of confidence in us, and their continued support and encouragement.

    Eight anonymous reviewers read through our draft proposal and made some very helpful comments. We wish we could thank them individually, but we have no idea who they are, save that they are masters in the field of Conflict Resolution. We owe special thanks to our International Advisory Board, who in faith backed this project before the results came in.

    We must pay special thanks to the International Institute of Applied Systems Analysis (IIASA) and its Director Leen Hordijk. In many ways, IIASA was the home of the project, and we doubt that it would have been possible without the Institute's support. Through the PIN project, they hosted all the contributors at a three-day conference at their site in Laxenburg, Austria, in the summer of 2007. The conference was a marvelous opportunity to meet each other in person, share experiences, discuss the strengths of each chapter, and ensure the coherence of the whole enterprise.

    We have to single out one particular individual at IIASA, and that is Tanja Huber, the PIN Project Coordinator. From its very inception, Tanja became the indispensable link through which all chapters were channeled, all communications were undertaken, and all arrangements were made. Editing a book of this size when the editors are either traveling constantly or are in three different continents requires a central person with special talents. Tanja had these talents in abundance. We owe Tanja a truly profound debt, and it is a pleasure to be able to acknowledge it here. We also want to thank Isabelle Talpain-Long for keeping the project in order on the Washington side.

    Our biggest thanks must go to our families. They did not write any of the chapters, but without their support, understanding, patience, and often forbearance, you, dear reader, would not have held this book in your hands right now. Now that you have opened it, we hope you will read parts, or most of it, and, dare we hope, enjoy the experience.

    About the Processes of International Negotiation (PIN) Network at the International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis (IIASA)

    Since 1988, the PIN Network at IIASA in Laxenburg, Austria, has been conducted by an international Steering Committee of scholars, meeting three times a year to develop and propagate new knowledge about the processes of negotiation. The Committee conducts one to two workshops every year devoted to the current collective publication project and involving scholars from a wide spectrum of countries, in order to tap a broad range of international expertise and to support scholarship on aspects of negotiation. It also offers mini-conferences on international negotiations in order to disseminate and encourage research on the subject. Such “Road Shows” have been held at the Argentine Council for International Relations, Buenos Aires; Beida University, Beijing; the Center for Conflict Resolution, Haifa; the Center for the Study of Contemporary Japanese Culture, Kyoto; the Diplomatic Academy, Tehran; the Netherlands Institute of International Relations, Clingendael, The Hague; the Swedish Institute of International Affairs, Stockholm; the University of Cairo; University Hassan II, Casablanca; the University of Helsinki; and the UN University for Peace, San José, Costa Rica, among others. The PIN Network publishes a semiannual newsletter, PINPoints, and sponsors a network of over 4,000 researchers and practitioners in negotiation. The Network has been supported by the William and Flora Hewlett Foundation and the US Institute of Peace. Contact: order@sagepub.com.

    Members of the PIN Steering Committee

    Rudolf Avenhaus The German Armed Forces University, Munich

    Franz Cede Austrian Ambassador to Belgium and NATO

    Guy Olivier Faure University of Paris V-Sorbonne

    Victor Kremenyuk The Russian Academy of Sciences

    Paul Meerts The Netherlands Institute of International Relations, Clingendael

    Gunnar Sjöstedt The Swedish Institute of International Affairs

    I. William Zartman The Johns Hopkins University

    Mark Anstey Nelson Mandela University, South Africa

    Selected Publications of the PIN Program

    Escalation and Negotiation in International Conflicts, I.W. Zartman, G.O. Faure, editors, 2005, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.

    Peace versus Justice: Negotiating Backward- and Forward-Looking Outcomes, I.W. Zartman, V. Kremenyuk, editors, 2005, Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc., Lanham, MD, USA.

    Negotiating European Union, P.W. Meerts, F. Cede, editors, 2004, Palgrave Macmillan, Basingstoke, UK.

    Getting It Done: Post-Agreement Negotiations and International Regimes, B.I. Spector, I.W. Zartman, editors, 2003, United States Institute of Peace Press, Washington DC, USA.

    How People Negotiate: Resolving Disputes in Different Cultures, G.O. Faure, editor, 2003, Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, Netherlands.

    Professional Cultures in International Negotiation: Bridge or Rift? G. Sjöstedt, editor, 2003, Lexington Books, Lanham, MD, USA.

    Containing the Atom: International Negotiations on Nuclear Security and Safety, R. Avenhaus, V.A. Kremenyuk, G. Sjöstedt, editors, 2002, Lexington Books, Lanham, MD, USA.

    International Negotiation: Analysis, Approaches, Issues, 2nd Edition, V.A. Kremenyuk, editor, 2002 Jossey-Bass Inc. Publishers, San Francisco, CA, USA.

    Preventive Negotiation: Avoiding Conflict Escalation, I.W. Zartman, editor, 2001, Rowman and Littlefield Publishers, Inc., Lanham, MD, USA.

    Power and Negotiation, I.W. Zartman, J.Z. Rubin, editors, 2000, The University of Michigan Press, Ann Arbor, MI, USA.

    International Economic Negotiation. Models versus Reality, V.A. Kremenyuk, G. Sjöstedt, editors, 2000, Edward Elgar Publishing Limited, Cheltenham, UK.

    Negotiating International Regimes: Lessons Learned from the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development (UNCED), B.I. Spector, G. Sjöstedt, I.W. Zartman, editors, 1994, Graham & Trotman Limited, London, UK.

    International Multilateral Negotiation: Approaches to the Management of Complexity, I.W. Zartman, editor, 1994, Jossey-Bass Inc. Publishers, San Francisco, CA, USA.

    International Environmental Negotiation, G. Sjöstedt, editor, 1993, Sage Publications, Newbury Park, CA, USA.

    Culture and Negotiation. The Resolution of Water Disputes, G.O. Faure, J.Z. Rubin, editors, 1993, Sage Publications, Inc., Newbury Park, CA, USA.

    Processes of International Negotiations, F. Mautner-Markhof, editor, 1989, Westview Press Inc., Boulder, CO, USA.

    JacobBercovitch, VictorKremenyuk, and I. WilliamZartmanChristchurch, Moscow, and Washington, DC
  • Conclusion: Emerging Problems in Theory and Practice

    Perhaps more than most other handbook subjects, Conflict Resolution is an exciting field of intellectual attention, still in a state of development. It is of course exciting because it is so important to the maintenance of a better, safer world. The intellectual challenge is of immediate, practical import and its theory faces its ultimate test of practical value. Conflict resolution is not just a set of abstract ideas, it is a highly practical set of skills and behaviors. But it is also exciting because the field is still in its infancy, and so many advances remain to be made. It is a field that is truly interdisciplinary with many scholars and findings coming to the field from different branches of knowledge. What is known is for the greatest part relatively new knowledge, and every advance poses further challenges to discover newer knowledge. Conflict Resolution is a new and lively frontier of knowledge, and we have tried to capture this sense of intellectual adventure in the preceding chapters.

    We have learned much about the sources and causes of conflict, how to respond to it, prevent it or resolve it, but there is much more we need to do, and many unanswered questions. One of the questions left unanswered in the theory and practice of Conflict Resolution so far, is: where to go from here? It is evident that Conflict Resolution is promising and deserves support. Also, it is clear that with time, the CR approach will enjoy even more support because violent coercive solutions of conflicts become more and more expensive and the only viable alternative to it is a peaceful resolution. Weapons of mass destruction (WMD) have outlawed themselves in practice, except possibly at the hands of outlaws, and yet both interstate and intrastate conflict, often by the most primitive methods, has directly taken massive toll and indirectly destroyed and dehabilited entire societies (IRC 2001). The challenge is intensified.

    Each of the four parts of this collection asks different questions and poses new directions for further research and for testing in practice. Part I, History and Methods of Study, shows Conflict Resolution to constitute a serious corrective to established patterns of studying international relations (IR) from a Realist or Institutional perspective only. The field began as “peace studies”, a deliberate ideological challenge to foreign policy practice and to IR teaching. It has come a long way since then, picking up controlled comparisons in case studies, quantitative analysis, modeling, experimentation, social analysis, and multimethod research to add to diplomatic studies. Indeed, the variety of methodologies is so great that the opportunity for multimethod studies becomes more and more expansive. Today, methodologies old and new often tend to honker down in their approaches, defending themselves even more vigorously than their results, when they should be inviting cross-methodological testing and verification of those results. The first part of the book tries to capture this complexity and account for it, suggest the various ways conflict resolution can be studied, and shows how its findings impact so directly on our lives.

    Methodologically and conceptually, this diversity has opened doors to new rooms of study. The Correlates of War (COW) project at the University of Michigan has produced a data bank used for testing many new propositions, but its presence calls for a brother bank of data on the Correlates of Peace (COP) (Telhami 2002). Other data banks have also been created (e.g. ICB, MID, ICM), and these indeed permit the analysis of different aspects of conflict, but more needs to be done if we are to understand how conflicts are or can be resolved. So there is a need, which we must all see as a challenge to meet, to develop better questions and data sources, so that better and more relevant answers can be sought (Bercovitch and Fretter 2007). Misleading results have been achieved through the use of proxies, which ignore the many steps that separate them from dynamic reality. Modeling too presents its challenge (Avenhaus and Zartman 2007). While models of negotiation are still seeking to catch up with actual practice at a meaningful depth of insight into process, models for negotiation have proven to be of great usefulness in illustrating proposed effect but are too little used, and models in negotiation such as for fair divisions and optimum packages have still to overcome the need for politics and ownership (Raiffa with Richardson and Metcalfe 2003). In a more standard direction, the controlled comparisons among case studies are fed new cases every day (or so). The methods we use to study conflict resolution affect the questions we ask, and the answers we get. The more aware we can be of that, the better will our practice of conflict resolution be.

    Part II, Issues and Sources of Conflict, presents an exhaustive analysis of the issues, sources and causes that are associated with or produce conflict in the relations between individuals and groups. Many causes and sources are identified, but, in fact, the comprehensive knowledge that we have here only poses new questions for analysis. Territorial issues in conflict have been plumbed deep, but they still leave many questions unanswered when they move from political geography to psychogeography: if sacred places are non-tradable items (Atran, Axelrod, and Davis 2007), how can they be made components of a positive-sum solution? Indeed, as the game theoretic presentation has shown, Chicken Dilemmas and Battles of the Sexes have two Nash equilibria, so how can collaborative situations be brought to a single joint and stable outcome? The dilemma is a clear example of the need for multi-method analysis.

    Similarly, much has been done on the economic sources of conflict, even to the extent of purporting to elbow out other sources. But when in fact does general deprivation become reframed into terms of discrimination? Where do political entrepreneurs come from? And how can a country get out of the Conflict Trap (Collier et al. 2003), without falling back into the simplistic and millennial notion of structural causes, that underdevelopment is the cause and development is the cure to conflict? Beyond economics, current knowledge about conflict resolution faces the huge challenge of the future in handling ecological sources of existential threats of ever rising importance. More than ever, the answer lies in new and broader regimes that are increasingly difficult to negotiate but also increasingly difficult to enforce. Both aspects of conflict resolution — creation and enforcement — belong to the study of regimes that surged at one point in the past, then sagged, and demands revival in the future for its importance (Spector and Zartman 2003). And beyond that understanding lies the need to conceptualize the ever-growing net of ecological regimes that regulate international activity, themselves overlapping, contesting and conflicting with each other. Neither law nor politics know how to analyze, let alone manage, these conflicts.

    Identity conflicts arise when one party's identity requires actions that impinge on another. This requirement can be internally focused or aggressive, either when one party's identity is only realized at the expense of another's or when one party feels the need to proselytize another. Or it can be externally driven or defensive, when one party feels itself to be under an existential threat. In all these cases, the operative trigger is subjective. It might be hypothesized that the more intense the identity feelings, the greater the chance for conflict with another party, but that does not solve the subjective problem. Which, when, and why — the eternal questions for social science analysis — compel us to push our research further.

    Similarly, it is striking that the beginning of the new millennium faces a challenge to international relations from a mystical religious surge closer to the beginning of the previous millennium than to either the state-based, world-shrinking globalization or the positivist quantitativizing ways of studying it in the current era. Wars of religion and ideology were thought to be over, as History (as we knew it) was to be too, leaving both analysis and action unable to handle the new – old turn of conflict relations. This final challenge in the list of issues and sources of conflict reinforces at the highest level the fact that the field faces broad new questions, not only in the substance of its study but even in the procedures of its methodology, still seeking ways to grasp that substance.

    Part III, Methods of Managing Conflict, deals with how parties in conflict or change agents from outside can do something to escape from an escalating and costly conflict. It begins with an account of the latest set of ideas on conflict resolution — conflict prevention. Launched at the UN by Dag Hammarskjöld and revived by Boutros Boutros Ghali, it almost immediately stumbled over its implications and never became an effective mandate. Yet prevention remains an aspiration for policy and an approach for research, elusive in both cases. Since conflict cannot be eliminated, only its escalation managed, resolved and transformed, prevention depends on its existence, and faces the continual challenge of satisfying at the same time the needs and desires of the parties that gave rise to the conflict. Conflict management is the enemy of conflict resolution, as it removes the pressure to resolve, yet it is frequently the only means to reduce violence, a paradox that itself needs resolving.

    For conflicts that cannot be prevented, the next tool of conflict resolution is negotiation, where some basic new opportunities appear. The new conflicts of the era pose questions about the assumptions of the negotiation process as developed, studied and practiced to date. Instead of a binary exercise between established parties, negotiation became increasingly a process of selecting parties, shaping awareness of interests, and arriving at an outcome that depends on the sides' faith in its implementation. Current theory and practice are not equipped to handle such a process. Nor — though they have dealt with questions of opening and process — have they addressed at all the subject of closure. In multilateral negotiation, so important to developing cooperation, the theory of coalition so basic to the process (and absent in bilateral negotiation) also demands to be revived and expanded beyond its earlier beginnings.

    Mediation is more necessary than it should be and less frequently practiced than it could be. Conflicting parties need help, and are so engaged for ostensibly good reason that they cannot extract themselves from the costly conflict. Themediatorisusuallyfacedwiththe assumption that it knows the parties' interest in conflict vs. nonconflict better than they, and that it can help craft an agreement between conflicting demands of peace vs. justice. In so doing, the mediator draws on a limited supply of leverage, still not fully analyzed, to accomplish major transformations. The parties face the reentry problem of making their mediated behavior palatable to their home populations. Both theory and data are needed to analyze these problems and develop new knowledge useful to mediators and parties themselves.

    Judicial methods of resolving conflict take ownership out of the hands of the parties and delegate it to a higher authority, much in the way that formal models in negotiation propose optimal solutions. But in the process of deciding guilt, the expanded international role of the judiciary under special courts and universal jurisdiction constitutes impediments to negotiated or mediated conflict management and resolution. Practice and research alike stand at the door to a solution to the paradox. Another paradox posed by evolving international law is the right to protect or sovereignty as responsibility, the duty imposed on stronger states to intervene in the affairs of weaker states to protect their population, in a reversal of the basis of the Westphalian system. But when that right is to be exercised remains deep in academic and diplomatic debate.

    Similarly, the tool of dialog and the role of NGOs' Track 2 effects another penetration into the state sanctuary, held in the hands of actors who can go where states cannot. But the limits of this new activity are not yet clear, and neither are the measures of their success. The methods and the results are generally looser than standard negotiation and mediation, their purposes neither fully managing nor resolving, and their analysis and practice softer in the skills and processes involved. Yet the increasing penetrability of the state calls for increasingly sophisticated study and use of their methods and authorization of their agents.

    Finally, the increasing prominence of international organizations (IOs) and nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) on the global and regional levels brings to the fore a subject, like others above, caught in the cloud between their powers and their aspirations: working to provide leadership to the anarchic state system, yet dependent for its resources and authority on the very states they seek to control. The UN is weak to a fault, yet its very weakness keeps its members from enacting the reforms necessary to its strengthening (UN 2004). In some regions, such as Africa (with the AU) or Asia (with ASEAN), member states have enacted significant reforms, but their implementation has lagged. Between the two levels, the debate over subsidiarity often adds to inactivity. Indeed, the biggest challenge to scholarship on the subject is not to fall off either side of the road into cynicism or idealism, while finding appropriate data and analysis of IO effects on conflict resolution.

    The final part of the Handbook, Part IV, introduces Current Features and Dilemmas in the study of Conflict Resolution. Here the intellectual horizons of the field are stretched farther, and new issues and ideas that have a bearing on conflict and its reclusion are introduced. New forms of conflict, such as terrorism, and how best to respond to it, are discussed. Terrorism is a form of unregulated conflict where the parties' identities are not always certain, or are even obscured, and the means used to pursue objectives are at best indiscriminate. This form of conflict poses new challenges to all of us in the field and requires different approaches and methods, yet ultimately, we believe that even such conflicts can be negotiated and resolved.

    Another element in the expanding Conflict Resolution context is the press and other media, which in the ostensible search for better information for a better informed public can come to play an important, but often disruptive, role in the search for solutions to violence and conflict. Both training and reconceptualization are called for. Interestingly, democracy plays a similar role. The line between informed public awareness and uninformed public participation in conflict and its resolution is often thin and porous. Democratization is often a context and source of conflict, even though democracy, once attained, is both a procedure for handling conflict and a condition for reducing it. New work is needed to smooth the passage from authoritarian to democratic stability.

    Another issue that may have a major impact on conflict is culture. Indeed, some posit that any future conflict will be a conflict between cultures, not states or nations (Huntington, 1993). How does culture affect conflict resolution? How sensitive do we have to be to cultural differences? Does conflict resolution have the same resonance in different cultures? The Western tradition that is individually oriented is also one that encourages the belief that all conflicts and contradictions can be resolved. That is not necessarily the case with other traditions, and we must be aware of it as scholars — still primarily from the Western scientific communities — seek ways of understanding and producing resolution. We should also be aware of the increasing role of force and the control of force in the resolution of conflicts: when do backfires control and when do they become forest fires? We need to appreciate how and when force, arms control and measures short of war can be used, and to what extent they may help ameliorate a conflict situation or make it worse.

    This part of the book also shows how in recent years the very concept of conflict resolution has been stretched. Traditionally, conflict resolution amounted to an attempt, successful or otherwise, between parties and/or outsiders to do something about their conflict, that is, to reach an agreement, reduce violence, and modify some aspects of their behavior. Yet, in fact, most of the conflicts that were apparently settled or resolved tended to reignite into violence within a few short years. As a result, the topic of durability arose as a subject of concern and of study, as research continues to identify the reasons why agreements last, or don't. We recognize the need for an extended approach to the issue of resolution. We now expect a genuine approach to conflict resolution to involve changing structural and attitudinal aspects of a relationship, not just its violent behavior. Thus, we talk about peace building, which is in effect a post-conflict resolution structural approach, and reconciliation, which is in effect a post-conflict resolution attitudinal approach, and posit these as the criteria for assessing whether a conflict is successfully resolved or not. Merely changing behavior is no longer sufficient. In the current complex and intermeshed environment, we need to tackle the sources as well as the manifestations of conflict. Peace and justice still elude a perfect reconciliation, human rights both impede and sustain resolution, and atonement and forgiveness vie for first place in a productive sequence. As in many components of this field, the elements have been identified but their relationships need to be examined and more firmly established.

    And at the same time, there is an accompanying need to teach the knowledge that is available and to train conflict managers in the field, no matter what their other professions are. Conflict Resolution is a universal calling, its technology still lags behind that of war, its heroes are still not as tall as generals in the public eyes, and any Nobel prizes won by its scholars have come from the discipline of economics. Yet, it does not have a Nobel Prize of its own, to whose laureates this book is dedicated. We need to strive for better knowledge about resolutions that achieve some degree of peace, but are also predicated on some notions of justice and equity. And that is a tall order indeed.

    The other basic element is the power of morality. Realists who believed primarily in the power of the force for centuries ridiculed such religions as Christianity or Buddhism for their appeal to nonviolence, respect for human life, and belief in justice. The rules of conduct in conflict excluded any “weakness” and refer to human feeling as deviation from the normal, regular way of pursuing victory. Some compassion to the victims was allowed and tolerated only after the conflict was won. This was the ethics even of the crusade. The use of force was labeled Ultima ratio regis, the last resort of the kings. And in all these circumstances, the attempts to address the moral side of the violence in conflicts were bluntly ignored.

    Something has changed with the advent of weapons of mass destruction. The innocent people, the population have become one of the targets of the strategy of coercion. Sovereignty, already porous, has become sovereignty as responsibility, subject to a Right to Protect. While in nondemocratic systems it has hardly changed the usual way of military planning and domestic repression, it has become a hard moral problem in democratic societies. It has become morally unacceptable for military and political leaders to acknowledge the fact of strategic planning in which innocent people were in advance identified as the “collateral damage”. The mere fact that the notion of the “collateral damage” has appeared meant that there were some serious problems associated with the use of force even when the national security was at stake.

    From this point of view, Conflict Resolution which promised a dignified outcome of conflict, which appealed also to human feelings, thus giving more support to those who abhorred the perspective of a conflict with millions dead, has appeared as an outcome. It has allowed all those who instinctively resisted the idea of a forced solution to enlist a weapon that could allow winning without defeating. It stands as a worthy lesson to analyze and pursue in the 21st century and beyond.

    We began this volume with the question of what conflict resolution is, and whether all conflicts can be resolved. We have turned our attention to a myriad of issues, and offered the considered viewpoints of scholars, diplomats, and other practitioners. We have striven to provide an accurate and contemporaneous picture of where the field is at, and where it might be heading. We conclude this volume more than ever convinced that conflict resolution is not just possible or desirable in the current international environment. It is absolutely necessary. Resolving conflicts and making peace is no longer an option; it is an intellectual and practical skill that we must all possess.

    JacobBercovitch, VictorKremenyuk, and I. WilliamZartman

    • Loading...
Back to Top