Unit 3/ Week 2- Duelling Hall home page Map of 6 islands Unit 3 Island Map Community Discussion Forum & Chatroom Assessment Pages Help & FAQ
 
Home
Course Atlas
Unit 3
Week 1
Week 2
Week 3
Week 4
Week 5
Week 6
Week 7
Week 8
Week 9
Week 10
Community Pages
Discussion Forum & Chatroom
Assessment Pages
Country Pages
Help & FAQ
Privacy
Unit 3, Week 2, Page 4

Conflict Resolution - ACRON 0
Applied Conflict Resolution Organizations Network- a network of 25 leading US-ba...

Conflict Resolution - AlertNet 0
Reuter Foundation's news and communications service for the emergency relief com...

Conflict Resolution - Amnesty International 0

Conflict Resolution - Conciliation Resources 0
Includes the Accord series: balanced and informative reviews of various peace pr...

Conflict Resolution - Conflict Prevention Web 0
Includes resources on conflict prevention and the Practitioner's Guide to Confli...

[rate or suggest links for this page]
 

Why coercion fails

A failure of negotiation does not necessarily mean a failure of conflict resolution, although this is how it may seem to many psychotherapists and mediators. Coercion may be an effective means of resolving conflict, as may withdrawal. Coercion does not always involve violence. Arbitration is a means of dispute resolution in which a third party is empowered to enforce a solution but only does so after hearing both sides and deciding on what would be a fair solution. However, war and fighting are also conflict resolution methods although, unlike negotiation, the conflict is temporarily exacerbated in the hope that it can then be terminated.

Some people consider that coercive resolution of conflict is always a failure because one party to the conflict is silenced. The French philosopher Voltaire argued for this perspective in 'Toleration' concluding that "Toleration has never yet excited civil wars, whereas its opposite has filled the earth with slaughter and desolation". There are those like the Quakers and some Buddhists who would argue that coercion is never the way to respond, even to physical attack. You may want to discuss your own views about this in the discussion forum. However, it is worth noting that coercive conflict is often one of the main tools for creating, or maintaining, identity. The wars and pogroms that have characterized the early history of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam have all been important in establishing a defined body of belief and scriptural authority for those religions. Belief systems like Hinduism and Buddhism have not inspired wars of belief and, as a result, are more polymorphous.

Coercion fails to resolve conflict when the conflict persists despite coercion being used. Persistence may take the form of episodic outbreaks of hostility, or protracted lower level hostility and lack of cooperation. Coercive solutions to conflict inevitably lead to grievance and this adds to the risk of further conflict. One solution to this widely adopted in the twentieth century was to exterminate the opposition. This is ethically unacceptable to most people, not least because the preservation of our cultural diversity is as important to the future of humanity as the preservation of bio-diversity is. Another solution, discussed in the next section, is to imprison, ghettoise, or otherwise create a boundary around the losers.

Unless this is done, the losers in a conflict are always a potential source of future conflict until they obtain benefits that they would lose if conflict broke out again. Two factors, therefore, that reduce the risk of civil wars re-occurring are that the losers experience an increase in their standard of living and have the opportunity to become politically involved.

Coercive solutions to conflict fail if the winner does not take steps to improve the situation of the loser, or if the loser has a sufficient level of grievance as a result of the coercion that further conflict becomes more attractive than stability. Unlike negotiation, where a neutral third party may assist successful outcome, the intervention of neutral third parties in conflicts may prolong them. One reason for this is that coercion only succeeds if one party becomes incapable of further defence. Third party intervention may only succeed in making both parties more evenly matched, and therefore more capable of prolonged struggle. Wars against enemies who have the support of the local population and therefore access to supplies and funding, or against enemies who control goods that they can sell, may be similarly prolonged.

People or institutions that are coerced are likely to seek allies, and coercive solutions to conflicts may fail if these allies are sufficiently powerful or resourceful to prolong the conflict.

 

Before you go to the next page...

ProblemsWe have suggested that negotiation, coercion, and avoidance are different types of conflict resolution, but could they be different stages?

ProblemsHave you ever experienced a failure in coercion, either in attempting to coerce someone else or where they tried to coerce you? Why did this occur?

 
back to top
   
previous page
next page