1	 Perspectives on conflict resolution
Conflict is manifested through adversarial social action, involving two or more actors with
the expression of differences often accompanied by intense hostilities. The conditions of
scarcity (for instance, caused by soil degradation or depletion of water in river basins or
lakes in Central Africa) and value incompatibilities can become a continuing source of
contention. Most significantly, protracted conflict arises from the failure to manage antagonistic
relationships. Despite economic difficulties and cultural diversity, South Africa and
many other societies have been able to eventually overcome inter-­communal rivalries and
develop various types of institutions which can renegotiate opposing economic and political
interests democratically.
	 In Switzerland, the Netherlands and other advanced democratic countries, regional and
cultural divergence has not created social disruptions or armed violence. Indeed, opposing
roles and positions have been harmonized and institutionally accommodated without the
destruction of the social fabric. In contrast with the coexistence of multi-­ethnic communities
in Western Europe and North America, religious, language and racial differences have
served as a means to rally various rival groups in a struggle for power and territorial gains
in many other parts of the world, stretching from the Middle East, Central Asia, the
Balkans, and the Caucasus to Latin America. The eruption of uncontrolled violence has
cost the loss of many lives, destroyed homes and economic devastation in war-­torn societies,
most notably Sudan, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Sri Lanka, and Bosnia-­
Herzegovina. In understanding conflict, we need to examine the quality of relationships
that reveals the way we relate to each other socially, economically and culturally as well as
how political decisions are made.
	 Even though conflict has been treated like an uncontrolled fight in chaotic, lawless societies
(as exemplified in Somalia and Afghanistan), differences between opponents can be
handled in a non-­adversarial manner. In order to establish functional relationships, the
solution should be found through negotiated agreements rather than resorting to violent
tactics. The opposing positions can be examined for persuasion via verbal arguments.
	 Traditional models of settling diverse interests focus on the management of disagreement
and tension within the constraints of the prevailing system. Various dispute resolution
mechanisms in communities, corporations, and government agencies have been institutionalized
to promote a more rule-governed society by handling complaints arising from
employment relations, poor quality of services, claims over property ownership among
neighbors, or opposition to development projects.
	 In a more destructive, large-­scale conflict, deeper sources of resentment might be related
to economic disparities and political oppression. The United Nations, Organization of
Security and Cooperation in Europe, African Union, and other regional organizations have
4   Anatomy of conflict resolution and management
developed conflict mitigation and management mechanisms ranging from fact-­finding missions
in the cases of human rights abuses or minority rights violations to good offices
(designed for assistance in communication between adversarial states in support of easing
tensions).
	 Removing misperceptions of adversaries is regarded as a vital step toward settling differences
and institutionalizing a new relationship. Indeed, reduced enemy perceptions play
a crucial role in initiating a collaborative process. Minimizing value incompatibilities has
to touch upon reconciling a different sense of identity by acknowledging each party’s
needs, intrinsic to their survival and maintenance of dignity. Most importantly, the process
and outcome of negotiating different values and incompatible interests reflect not only perceptual,
subjective differences but also power relations between dominant and subordinate
groups.
	 It is essential to shed light on diverse phenomena, extending from group dynamics to
structural adjustment in an adversarial social system in order to accommodate the vital
interests and needs of those who have been alienated and suffered from injustice. Whereas
a complex conflict has many underlying sources (both structural and psychological), it is
necessary to define conflict in a specific pattern of interactions between opponents being
influenced by identity differences and overarching social relations as well as power
asymmetry.
	 One of the primary tasks of conflict resolution is to avert the recurrence of destructive
conflict by qualitatively altering antagonistic relationships. Beyond responding to a few
manifest, contentious issues, mutually acceptable outcomes stem from finding remedies for
power imbalances and inequitable social and economic relations which are often the main
source of grievances. The nature of adverse relationships needs to be transformed by supporting
consensus on power sharing, enhancement of individual and group well-­being as
well as a guarantee of security.
	 A large map of conflict formation and transformation can reveal the nature of a struggle
as well as the processes for changing psychological perceptions. There are wide differences
among conflicts in terms of their scope and group dynamics, as is illustrated by a comparison
between the guerrilla warfare in Chechnya and the nonviolent protest against brutal
Chinese rule in Tibet. In transforming adversarial relationships, we need to investigate how
group processes are linked to structural conditions. Inter-­group relations are constrained by
a superimposed political structure as well as by internal group dynamics such as rivalry
between factions which take different attitudes toward conflict.
The book’s objectives
This book is designed to examine how to manage and resolve conflict, in part, by shedding
light on the styles and methods of communication in overcoming differences along with
the efforts to minimize the harmful aspects of struggle. It is important to explore diverse
modes of interpreting conflict in tandem with the illumination of different ways of tackling
a range of problems arising from competitive relationships within and between societies.
The manner of our societies’ response to conflict has broad implications for human well-­
being and social change. The volume treats reconciliation, along with transformation of
repressive relations, as an essential part of a conflict resolution process.
	 Keeping the above objective in mind, this book consists of three parts. In Part I, the
author presents the conceptions of conflict management, settlement and resolution as well
as the examination of processes and strategies to transform conflict. Some conflicts are
Perspectives on conflict resolution   5
harder to mitigate due to a deep rooted history of animosities, institutionalization of dominant
relations and difficulties in changing an entrenched system of exploitation and suppression.
These themes are echoed and conceptualized in the chapters of Part II on identity,
power and structure. The chapters thus cover identity formation, the effects of power in
conflict outcomes, and the changes in social and political institutions needed to forge new
relationships.
	 Part III looks at different forms of conflict settlement and resolution, ranging from adjudication
to arbitration to collaborative problem solving. Various features of negotiation are
illustrated by different stages of bargaining and outcomes. Negotiation between warring
parties often faces challenges, creating the need for the involvement of mediators who can
facilitate communication and assist in forging compromise. Facilitation is essential to initiating
dialogue and promoting understanding of difficult issues which divide communities
with the aim of building consensus for problem solving. Overall, the main ethos of this
book is to illustrate both the past and current human endeavors to settle and resolve conflict
in such a way as to enhance reconciliation and justice.
Multiple facets of conflict
Despite its application to a variety of situations, the definition of conflict has traditionally
been relegated to competition for resources or other interests, value differences or dissatisfaction
with basic needs. Incompatible economic and political interests develop an attempt
to suppress other groups often with threats and actual use of force. The discovery of oil,
uranium and other minerals in Morocco, Nigeria, and Sudan has resulted in government
attempts to tightly control ethnic minorities along with the refusal of fair sharing of
incomes from mineral exploitation. The growing resentment ignited armed resistance
which has been followed by government retaliatory attacks on many civilians, causing
destruction of properties, indiscriminate killing, rape, and other abuses which sometimes
reach genocidal levels (as has recently been illustrated in Darfur, Sudan).
	 The perception of scarcity often worsens competitive situations by generating an even
stronger desire to have access to the limited resources. The level of competition is thus
affected by the availability and value of the territories or other objects sought simultaneously
by rival groups. In the absence of agreeable decision-­making rules and accepted
norms on the conduct of behavior, the contest can turn into activities aimed at the destruction
of each other.
	 For instance, the 1994 genocide in Rwanda can be attributed to simmering tensions
which originated from competition between Hutus and Tutsis over arable land for producing
coffee beans that generate a major source of export income. The rivalry has naturally
grown into an attempt to control state institutions involved in decision making on the allocation
of land and export income. The contest has been further fueled by exclusive ethnic
ideologies alongside the colonial legacy which granted disproportionate wealth and power
to minority Tutsis.
	 Power struggle is inevitably involved when each group attempts to impose its own language,
religious or social values on other groups which have their own unique traditions
and histories. As communal conflict in Sri Lanka and Kashmir for the last several decades
vividly demonstrates, minority groups have a strong desire for autonomy and self-­control
of their destiny. In establishing or maintaining a superior status, dominant groups may discriminate
against minority ethnic culture or language. Then the newly created hierarchy is
used to further control subordinate religious, racial, or linguistic groups.
6   Anatomy of conflict resolution and management
	 Regardless of wide differences in the types of relationships, “incompatibility of goals”
features general characteristics of conflict (Jeong, 2008; Kriesberg, 1998; Mitchell, 2002;
Rubin et al., 1994). The pursuit of different objectives leads to interference in each other’s
activities to prevent an opponent from attaining what one group desires. These conditions
of conflict can result in either a sustained conflict or compromise solutions unless a superior
party overwhelms and subdues the other side rather quickly. A minority group may
seek outright independence, but the state controlled by a majority ethnic group may oppose
the aspiration and even suppress rights to ethnic language and religion. As happened to the
independence of East Timor, the matter can be determined by a popular referendum after
decades of struggle. In other tense conflict situations, ethnic groups made a compromise
and gave up independence in return for self-­rule and the guarantee of expanded political
and cultural rights. In the late 1990s and early 2000s, negotiations following serious
clashes and armed revolts by ethnic Albanians in Macedonia eventually gave them freedom
to teach ethnic languages at various levels of academic institutions and increased political
representation in the government.
	 In an unregulated competition, claims to scarce status, power, and resources may result
in an attempt to injure or eliminate rivals (Coser, 1956). Incompatible preferences are a
more acute source of tension and struggle especially when each party seeks distributive
outcomes which satisfy one group’s interests at the expense of others. A competitive struggle
often arises from a situation where each party’s aspirations cannot be fulfilled simultaneously.
The difficulties in dealing with extremist terrorist groups such as al-­Qaeda are that
their actions are not motivated by obtaining specific, tangible, negotiable objectives but by
broad, ideological doctrines which seek the total destruction of an enemy society (blamed
for collective responsibility for the misery in Islamic societies).
	 In a contentious struggle, one group’s perspectives are organized around the primacy of
their own interests, as each party competes for maximizing gain. In a conflict seen as zero-­
sum (where one’s gains become the other’s loss), one party has to be induced or forced to
yield or withdraw from their quest in the competition in order to avoid serious confrontation.
A power-­based contest becomes the primary means to determine a winner when contentious
competition turns into an unregulated fight.
	 Each group attaches different degrees of importance to their struggles and outcomes,
developing divergent perceptions of the incompatible interests. The more desirable one
party feels winning in contention, the more intense efforts the party is likely to make.
Value and identity differences along with economic and social inequality create an intractable
source of conflict. Beneath a struggle for territory and wealth lie pride, identity and
security. Whereas emotional threat generates the fear of losing what one values, a sense of
insecurity creates loyalty to one’s own group and hatred toward rival groups.
	 In the absence of a past history of cooperation, aggressive actions are more likely to be
ignited in polarized communities where leaders develop antagonistic attitudes toward each
other. A long period of conflict entrapment increases the likelihood of greater rigidity and
polarization with the reinforcement of mistrust, enemy perceptions and feelings of victimization.
The stereotypes of an enemy and misunderstanding of their motives justify the
denial of the legitimacy of opposing claims.
	 The institutionalization of negative interactions is inherent in conflicts fueled by many
years of accumulated hostilities. This is vividly represented by recurrent provocations and
confrontations between the Sudanese government and southern provinces which seek independence.
When an intense struggle permeates the social fabric with its effect on individuals
and institutions, a vicious cycle of destructive struggles touches multi-­faceted
Perspectives on conflict resolution   7
layers of adversarial relationships. As every aspect of social life is dominated by violence,
the necessity to cope with conflict influences mundane daily decisions. For instance, Israelis
(exposed to rocket and mortar fire from Gaza) have to curtail their outdoor activities
while Palestinians (hit by frequent Israeli military strikes) need to look for safe shelters.
	 In addition, conflict preoccupies political and intellectual agendas filtered through the
public domain. Even cultural and educational systems are adapted to the support of the justification
of ideologies and values mobilized for the conflict. While Jewish school trips to
holocaust sites in Poland are intended for the remembrance of past sufferings, they unintentionally
re-­traumatize the new generation and turn them into supporters of harsh government
measures against Palestinians. As the quality of life further deteriorates owing to the
Israeli closure of their borders, Palestinians in Gaza develop further resentment, passing it
on to their children who grow up with the language of hatred and demonization of Jews.
	 In a deadlocked conflict rooted in historical, collective memories (of centuries of foreign
occupation and war, for instance, in the Balkans), winning a conflict becomes a matter of
survival. Individuals and groups are adapted to conflict realities filled with new and old
animosities and prejudices against opponents. Old memories are evoked to strengthen the
will to fight on regardless of continuing suffering and loss. Inter-­group differentiation is
made clearer by an emphasis on exclusive symbols attached to the group’s current experience
and history, reflecting on a sense of legitimacy about one’s own claims and feelings
of victimization. These symbols further intensify the dividing lines between us versus
them.
	 The tensions between Unionists and Nationalists in Northern Ireland have been symbolized
by the Orange Order marches which celebrate the Protestant victory over the Catholics
at the Battle of the Boyne in July 1690. The migration of unemployed rural Catholics to
parts of the traditional routes of the marches created controversy, as Catholics interpret the
celebration as a provocation to show who is superior. Protestants regard any attempt to
restrict their freedom to walk through what have been the traditional routes for centuries as
a move to marginalize their Protestant identity.
	 The politicization of religion and other identity bases creates difficulties in reconciling
different positions. In a deeply rooted power struggle, every issue becomes perceived as
incompatible and non-negotiable by partisans. As differences are not regarded as
reconcilable, it is difficult to moderate or change one’s behavior that is deemed necessary
for bringing the fight to an end. In a total conflict, every member of an adversary group
becomes a potential object of indiscriminate attacks.
Behavioral and psychological aspects of pathological conflict
In antagonistic group mobilization, a high degree of tension is manifested in the threatened
use of force as well as verbal confrontations. Indeed, anger, hatred, and dehumanization are
amplified by demeaning verbal communication and degrading nonverbal behavior. The
initial use of violence may be aimed at achieving limited objectives and demonstrating
one’s unyielding commitment and will often combine with the manifestation of frustration.
The uncontrolled emotional, psychological aspects of conflict can be an obstacle to resolving
differences in substantive issues. As observed in many internal wars in Africa, the
destructive side of a complex conflict can be ascribed to perceptual, attitudinal, and behavioral
distortion which even entails gross humanitarian crimes often characterized by killing
and rape in front of family members and forcing them to pay for the bullets after the execution
of loved ones.
8   Anatomy of conflict resolution and management
	 When the conduct of struggles begins to involve the abandonment of established rules
and norms accustomed to constrain each other’s behavior, oppression and violence become
an unrestrained means of control over enemy “others.” During the Guatemalan civil wars
(in the 1980s–1990s), indigenous women were often sexually assaulted by government
security forces and their affiliated paramilitary group members. In the Bosnian war, Serb
militias used rape as a weapon of ethnic cleansing. In civil wars in the Democratic Republic
of Congo, women were forced to eat the dead bodies of their family members as well as
being abducted as sexual slaves for armed gang members. Many undisciplined armed
groups in Burundi, Sierra Leone, Uganda, and other places in Africa have used children as
tools of unspeakable crimes such as killing adults with stones. The pathological aspects of
conflict can certainly not be reversed without the restoration of some kind of order which
imposes discipline on armed militias not subject to control by any responsible leadership.
Adaptation mechanisms
The effects of conflict on the psychology of individuals and society grow deeper along with
the progression of the struggle. In a protracted conflict, opponents develop social mechanisms
to continue the struggle and justify one’s own action internally as well as externally. In order
to overcome the adverse effects of suffering inflicted on them in a continuing contest of will,
each party ought to have physical endurance from the destruction of violent assault, ranging
from suicide bombings to guerrilla campaigns to bombings of residential areas in total
warfare. In particular, each party has to psychologically cope with the loss of economic livelihood
and the deaths of their community members. Even in nonviolent struggles, those who
have to absorb physical injuries and psychological terror (in such cases as the Tibetan monks
protesting against Chinese rule) need to maintain high morale and preserve their own spirits
as well as hopes for a better future in the midst of an oppressive reality.
	 In general, the psychology of conflict drives the attitudes and behaviors of individuals
and groups toward more polarized views of the world. Perceived injustice is often a source
of anger which feeds continuing protests and a demand for justice. Ever-­increasing degrees
of hostile activities can be mobilized in confrontations against enemies under the name of
group survival. Conflict over matters of values and identities is posed as a total concern
with survival and furnishes new meaning in life.
	 Societies have to develop mechanisms for responding not only to death, injury, and
material loss but also to anxiety and other psychological stresses which are even harder to
measure. Physical and psychological hardships can be endured by an emphasis on readiness
for personal sacrifice, unity, and a call for courage. In the solidification of a conflict, a
collective emotional orientation supports mistrustful attitudes toward opponents, strengthening
the internal group bond and social identity. Given the feelings of pain and grief as
well as the sense of a lack of control and helplessness, intra-­group solidarity is needed to
maintain a determination to fight and ability to endure.
	 In fact, conflict changes beliefs about one’s own images and others as well as aspirations,
goals, norms, and values. In particular, emotions related to threat and other enemy
images tend to be associated with extreme groups’ beliefs such as exclusive nationalistic
ideologies. The beliefs incorporated into stereotypical thinking, myths, and collective
memories serve as a motivational basis to keep up morale. Threatening situations increase
cognitive closure, as groups tend to get more strongly attached to their in-­group beliefs.
Psychological mechanisms in support of stress management are needed to sustain mental
and physical capabilities to cope with enemy attacks.
Perspectives on conflict resolution   9
Conflict settlement versus resolution
The removal of misperceptions may be sufficient enough to end hostile activities if there
is  a consensus on desirable conditions for resolving differences. Unfortunately, many
conflicts are attributed to unsatisfactory social relations rather than miscommunication.
Institutional arrangements (in support of the maintenance of the existing hierarchy) may
merely protract the challenges from those who are alienated from the system.
	 Once understanding is reached regarding mutually agreeable goals, opposing groups can
concentrate on the means to achieve them. For instance, in the early 1990s when the minority
white government in South Africa finally realized that it would no longer be feasible to
maintain their power by excluding the majority black population, the main task had become
how to guarantee coexistence among different racial groups in the country. The agreement
on the establishment of a new constitutional government elected by the majority popular
vote led to efforts to control violence by the leadership of both the government and the
African National Congress.
	 Mutually acceptable solutions arise from a collaborative search for strategies to put an
end to a struggle. A voluntary process to resolve differences stems from a willingness to
jointly analyze interests and needs underneath divisive issues. In spite of the settlement of
a few specific issues, underlying relationships may remain contentious, short of complete
satisfaction due to a lack of procedures to explore deeper causes. An eventual agreement
can be developed by the analysis of sources related to the failure of an existing system and
a commitment to the establishment of new social relationships based on the guarantee of
political opposition, free elections, power sharing, land reform, etc. These reform measures
constituted a basis for the negotiation to end decades of civil wars in El Salvador and
Guatemala in the early and mid-­1990s.
	 Resolution strategies can be distinguished from a settlement process in which compromises
can be achieved without a satisfactory removal of deeply entrenched, contentious
issues. In the absence of serious examination of the real sources of grievances, the same
type of conflict can recur. For instance, in Kenya, repeated post-­election violence is
expected to continue as long as inter-­tribal rivalry persists in the failure to reduce economic
inequity and to guarantee more proportionate power sharing deemed to be fair by opposing
groups. When its main focus is on achieving compromised solutions in diffusing an imminent
crisis, settlement is likely to be oriented to temporary adjustment, while keeping the
economic, social, and political status quo.
	 In fact, conflict settlement has been contrasted with conflict resolution in terms of end
result. Despite the 2005 accord between the Sudanese government and the Southern
People’s Liberation Movement, the unresolved issue of control over the oil-­rich region on
the border between the north and south provoked government attacks on residents of the
southern town of Abyei in May 2008. The prospect for peace has been darkened by fear
and animosity. In clarifying issues representing points of confrontation, conflict resolution
is supposed to explore opportunities for forging new relationships by facilitating peaceful
change and reconciliation.
	 The imposition of settlement terms by coercive bargaining may lead to short-­term
acceptance of the outcome. One of the protagonists may be forced to change their behavior
and strategies under unfavorable circumstances. Temporary behavioral change may not last
long in the absence of the modification of an adversarial relationship. When fundamental
goals (such as a quest for self-­rule) remain unsatisfied, antagonistic relations may submerge
but can eventually resurface. If one party is forced to give in to the demand of another
10   Anatomy of conflict resolution and management
party owing to fear or threats, it will surely not bring about attitudinal changes. In many
situations where relative degrees of power determine the outcome of conflict, a dissatisfied
party is likely to look for future opportunities to redress old issues with a shift in power
balance.
	 Indeed, conflict can certainly be settled in the manner of abandoning coercive tactics
aimed at hurting the other party, opening the door for a long process of relationship transformation.
The termination of violence or other arrangements to decrease the intensity of a
destructive struggle leave breathing room for exploring strategies to overcome key differences
if the adversaries are willing to search for a harmonious relationship. As the 1998
Good Friday Agreement designed to end sectarian fighting in Northern Ireland indicates,
the cessation of violence may eventually contribute to reaching substantive deals which
provide a foundation for fundamental arrangements on power sharing, social integration, or
economic interdependence. However, regarding the cessation of active hostilities in the
Western Sahara occupied by Morocco, Cyprus, Armenia–Azerbaijan and other frozen conflict
situations, mitigation efforts have merely been confined to cease-­fire, withdrawal of
active hostilities, and limited confidence-­building measures.
	 In peace talks determining the future status of Northern Ireland during the late 1990s, a
commitment to ending sectarian fighting propelled the recognition of the needs for democratic
participation of all sectarian groups and rights to self-­governance. A firm obligation
to a cease-­fire by the Irish Republican Army (IRA) was a precondition to the resumption of
substantive political negotiations which centered on power-­sharing arrangements. At the
same time, behavioral changes such as the complete abandonment of violence and demobilization
of the IRA have been sustainable due to a successful conclusion of the far-­reaching
agreement on the embracement of the Catholic community in a new governance structure.
	 As illustrated above, the term conflict resolution refers to a process of not only modifying
and eventually ending a contentious struggle but also removing its sources such as alienation
from a political process. The process to find a formula for resolving conflict is far
more complex than the mere settlement of differences in peripheral issues. In fact, pragmatic
solutions which evade central concerns can bring about short-­term settlement, but an
improved environment is necessary to resolve more complicated, difficult issues. The 1994
US–North Korea Agreed Framework diffused a crisis by halting North Korean nuclear programs,
but growing antagonism and mistrust (developed since the establishment of the
Bush administration) provoked a complete collapse of the denuclearization deal in the early
2000s.
	 As opposed to a status quo approach of settlement, conflict resolution indicates a movement
from one condition to another which can be more acceptable on a long-­term basis. In
South Africa, system transformation accompanied by the agreement between the white
minority government and the African National Congress has granted the black majority a
control over the government while guaranteeing civic, social, and economic rights for the
white minority population. In Northern Ireland, a power-­sharing government has emerged
after many years of struggle between Protestants and Catholics over how to dissolve such
deadlocked issues as a shift in territorial boundaries and political power as well as strategies
to disarm paramilitary groups. Although it may take time to develop a more amicable
relationship, conflict resolution generally brings about a new framework for coexistence
which eliminates the necessities of continued engagement in an uncontrolled fight for
domination.
	 In a search for the deeply rooted foundation of conflicts, a general understanding has
been forged that violent behavior cannot be simply eradicated by the mere injection of fear.
Perspectives on conflict resolution   11
Most importantly, a shift in prejudiced group values and attitudes toward others has to go
along with structural changes in conflict dynamics. The process of resolving conflict entails
synchronization in the alteration of underlying behavioral patterns designed to end violence
in tandem with improved communication. Perceptual and attitudinal changes are aimed at
reducing tensions, which can, in turn, improve an atmosphere of searching for ultimate
solutions. In the end, the creation of interdependent, symbiotic relationships serves as a
prerequisite for the development of lasting peace (which has been observed in Franco-­
German relations since World War II).
	 When conflict has been handled constructively, all the parties are better off than before.
This is contrasted with a response to conflict by force that does not require the consideration
of each other’s well-­being. The fundamental nature of social conflict focuses on the
social norms and political processes in question beyond motives and other psychological
environments. In fact, conflict in a given system cannot be resolved without changes in
institutional processes and structures required for responding to the root causes of problems
such as forced annexation of territories, denial of rights to use an ethnic language,
confiscation of land and other properties, random abduction and torture of opposing group
members, etc. The sources of marginalization need to be identified to explore strategies for
changes in the system.
Successful conditions for conflict resolution
Besides the commitment of parties to problem solving, susceptibility to a win–win solution
is contingent on the constellation of interests and the availability of alternative options. The
mechanisms of reducing structural inequalities create a more tolerant social environment.
The improved inter-­group relations could not emerge in an insecure social, economic,
political, and military environment which creates uncertainty.
	 When competitive interests have a high win–lose component, one or both sides feel
threatened by the other. The term “interests” has been employed generically to cover all
motivations, including the fulfillment of one’s needs and realization of values and ideals.
In general, however, economic aspirations can alter with circumstances and be negotiated.
In fact, competition over material goods and role occupancy tends to be transitory as long
as it does not entail components of food, shelter, freedom, and inherent human needs for
physical and psychological well-­being (Burton, 2001).
	 Not every contentious issue is subject to compromise, especially when it is related to
fundamental rights to freedom and autonomy (related to control the destiny of one’s own
life). It is also difficult to reconcile differences in value-­oriented conflicts over abortion
rights opposed by Catholic church hierarchies or the appointment of gay bishops within the
Anglican churches, since passions are attached to what people believe. Differences in
approaches to population control between environmental groups and conservative religious
leaders have been the most acute to reconcile at various global events which discuss the
future health of this planet. While the control of rapid population growth is critically
needed for the mitigation of ecological destruction, fundamental Christian and Islamic
groups have been adamantly opposing any birth control measures by invoking their rigid
religious doctrines. The demand for the recognition of political independence or self-­rule is
yet another example of a serious trigger for conflicts, for instance, in such places as Kosovo
and Kashmir.
	 Differences over material interests need to be separated from highly emotional and value-­
oriented issues that do not easily succumb to trade. Externally imposed decisions do not quell
12   Anatomy of conflict resolution and management
the yearnings for freedom and self-­rule, but only aggravate the sufferings of civilian populations
as is evidenced in Russian military campaigns against the Chechens. The conditions for
the realization of human dignity and self-­fulfillment should be recognized in addressing the
discontent originating from discrimination and other sources of social inequality.
	 Most importantly, the premise of conflict resolution has been based on the understanding
that differences in nonnegotiable needs and cultural values are not something to be
divided but have to be accommodated (Burton, 1997; Kelman, 2008; Mitchell, 2002). In
return for the satisfaction of one’s own essential concerns, the other party’s freedom,
autonomy, and other vital needs ought to be respected in formulating non-­zero sum,
win–win solutions. Perceptional changes can lead to redefining shared needs and interests
instead of making an attempt to gain bigger concessions from opponents. Instead of being
judgmental about the adversary’s demand, a collaborative process promotes understanding
of each other’s anxiety and fears about security. Mutual accommodations can bring net
advantages to all through the art of collaborative problem solving.
Structural approaches to conflict resolution
In a long-­lasting conflict, it is not always clear how to predict when resolution can be
achieved. In addition, questions linger as to whether agreement on contentious issues at
hand is sufficient to prevent future hostilities. The perceptions of a desirable outcome at an
acceptable cost diverge among parties according to the nature of their goals and issues. In
general, “any initial agreement on different aspects of problems which have arisen from a
broad conflict relationship is most likely to be partial” (Jeong, 1999, p. 15).
	 An agreed settlement may not be favored any more if the changing circumstances controlled
by either party demand renegotiation. For instance, global warming is most likely to
generate a contentious process to renegotiate various terms in the existing Antarctic treaty
which bans mineral exploration. Owing to new internal or external circumstances faced by
each party, the necessity for adjustment to original agreements arises, demanding renegotiation
of implementation terms. In post-­conflict transitions in Mozambique, El Salvador, and
other places, rebel leadership often refused to proceed to full disarmament and demobilization
of their fighters as scheduled when there was a delay in electoral reform.
	 The integration of reconciliation and reconstruction of social fabric in a continuing
spectrum of conflict resolution is necessary due to various challenges in establishing the
foundation of stable relationships. Even if reaching agreements on basic principles after a
long period of hostilities leads to the acceptance of new conditions for resolving future differences,
it does not necessarily mean the immediate end of adversarial relationships. If
negotiated settlements break down, adversaries are more eager to revert back to costly
struggles. Worthless peace treaties and off-­again-on-­again civil wars have been characterizing
conflicts in Burundi, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, and other African countries,
as well as Sri Lanka and Colombia. The end state of negotiated settlement can be
unpredictable until the successful establishment of a political framework that can put
together fragmented social structures.
	 In general, conflict resolution needs to be assessed in terms of an outcome as well as a
process which can enhance a prospect for warring parties to abide by their agreements. In
ending civil wars, thus, peace treaties have often included political or economic incentives
for laying down arms. In addition, the reintegration of the population as well as the return
of refugees and rebuilding the economy, especially in such cases as Bosnia-­Herzegovina,
can still remain a vital task even a decade after the conclusion of a peace treaty.
Perspectives on conflict resolution   13
	 The nature of post-­conflict institutional building is likely to be affected by the means
adopted for a struggle. In general, nonviolence minimizes the lasting effects of adversarial
struggle. The process of achieving independence through armed struggles in Angola and
Mozambique resulted in two to three decades of internal warfare between rival factions
over the control of the newly created state after the colonial power Portugal left voluntarily
in 1974. This is contrasted with India which nurtured stable democratic institutions after
gaining independence in 1947 by nonviolent struggle.
	 The process of conflict resolution is supposed to reconstitute and recreate a democratic
public domain through empowerment of those whose voice has been marginalized. Thus a
response to deeper sources of social disintegration entails more substantive efforts than
self-­control of anger and frustration.
	 Preventive management of conflict does not need to wait until popular discontent and
mobilization turn into violent confrontation. The longer the grievance remains, the more
intense tensions are likely to be built up. The suppression of negative feelings or other
expressions by force or co-­optation can simply postpone the inevitable explosion. Existing
relationships can be renegotiated to eliminate economic disparities and political discrimination
which serve as a source of resentment and grievances.
Methods for dealing with conflict
Depending on the nature and sources of conflict, there are different ways to deal with conflict.
In many contemporary conflicts, official and unofficial conflict management methods
have been utilized in support of communication functions or improvement in relations
designed to create a favorable atmosphere for a negotiated solution. As part of official
diplomacy, governments can be engaged in sending special envoys for negotiation while
international organizations may dispatch fact-­finding missions to investigate cease-­fire or
human rights violations. Other formal activities range from good offices to conciliation to
mediation aimed at diffusing a crisis. The scope of conflict management covers informal
meetings through back channels of communication as well as unofficial contacts through
intermediaries.
	 The failure of negotiation is often attributed to a contest of will that leads to a refusal
to make concessions needed to reach a compromise. When one side is forced to accept the
other’s position, resentment emerges as its own concerns go unaddressed. In order to
avoid military confrontations, adversaries must engage in a search for mutual solutions
that meet the goals of both sides. When 15 British sailors were seized off the Iranian coast
in April 2007, intensive diplomatic moves were taken to diffuse the crisis. Eventually,
Iran freed the sailors in return for the apologies by British officials in tandem with the
release of an Iranian diplomat held by the Iraqi intelligence forces under the US military
command.
	 The settlement process of an inter-­state conflict may combine threats and coercion with
persuasion to break each other’s intransigent positions. While Britain attempted to put
pressure on Iran by seeking the UN Security Council resolution to condemn the act, British
Prime Minister Tony Blair highly praised the Iranian civilization in his statement addressed
to the Iranian people. The Iranian President described the sailors’ eventual release as an
Easter gift to the British people, a gracious act, rather than a concession made under international
pressure. In order not to appear to be formally conceding, both governments
referred their goodwill gestures or intentions to the other countries’ populace, not
government.
14   Anatomy of conflict resolution and management
	 In negotiation, parties can reach an agreement through a compromise formulated by the
trade-­off of different priorities. Negotiations are needed in a variety of settings not just
being limited to resolving contentious issues between adversaries. In an organizational
setting, NATO members negotiated on the number of troops each country had to contribute
to military operations in Afghanistan. In spite of their asymmetrical relationships, the Bush
administration could not dictate its own terms in negotiation with the Iraqi government on
the time limits of US troop presence, facing stiff resistance. Even in adversarial relationships,
compromise is less costly than the pursuit of economic sanctions, other punitive
methods or military actions designed to force one’s own solutions. In order to achieve a
successfully negotiated outcome, both parties must feel that the end result is the best they
could accomplish and that it is worth accepting and supporting.
	 In contentious bargaining, the adoption of win–lose strategies tends to produce an
outcome that is likely to reflect power differentials. The involvement of a third party often
helps forge mutually satisfying outcomes through a free flow of information and open
exchanges of ideas which assist in discovering common interests. The degrees of the intervener’s
decision-­making power, types of responsibilities, and their relationships with contestants
can have a significant impact on the process of settling contentious issues.
	 The types of required communication functions depend not only on the sources of conflict
but also the nature of the existing relationship between the parties. In general, hostage
negotiations are conducted under very unusual elements of surprise, urgency, mistrust, and
the importance of confidential and indirect channels. In such cases as arguments between
close allies, sorting out factual differences and clearing misperceptions may be sufficient
enough. In mediation, the quality of communication between protagonists and the acceptance
of a final deal by each party reflect on an intermediary capacity to convince, cajole, or
induce a reluctant party and eventually change their perceptions.
	 Court procedures and arbitration fit in a conventional framework that is managed within
the boundaries of existing laws and norms. Territorial or other types of disputes between two
states can be referred to the International Court of Justice. Although their verdict is supposed
to be final, sometimes it continues to generate tension when one of the contending parties is
reluctant to accept the verdicts. In situations where minority or other dissident groups develop
nonconformity with state institutions, domestic courts, lawyers, and public officials tend to
treat the conflict in a superficial way often by disregarding deep grievance attributed to social
injustice. In addition, decisions on constitutional issues by a judicial body can further politicize
the conflict and widen distance between opposing social forces, as is illustrated by the
Turkish court verdict on the dissolution of legitimate Islamic political parties.
	 In judicial settlements and arbitration, the imposition of a third-­party decision quickly
determines the fate of disputes. A direct form of communication between protagonists is
not necessary in a judicial setting. Adjudication is an adversarial process since the outcome
often reflects a win–lose zero-­sum solution to the problem. Arbitration is not successful
when value differences of participants create difficulties in the development of objective
criteria applied to the verdict. The World Trade Organization’s arbitration panels award
decisions based on existing treaties and generally accepted practice. Facts and laws are not
suitable means to sort out emotional problems or incompatible values, limiting their utility
to fact-­based disputes or legal rights issues. In a nutshell, an authoritative third-­party
decision does not take socio-­psychological issues seriously even though they can be a
source of contention.
	 While mediation often helps communication between parties, a focus on the settlement
of narrow issues would not delve into the analysis of deeper sources of exploitative social
Perspectives on conflict resolution   15
and economic conditions. Dialogue or other interactive processes of conflict resolution
utilize a collaborative method to explore the root causes of conflict and conditions for
satisfying vital needs of adversaries. When official negotiating channels are closed or
dysfunctional, citizen groups can play an important role in nurturing a climate of trust and
even develop proposals to be delivered to their own governments. In 2006, unofficial contacts
between Israeli and Syrian advocacy groups yielded an informal agreement on the
conditions for the Israeli return of the Golan Heights to Syria.
Themes and agendas
This book examines diverse types of conflict at various levels of complexity, and discusses
practices and concepts applied in mitigating hostilities needed to settle differences between
adversaries. The strategies and methods for the control of antagonistic behavior need to be
adaptable to specific conflict dynamics. In identifying strategies to remove or at least mitigate
conditions for a protracted conflict, a suitable starting point is to identify the causes of
conflict and control escalation processes. The movement from mere disagreement to more
polarized, extreme positions narrows the application of options based on a nondestructive,
collaborative process.
	 A settlement process hinges either directly or indirectly upon the nature and causes of
conflict. It is not often orderly due to the involvement of distorted psychological attributions
leading to misjudgments and inaccurate assumptions about the events and behavior.
Various noncoercive intervention methods based on persuasion and other collaborative
efforts may have to overcome the psychological hindrances associated with mental anguish
in decision making, cognitive inconsistency as well as a group process which reinforces
stereotypical enemy images. A positive relationship can be cultivated through empathy and
increased interdependence between opposing parties.
	 One of the main aims of this book project is to illuminate the processes and methods of
turning contentious battles into collaborative process. The practice of conflict resolution
has been emphasizing integrative outcomes with a paradigm shift from adversarial (win–
lose) to positive sum (win–win) solutions; the willingness to address each other’s concerns
for mutual coexistence stimulates a search for joint benefits.
	 In response to the above challenges, this volume highlights the underlying dynamics of
social and psychological relations involved in the process of conflict resolution. While the
first half of the book covers various issues related to transforming conflict relationships, the
second half focuses on negotiation, mediation, facilitation, and methods of reconciliation.
	 Following this introductory chapter, the next chapter discusses the quality of relationship,
behavioral, and attitudinal changes in managing conflict dynamics. Chapter 3 examines
multiple dimensions of conflict transformation after pointing out the shortcomings of a
conflict management approach. After investigating various types of direct and indirect relationships
between identity and conflict, Chapter 4 looks at the conditions for reconstruction
of social identities. Chapter 5 illustrates different degrees of power asymmetry along such
dimensions as both physical and psychological endurance in absorbing the cost of struggles
as well as resource mobilization capabilities. Chapter 6 highlights the role of structural
sources of discontent, including alienation from institutions and practices of governance as
well as their impact on conflict resolution efforts.
	 Chapter 7 sheds light on ethical issues, questions of justice and neutrality after providing
comparative perspectives of how judicial settlement and arbitration differ from negotiation,
mediation, facilitation, and other collaborative methods. In understanding a negotiation
16   Anatomy of conflict resolution and management
process, Chapter 8 reviews bargaining strategies (related to compromise and concession
making) and elements to influence them. Chapter 9 examines models of mediation practiced
in international diplomacy with the provision of typologies of medi­ators and their
characteristics. In Chapter 10, in general, facilitative methods illustrate the nature of communication
oriented toward attitudinal and cognitive changes. In Chapter 11, successful
reconciliation consists of apologies for atrocious acts, recognition of sufferings, expression
of mercy and forgiveness, healing and the cultivation of mutual respect and security.
Further reading
Anderson, M. (2004) Cultural Shaping of Violence: Victimization, Escalation, Response, West Lafayette,
IN: Purdue University Press.
Burton, J. W. (1997) Violence Explained: The Sources of Conflict, Violence and Crime and Their Prevention,
Manchester: Manchester University Press.
Byrne, S. and Irvin, C. (2002) “A Shared Common Sense: Perceptions of the Material Effects and
Impacts of Economic Growth in Northern Ireland,” Civil Wars, 5 (1): 55–86.
Jeong, H. W. (2008) Understanding Conflict and Conflict Analysis, Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publi-
cations.
Kriesberg, L. (1998) Constructive Conflicts, Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers.
Miall, H. et al. (1999) Contemporary Conflict Resolution: The Prevention, Management and Transformation
of Deadly Conflicts, Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishers.
Mitchell, C. (2002) “Beyond Resolution: What Does Conflict Transformation Actually Transform?”
Peace and Conflict Studies, 9 (1): 1–24.
Rubin, J. et al. (1994) Social Conflict: Escalation, Stalemate, and Settlement, Boston: McGraw-­Hill.
2	 Managing intractable conflict
One of the main issues (which partisans face in a protracted conflict) is how to overcome
the debacle and move on to solutions which are acceptable to them. In a continuing struggle
such as a long-­term civil war, waiting for fighting to subside naturally is too costly,
further contributing to the intractability. Efforts can be made to mitigate a conflict prior to
seeking settlement. Diverse methods and strategies can be adopted to control various types
of escalation and entrapment. Long-­term entrapment (such as US–Soviet relations during
the Cold War period) was structurally managed by regular communication and other crisis
management mechanisms.
	 This chapter reviews actor behavior and decision making from the perspective of managing
the adversarial relationships and dynamics involved in the resolution of differences.
Though many conflicts may seemingly look chaotic, they can be characterized by a series
of moves and countermoves. A conflict management and resolution process needs to focus
on the behavior of parties, relationships, and institutions (which regulate the choices of
individual actors) beyond the immediate issues under dispute. Peace building has become
an essential task for a transition from conflict to the establishment of stable interactions
between former adversaries in the process of reconstructing violence-torn societies. Given
the costs of violence, conflict prevention has been promoted to respond to the surge of
ethnic struggles in the post-­Cold War era.
Conflict evolution
Despite differences in the number of phases of conflict, there is a commonly identifiable
sequence of behavior that ignites and perpetuates confrontation. In large part, conflict can
be characterized by the emergence of antagonistic positions and their eventual settlement
through engagement in problem solving (Jeong, 2008; Kriesberg, 1998; Mitchell, 2002;
Rubin et al., 1994). In negotiated settlement, different positions need to be integrated or
aggregated to explore mutually compatible solutions with the adoption of cooperative
tactics.
	 In spite of variations, a sequence of behavior is likely to unfold over time along semi-­
predictable phases of conflict. After a latent phase turns into a manifest conflict, threats and
forces might be exhibited in an attempt to get one’s own way. In a series of events preceding
the violent Palestinian uprising and heavy Israeli military response in the early 2000s,
violent tactics were driving each other’s actions to a higher level of casualties and destruction.
The exchange of adversarial moves diminishes the hope of amicable solutions through
negotiation. When cooperation is perceived to yield the lowest outcomes, incentives for
preemptive attacks are high in order to demoralize the opponent.
18   Anatomy of conflict resolution and management
	 Once conflict is accelerated, it runs its own course in the absence of countervailing forces
which can reverse the continuing patterns of retaliatory responses to each other’s punitive
actions. After a round or two of escalation, a runaway spiral can expand in the absence of self-­
restraint or successful external intervention, either diplomatic or military, to cool down intensifying
violence. In an internal conflict, an initially peaceful protest can be switched to mass
violence or armed campaigns by militant groups due to government oppression of unarmed
opposition movements. The origins of civil wars in Sri Lanka, Guatemala, El Salvador,
Colombia, Algeria, and elsewhere can be traced back to bloody oppression of mass protests
and the arrest of opposition leaders. In a long-­term struggle, balance of power on the battlefield
normally sustains fighting until unregulated confrontation subsides. In such internal warfare as
experienced in Angola, El Salvador, Guatemala, and Mozambique, it may take more than a
decade to enter the stage of de-­escalation needed for a settlement (Jeong, 2008).
	 It is a very difficult task to change the dynamics of conflict especially when it is seen as
a struggle for survival. Negative inter-­group interaction entails an ontological character by
denying each other’s identity and security. Cognitive rigidity as well as such affective
factors as feelings of anger, fear, and hatred have a negative impact on the transition to de-­
escalation. Intentions to harm the other party derive from dehumanization. The cessation of
communication intensifies perceptional distortion. Each party believes that they have no or
fewer options than fighting owing to the hostility. The rise of hard-line factions may even
stiffen antagonistic positions along with the support of external allies. The political rise of
Hamas among Palestinians has weakened the capacity and credibility of the moderate
Fatah government based in the West Bank to negotiate with the Israelis.
	 To move from a contest of coercive power to win–win solutions is, therefore, complicated
in a deep-­rooted conflict. Due to negative energy and its behavioral manifestations
embedded in social interaction, intractable conflict is not easily amenable to resolution.
Escalatory behavior is normally mirrored by the other side, affecting the conflict as a
whole. Unless one party overwhelms an opponent quickly and easily, the tide of every
struggle either continues with varying degrees of intensity or ebbs to a dormant stage
awaiting another surge of violence. Irregular intervals intervene after a finite cycle of confrontation,
as each side prepares for the next round of fighting in seeking a final victory
through military superiority.
	 Although some conflicts are more resistant to changes in the patterns of adversarial
interaction, each component of conflict dynamics can be modified to bring an end to fighting.
In moving toward de-­escalation, an all-­out struggle begins to subdue in such a way as
to enhance the prospect for dialogue or negotiation. If negotiated settlement ought to be
achieved, a wide range of cooperative activities are needed to overcome the legacy of an
atrocious act committed during the armed struggle.
	 A series of conciliatory events can mitigate the destructive aspects of struggles while creating
a positive environment for talks. In preparing for peace talks in Northern Ireland, meetings
between the political representatives of adversarial communities, including the exchange
of views between the leader of the moderate Unionist Social Democratic and Labour Party
(SDLP) John Hume and the IRA-­affiliated Sinn Fein’s Gerry Adams, paved the way for an
all-­inclusive conference that started in 1996. The momentum for inter-­communal dialogue
was initially created by the 1985 Anglo-­Irish Agreement which confirmed the necessity of
the consent of the majority of Unionists in any change in the status of Northern Ireland.
	 The varying duration and patterns of a struggle shape the nature of conflict dynamics.
The process of a protracted conflict is likely to alter the initial conditions for conflict with
the creation of an emotional residue attached to loss in the struggle. Long-­lasting conflict
Managing intractable conflict   19
reinforces militant social elements, and a return to the previous relationship may not be
possible or desirable. The end of a civil war may mean the adaptation of insurgent organizations
to political parties which can compete in an electoral cycle. In inter-­state conflict,
the restoration of occupied territory may have to be accompanied by the emergence of new
security arrangements as well as the renegotiation of political relationships. At the end of
the conflict process, even in fortunate situations, the protagonists may find only partial satisfaction
with what they originally desired.
The Sahrawi quest for independence
The indigenous Sahrawi population in the former Spanish colony of Western Sahara has
been engaged in a multi-­decade struggle with Spain, followed by Morocco and Mauritania.
The conflict’s long history is full of armed fighting between the indigenous population and
their different occupiers over a century. Even though the conflict has been de-­escalated and
managed without major warfare since 1991, the situation has not yet been resolved due to
the failure to hold a promised referendum on independence.
	 The uprising in Spanish Western Sahara started in the early twentieth century, but the
armed conflict was more effectively organized after the formation of the Sahrawi rebel
Polisario Front in May 1973. Even though armed rebellions and raids successfully pushed
the Spanish forces out of much of the territory, the goal of independence was not achieved.
The Spanish retreat in 1975 only meant the division and transfer of the Sahrawi homeland
to Morocco and Mauritania. Thus the Polisario Front continued to wage guerrilla-­style
hit-­and-run attacks against Morocco and Mauritania along with the declaration of the
Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic.
	 The continued armed struggle induced Mauritanian retreat from Rio de Oro with the
acceptance of Sahrawi rights to Western Sahara. A comprehensive peace treaty (August
1979) was accompanied by the formal recognition of the Sahrawi Arab Democracy. Right
after this event, Morocco militarily annexed the newly independent southern half of Rio de
Oro. Thus the armed resistance kept going in Western Sahara occupied by Morocco as well
as the new area evacuated by Mauritania. From the mid-­1980s, there was military stalemate
between the Moroccan and Polisario troops. No side obtained decisive gains in spite
of continued artillery strikes and sniper attacks by the guerrillas.
	 The war eventually became difficult for Morocco to sustain due to the economic and
political strain. In September 1991, both sides agreed to a cease-­fire observed by UN
peacekeeping forces with the promise of a referendum on independence. The referendum
did not take place the following year, as agreed, stumbling over differences in voter rights.
Whereas the process was stalled, the prolonged cease-­fire has been held. Many attempts,
including the 2003 Baker plan, have not yet yielded a final breakthrough.
Degeneration from a peace process to war: the Israeli–Palestinian
conflict
In the long history of the Israeli–Palestinian conflict, the Oslo Peace Accord (1993) was a
groundbreaking event to offer a real possibility for a negotiated settlement. Yet the failure
to determine the future status of Palestinians living under Israeli occupation had eventually
slid into violence. By summer 2000, both sides were quite frustrated with the peace
process. The Palestinians never did get close to a clear path toward the creation of a sovereign
state, an end to continuing Jewish settlement in the West Bank, or economic
20   Anatomy of conflict resolution and management
improvement. The Israelis did not feel a real guarantee of security against terrorism and
violence by Palestinian extremists. The early stage of the peace process was full of good
intentions and rational bargains, but it regressed to the gradual path of building animosities
with growing frustration and support for hard-­line positions within Israel. The second intifada
by Palestinians in September 2000 completely shattered the foundation of hopes for
lasting security which both sides originally wanted to obtain through mutual collaboration.
	 The new cycle of conflict between the Palestinians and Israel was provoked by the
Israeli right-­wing politician Ariel Sharon’s visit to the Muslim shrines on the Temple
Mount and the al Aqsa Mosque in Jerusalem. The Israeli–Palestinian relations were already
on shaky ground after the failure of the Camp David summit attended by both Israeli Prime
Minister Ehud Barak and Palestinian Authority head Yasser Arafat in July 2000. US President
Bill Clinton’s mediation did not narrow the gap between the widely different
positions held by both sides. The post-­Camp David negotiation process was rocked by
violent clashes between the Israelis and Palestinians which wrecked confidence.
	 As Table 2.1 (pp. 22–23) presents, the intense scale of violence sparked on September
28 ended with the complete loss of any future hope for peaceful relations between the
Israelis and Palestinians after the election of hard-­line Likud party leader Ariel Sharon on
February 6, 2001. Even high-­level summit diplomacy (e.g. the October 16–17 Sharm el-­
Sheikh summit meeting attended by Arafat, Barak, Clinton, Egyptian President Mubarak,
and Jordan’s King Abdullah) failed to turn the tide of violent reprisals. Palestinian cross-­
border and drive-­by shootings, and other attacks against Israeli communities alternated
with the Israeli assassinations of suspected radical group leaders, violent settler vigilante
action in tandem with the closures of Palestinian towns and villages, and destruction of
Palestinian houses. The Israeli use of helicopter gunships and F-­16 air attacks prompted
accusations of “inappropriate” and “excessive” use of force. Although some grotesque killings
were committed by extreme Palestinian groups (e.g. the murder of two Israeli soldiers
by a Palestinian mob on October 12), excessive Israeli military counterattacks were often
indiscriminately targeted toward civilians.
Mitigation of protracted conflict
A multi-­step conflict resolution process aims to identify types of contentious issues, discover
underlying causes and develop a process to remove them. Along with the analysis of
a system of interaction and its surrounding environment, negative perceptions need to be
changed to bring about attitudinal changes. The negative forms of change within a conflict
system have to be reversed by a shift in interaction patterns from demonization to humanization,
from stereotypes to empathy. The intensity of conflict can be moderated with the
removal of incompatibilities by means of conjunction with a search for a formula to
increase compatibilities between different positions related to each party’s goals.
	 A different internal and external environment needs to emerge in the transition toward
conciliation. The weak abilities of adversaries to manage their relationships may demand
the support of external allies and also the invitation of an intermediary to narrow emotional,
psychological gaps between antagonists. Psychological changes may come along
with readiness for concession making that is necessary for a compromised solution. In
order to accommodate each other’s needs, parties need to abandon the contentious tactics
associated with achieving unilateral gains. Decision making for de-­escalation needs to be
adjusted by the necessity for mutual concessions. New views about adversaries shape different
understandings about conflict.
Managing intractable conflict   21
	 As a result of conflict, partisans tend to go through the transformation of their organizational
structures and identity. The cessation or reduction of hostilities may come from
changes in personal motivations and social context following watershed events. Dramatic
events can reshape our view about a conflict, eventually preparing psychologically for disengagement.
The My Lai Massacre proved to be a turning point toward de-­escalation in the
Vietnam War. On March 16, 1968, the killing of as many as 504 villagers (nearly all of
whom were children, women, and the elderly) in My Lai by the US army unit Charlie
Company badly undercut support for the war, demoralizing US war efforts.
	 In peaceful resolution, goals are pursued by means other than threats and actual use of
violence. In managing ethnic relations, coercive approaches often produce a backlash by
generating further resentment and violent resistance. The maintenance of the status quo by
force is no longer feasible, or too costly to one’s international reputation (or the maintenance
of domestic support). The right circumstances for successful de-­escalation (to break
a costly impasse) can be discovered by a careful analysis of conflict situations. Prior to de-­
escalatory moves, parties acknowledge a stalemate situation; the parties themselves are not
able to envision a way out of the conflict with dreadful costs whereas neither side is likely
to win or lose in the short term. The futility of efforts to impose unilateral solutions can be
realized after the recognition of the limited capacity to push for any gains along with an
adversary’s resistance. In the absence of palatable options, pressures of time and other elements
of a crisis create pessimistic views about conflict.
Conciliatory dynamics
The withdrawal of negative sanctions (such as a trade embargo) as well as an offer of new
rewards (such as economic assistance) are normally employed in an attempt to initiate positive
interaction. The exchange of rewards can set off a series of events in support of mutual cooperation.
The modes of behavior, strategies, and tactics are influenced by different motivations.
In negotiation with the US during the Vietnam War era, North Vietnam released some US
prisoners of war as a goodwill gesture. In order to obtain cooperation from the Chinese government
in putting pressure on North Korea and Iran to end their nuclear programs, the Bush
administration removed China from the State Department list of the worst human rights
abusers in the world along with ceasing to request the release of key political prisoners.
	 In a successful conciliatory process, the reciprocal actions can amplify positive changes.
Each party is more likely to reciprocate conciliatory gestures when their offer of a counter-­
reward (such as the removal of restrictions on the movement of monetary assets) does not
involve a high cost to them. The US government unfroze North Korean financial assets
upon Pyongyang’s agreement to cease its plutonium processing programs in 2007. Given
that it may take time to overcome the legacy of animosities created by punitive measures,
incremental processes (e.g., the exchange of mutual visits by orchestras or sports teams)
may be adopted to thaw relations (for example, US–China relations in the 1970s). The
messages of compromise or conciliation (that signal reversing negative attitudes) may
precede the cessation of violent tactics.
	 Even if parties agree to negotiate, it is often a long, tumultuous process to reach a settlement.
Balancing opposing interests or values in an acceptable manner to all sides is a real
test to ending intractable conflict. In meeting the other’s concerns, it might be necessary to
offer concessions on the issues an adversary considers crucial. Most importantly, a balanced
exchange of concessions is more likely to create a high potential for a successful
deal making.
Table2.1 EscalationofIsraeli–Palestinianviolence,September28,2000toFebruary2,2001
Israeliaction/reactionPalestinianaction/reaction
9/28–30AprovocativevisittotheMuslimshrinesontheTempleMountandtheal
AqsaMosquebyright-wingpoliticianArielSharon
Thebeginningofmassriots
9/29TheIsraelisecurityforcesopeningfireinthealAqsaMosquecompoundin
Jerusalem’swalledOldCity
SixPalestiniansdeadandcloseto200wounded
9/30ThefirstmajorarmedclashesSpreadofviolencetotheGazaStripandWestBank;14
Palestiniansdead,includinga12-year-oldboy
10/1–2Cease-fireagreementbutquickcollapse
ThedeathofanIsraeliborderpoliceman30deaths
SolidarityprotestbyIsraeliArabs
10/3Anothercease-fireagreementbutimmediateresumptionofclashesSixdeaths
10/4–620deaths
10/5IsraeliclosureoftheWestBankandGazaforthefirsttime
10/8ThefirstdeathofaJewishsettler;deathofoneArabIsraeliTwodeaths
10/12APalestinianmob’skillingoftwoIsraelisoldiers
10/12ThefirsthelicopterattacksonArafat’scompoundandPalestinianAuthority
securityforces
10/16AsummitmeetinginSharmel-Sheikh,Egypt,designedtohaltviolenceAgreementoninquiryintothecausesofviolenceandareturnto
negotiation
10/20Israelithreattosuspendapeaceprocess14Palestiniandeaths,includinga14-year-oldboy
10/23Thefirstlarge-scaleattempttoblockadeaPalestiniantownBeitJaIla
10/26ThefirstmajorsuicidebombingattackonanIsraelipostbythe
IslamicJihad
10/28ThecontinuationofsporadicfightingwithheavierfightingnearBeitJalla
10/30ThefirsteffortstocreatephysicalbarriersbetweentheIsraelisand
Palestinians
11/1ThedeathofthreeIsraelisoldiers
11/2TwoIsraelideathsbyPalestiniancarbombingThePalestinianexplosionofacarbombintheJerusalem
marketplace
11/3–Gradualdeclineinthenumberofclashes
11/15IsraelihelicopterattacksresultinginfourPalestiniandeaths
11/17ArafatcallforthecessationofshootinginthePalestinian
controlledareas
11/20–IsraelikillingofPalestiniangunmenContinuingcarandroadsidebombing
11/21ThemissilestrikesTheescalationofgunfire
11/21–IsraelimilitarytargetingarmedgroupmembersThepersistenceofuncheckedviolencewithcontinuingcasualties
12/19Israeli–Palestinianmeetingtodiscussprospectforpeace
12/23Clintonproposalforresumingnegotiations
1/21/2001BeginningofanewroundofIsraeli–PalestiniantalksintheEgyptianRedSea
resortofTaba
Progressmadedespitesomedeadlockedissues
2/6/2001TheelectoralvictoryofconservativeLikudpartyTheendofthepeaceprocess
Note
AlthoughfrustrationandangerrandeepespeciallyonthePalestiniansidepriortotheendofSeptember2000,aprovocativevisittotheMuslimshrinesbyArielSharonunleashed
theentirecycleofmobviolence,militaryretaliation,cease-fire,renewedviolence.Violencetookplacealongsideanattempttoreigninuncontrolledfightingandtoreacha
durablesolution.Theitalicizedactsandeventsintheabovetableindicateeachsteptowardafurtherheightenedlevelofhostility.
24   Anatomy of conflict resolution and management
Post-­conflict transformation
Even if the main issues may have been resolved, lingering doubts and suspicion continue
due to the uncertainty of future interactions. The emergence of new relationships ought to
focus on future expectations beyond present interaction patterns as well as past memories
of atrocities and victimization. Institutional restructuring (needed to tackle a source of
grievances) brings about new ways issues are to be addressed in the future. In the failure of
continuing to deal with root causes, a post-­conflict process can be derailed only to see the
return of more contentious battles (Jeong, 2005).
	 Thus the process to bring about a negotiated solution needs to be linked to incorporating
post-­conflict peace building efforts. In the case of Angola and Mozambique, in spite of
control of violence as well as political stability, economic and social progress has been
lagging. While economic rewards and government posts were offered to the former leaders
of rebel forces in Angola, ordinary combatants and refugees faced numerous economic
challenges. In Guatemala and other poor countries emerging from civil wars, a high level
of economic insecurity (as related to unemployment, etc.) has created social uncertainty.
To keep a low level of violence, Australian peacekeepers have occasionally intervened in
East Timor to prevent political instability from becoming out of control.
	 Once parties agree to the cessation of violence at the negotiating table, it is accompanied
by the longer term challenges of land, electoral, constitutional, or security sector
reform. Thus, transformation can broadly touch not only psychological relationships of
overcoming victim–offender relationships but also institutional reform. Ethnic pluralism
can be institutionalized by power-­sharing mechanisms (based on the acknowledgment of
ethnic differences and veto power on matters vital to each group) along with economic
opportunities and the respect for cultural traditions of diverse groups.
	 In the process from settlement to reconstruction, democratic institutions nurture a foundation
for human rights and reconciliation. Synergies for transforming adversarial relationships
can be created by the recognition of the suffering and trauma from past atrocities and
prioritization in healing social wounds. The cessation of violence and intimidation is an
essential condition in the empowerment of victims and restoration of their social status.
Approaches to conflict prevention
Prevention is more effective and less costly than handling a crisis after the eruption of a
violent conflict. The initial focus of prevention sheds light on controlling behavioral
dynamics created by a catalyst of violence in a polarized society. Fear and mistrust lay the
groundwork for the recurrence of contentious fights. In the escalation of existing tensions
into violence, prevention may focus on containing the spread of fighting. A violence-­
control mechanism such as peacekeeping creates safe space for addressing the root causes
of intractable conflicts. The ultimate goal of conflict prevention can be achieved through
institutional arrangements designed for the mitigation of inequality and other sources of
grievances.
	 Once a manifest conflict starts, prevention may focus on a destructive aspect of adversarial
relationships. The rules and dynamics of struggle need to be established in the way
resolution of differences does not require a violent contest of will. The efforts to promote
nonviolent competition support the control of escalatory force. The destructive elements of
conflict need to be replaced by a struggle which does not depend on mass violence. Beyond
political intervention, civilian peace monitors (dispatched to observe and report any
Managing intractable conflict   25
incidence of human rights violations) and humanitarian aid can serve as tools to mitigate
violence inflicted upon civilians.
	 As a matter of fact, violence control, as an initial step of prevention, is essential to
engendering a hospitable environment for negotiation. In addition, it is more difficult to
handle a conflict once the escalation of initial confrontation generates more issues to be
handled. The mere containment of violence may produce freezing effects in intense fighting,
not paving a road for problem solving in itself. A multitude of negotiation forums can
be designed for active search for transforming the roots of a conflict.
	 The nature of intervention differs in varying crisis situations. As happened in Macedonia
(during the mid-­1990s) after the eruption of Albanian ethnic violence, preventive diplomacy
initially consists of the dispatch of a special envoy in conjunction with a human
rights monitoring team. In the immediate aftermath of the 1993 assassination of the
Burundi president, James Jonah (the UN Undersecretary General for Africa) departed for
Bujumbura as part of a fact-­finding mission. Instead of providing the international military
protection requested by Prime Minister Kinigi, the UN Secretary General’s special envoy
for Burundi, Ahmedou Ould-­Abudallah brokered political settlement via mediation in an
attempt to bring stability to the crisis situation (Maundi, 2003).
	 In a humanitarian crisis characterized by uncontrolled violence and starvation, coercive
intervention is necessary, as seen in Somalia. As French and British forces did in the
internal conflicts of Western African countries, forceful intervention can restrain horrific
acts by undisciplined militia forces. The British sent troops to quell indiscriminate attacks
on civilians by the rebel forces during the civil war of Sierra Leone in the mid-­1990s. The
French military intervened in an effort to calm a civil war which broke out in 2002 and
divided Côte d’Ivoire into a rebel-­held north and a government-controlled south. In
addressing atrocities in gross power asymmetry, external parties may have to depend on
coercive forces for the cessation of further human suffering. In response to the Haiti military
dictatorship’s abuse of their population, the Clinton administration restored democracy
on the island by the dispatch of armed contingents in 1994.
	 Both overt and covert coercion, ranging from economic sanctions to military intervention,
is adopted as conflict regulation strategies. As part of the pressure on the military
government to seek negotiated settlement in the Sudanese civil war, its neighboring countries
(Uganda, Ethiopia, Eritrea) imposed economic sanctions. Various approaches to conflict
prevention and mitigation fall in a continuum between short-­term intervention such as
peacekeeping or enforcement and long-­term security promotion (oriented toward the protection
of human rights and economic well-­being) and institutional change. The
“minimum” condition for peace is the absence of overt physical violence through the
immediate cessation of uncontrolled violence. The establishment of conditions for the
safety of civilian populations can be supported by the surveillance of warlords and militia
activities, and the restriction of troop movements as well as protection of refugees.
	 Management approaches are oriented toward handling an imminent crisis within a
framework of humanitarian intervention. Preventive measures may emphasize the control
of significant armed violence or its spread, but at the same time they need to pay attention
to humanitarian crisis. International intervention can be designed to mitigate a negative
impact of social chaos or the lack of order on direct threats to civilian populations. Coercive
diplomacy might be needed in reversing an escalatory motion, but the restoration of
order through military force needs to be linked to long-­term planning to change the conditions
for the causes of violence. Political and economic solutions are necessary to avoid
continued dependence on outside assistance (Boutros-­Ghali, 1995).
26   Anatomy of conflict resolution and management
	 Early warning has been a main pillar of the UNDP Ferghana Valley Preventative Development
Program and OSCE CONFLICT monitoring in Kyrgyzstan. In particular, preventive
diplomacy by OSCE has allowed Kyrgyzstan to buttress social relations especially
because a status quo can be challenged by weakening states and erosion of social structures.
As the increased tensions in the Ferghana Valley region exposed vulnerability to
violent conflict, the Kyrgyz–Tajik Conflict Prevention Project, carried out with the assistance
of two regional NGOs, was aimed at the peaceful coexistence of different ethnic
groups in both countries in tandem with restored social infrastructure. The program targeted
border areas vulnerable to violent conflict due to inter-­group tension ascribed to competition
over resources on disputed borders. The conflict prevention project has been built
into public awareness, education on inter-­ethnic tolerance, and community mediation.
Behavioral and structural dimensions of preventive approaches
A focus on proximate causes of an unstable conflict situation might be oriented toward preventing
the translation of triggering events (coups, electoral fraud) toward full-­blown hostilities.
Violence needs to be controlled before the achievement of any kind of agreement by a
negotiation or facilitation process. On the other hand, a frequent resort to threats (intended
to curb warring parties’ behavior) is incompatible with building trust in a search for a more
effective, long-­term response to the causes of internal civil war. Long-­term visions need to
be developed to allay underlying stress (associated with poverty, ethnic, racial and religious
differences, weak state capacity to manage tensions and power inequalities).
	 Prevention may shed light on the transformation of preconditions for the emergence of a
conflict originating from the administrative and political incapacities of the government to
produce effective policy responses, and consequently loss of authority. It can also respond
to both behavioral and structural factors which drive partisans to contend with each other
as well as conditions behind the formulation of antagonistic goals. In the long run, escalation
to a deadly conflict can be prevented with a structural or attitudinal adjustment.
	 Various settings of conflict prevention demand actions to avoid the recurrence of violent
incidents of antagonistic confrontations. Residual antagonism provides a fertile ground to
nourish future hostilities. In terms of prevention, long-­term efforts (including track II diplomacy
based on sustained informal communication and contact) can be made to allay the deep
emotional hostilities and negotiate a political arrangement which is more compatible with
each other’s needs and interests. In addition, development assistance can be reformulated in
transforming a wider context of conflict by supporting regional integration along with support
for good governance and civil society support. Infrastructure development linking countries
of the southern Caucasus was supported by the European Union, UNDP, USAID, Oxfam,
Save the Children, and ICRC with the broad aim of poverty eradication in mind.
Context of conflict regulation
In general, an indirect and regulated competition (for instance, sales in an open market) is
less likely to generate adversarial relationships than class or racial conflict. In malignant
social processes, however, competitive orientations make it difficult to forge common
interests. In fact, direct interference with the other’s preference has a high potential for producing
enmity. On the other hand, adversarial competition can be prevented from turning
into hostile confrontations by regulations based on the adherence to rules and the imposition
of sanctions against rule violations.
Managing intractable conflict   27
	 When it is difficult to resolve or even reach a short-­term settlement, it becomes important
to control a negative orientation toward violent conflict which perpetuates long-­
standing cycles of hurting and destruction. Once conflict is formed, peacekeeping and other
methods can be introduced to contain and reduce aggressive acts. When the accommodation
of different values and needs are difficult to achieve in the short term, priority may fall
to the control and mitigation of violence prior to the creation of a durable peace structure.
Reaching an agreement on the cessation of armed hostilities enables warring parties to exit
from the violent phase of a conflict. If adversaries fail to find a formula to address the core
underlying causes of conflicts, old attitudes and structural contradictions can easily pave
the way for conflict recurrence.
	 The necessity to control violent confrontations has led to the development of appropriate
forms of third-­party intervention. These entail the development of a buffer zone
between warring factions and surveillance of troop movements. Peacekeeping operations
have been dispatched to numerous conflict zones to hold a fragile cease-­fire agreement
between belligerent parties. In a comparable manner to international peacekeeping, community
policing has been utilized for lessening bloodshed among gang or militia group
members.
	 Peace enforcement and humanitarian intervention would be required in civil war situations,
as is exemplified by the 1994 US-­led intervention to stop warlord violence and mass
starvation in Somalia. In a chaotic humanitarian situation, urgent relief work and other
immediate assistance are needed to contain and control explosive situations. A crisis-­driven
response to violent conflicts often includes not only military but also civilian components
such as provision of health care, prevention of widespread disease, and supply of food and
other basic necessities for refugees.
	 Coercive diplomacy may be effective in the restoration of order prior to the application
of mediation and other methods of bringing settlement. The intervention of West African
Economic Union forces cooled down chaotic fighting among rival factions in Liberia
between 1994 and 1996, eventually facilitating negotiations on the political transition. In
the Nigerian civil war in the mid-­1960s, intermediaries dispatched by the British government
and the secretariat of the British Commonwealth attempted to convince both the government
and Ibo rebel commanders to cease fighting.
	 Mitigating tension does not deal directly with the sources of deep divisions, but only
buries the crisis. As is illustrated by the Israeli occupation of the Golan Heights in Syria
since the Six Day War in 1966, contentious issues can be frozen to await future resolution
for a prolonged period. The principles and activities involved in management are different
from those of resolution.
Conflict management strategies
Strategies of conflict response are diverse, ranging from standing firm, negotiation, and disengagement,
to submission. These choices have implications for balancing the pursuit of
one’s interests and relationship management. Standing firm with principle may be necessary
to signal an adversary regarding a commitment to block excessive and unreasonable
demands. It is likely to serve as a communication means to let opponents know one’s own
uncompromising priorities beforehand to prevent an unnecessary test of will. Those who
have higher stakes in the issue are likely to take more confrontational strategies although
that can be moderated by an imbalance in power and weaker capabilities to confront an
adversary.
28   Anatomy of conflict resolution and management
	 The parties may have opposing objectives, but they can agree on the means to settle differences.
Principles on fairness in competition can be established in making decisions on
the distribution of goods and resources. In employment or other contract relationships,
reward systems can be accepted by regular bargaining. Excessive expectations can be contained
or controlled by the creation of a negotiation culture which supports collaboration
in search of acceptable options to all parties. Negotiated settlement becomes difficult if
­discussion about substantive issues translates into differences in principles, hence making
any concession appear like a defeat. When functional problems turn into matters of control
and power, it is more difficult to focus on the original concerns.
	 In cultural settings oriented toward collectivist values, avoidance and yielding are
common methods of nonconfrontational conflict management. In a culture where survival
traditionally depends on close cooperation among family and community members, the
overt expression of hostile feelings is regarded as a threat to the group unity. The suppression
of individual desires is highly valued in collaborative cultures oriented toward preserving
harmony. In most affectionate relationships, yielding can be based on sacrifice to
meet a close group member’s needs, as is the case with women in Africa who give up food
for their children in the case of starvation.
	 By conceding, one party accepts their loss in favor of the other’s gain, but it can be the
quickest way to contain, regulate, and end conflict by satisfying the demand of an adversary.
It is easier to give up part of one’s wants if the existence of multi-­faceted issues
­furnishes a substitute for the concession or lends priority to other issues. The availability of
alternative paths to satisfying one’s objectives reduces the necessity for a contentious
engagement. In a closely integrated relationship, yielding on one issue is not necessarily a
loss in the long run if a future reward is likely to come.
	 If relationship maintenance brings about overall benefits, either tangible or intangible
(for example, affection or prestige), conceding is more desirable than insisting on narrow
gains. Preventing damage to the existing relationships can be a main objective when beneficial
transactions exist. It is less costly to manage all the contentious issues within agreeable
boundaries. A party, which regards the relationship as more beneficial than the other,
is more likely to acquiesce. On the other hand, continuous submission is detrimental if the
other party takes advantage of goodwill, not valuing the importance of concessions, and
disregards the conceding party’s concerns or needs.
	 As a method of conflict management, the avoidance of contentious issues can take
various forms, ranging from the denial of existence of a problem to disengagement. Stepping
back from a conflict may be preferred under varying circumstances from a low stake
in the fight to little chance of achieving the goals and a dim hope for a solution (ascribed to
the complexity of the situation).
	 If the fighting is not worth risking full-­scale war, conflict can eventually subside by
withdrawing from contentious engagement. In cases where the risk of escalation is too
high, parties may be willing to scale down their demand and shy away from escalatory
tactics. In a series of wars in Kashmir, both India and Pakistan carefully avoided expanding
the armed confrontations to their main territories. In the 1998 Kagli conflict which
was the first incident after the possession of nuclear weapons by both sides, India chose
disengagement strategies not to escalate the conflict after repelling the Pakistani-­backed
incursions.
	 In the absence of perceived significance of the issues, diplomatic or military clashes can
remain a one-­time fiasco or episode which does not merit time or attention. The Colombian
army’s entry into Ecuador’s territory in spring 2008 produced uproar among Ecuador and
Managing intractable conflict   29
its allies in Latin America, but it ended without a serious escalation because of the
Colombian government’s apology. The preservation of the status quo can be the main
motivation behind the desire not to enlarge the scope of the fight, but it may work for a
short-­lived, minor conflict.
	 Even though too great a gap in substantive interests and needs as well as capacities (to
pursue them) may force any of the adversaries to give in, balanced outcomes can still be
sought by a creative use of avoidance and compromise. In the failure to attain integrative
solutions that permit both parties to obtain what they want, the identification of commonly
held principles or values can contribute to the establishment of the basis for fair decision
making. The rulings by the International Court of Justice may serve as a better venue for
a  conflict between states whose relationships are characterized by power or status
asymmetry.
	 Even in zero-­sum situations of competition, the relationships can be preserved if the
rules are considered agreeable and if the loser has a future opportunity to compete again for
the prize. Before emotions flare up, thus competing parties may agree to refer to an acceptable
set of values and principles as a basis for managing their conflicts. The decision-­
making rules may need to be occasionally reaffirmed or refined according to changing
circumstances.
	 The acceptance of mutually agreeable, established procedures to settle differences helps
avoid resistance against yielding to a person. The unfavorable decision made by a judge or
panel can be more easily swallowed when the process is institutionalized (in such situations
as trade disputes handled by the WTO). Indeed, deference to shared norms and
values saves one’s face, neutralizing emotional attachment to a win or loss.
Asymmetry in conflict styles
Trust-­based relationships can be further strengthened by the reciprocation of yielding. At
the same time, the strategies adopted by opposing parties can be imbalanced or diametrically
opposed. Even though one party wants to avoid conflict, the other party may choose
confrontational approaches by taking provocative actions to extract a response to their
demand. In other situations, one of the opponents seeks mutual accommodation, but the
other party may take an uncompromising position.
	 Most importantly, waging conflict takes a different path, depending on the extent of
asymmetry in issue salience as well as power differentials among parties. A weaker side
is likely to seek avoiding a major confrontation with a stronger opponent since the costs
of action are perceived greater than any possible returns. In response to Israeli air strikes
on a suspected nuclear laboratory in September 2007, Syria chose to limit its reaction only
to verbal condemnation owing to its clear military inferiority and the lack of a good
prospect to get compensation for the destroyed facilities. By forcing a weaker party to
abandon their objectives or give in, a stronger party may be able to maintain control and
domination.
	 On the other hand, issue salience may push even a subordinate party to organize protests
despite fear of torture, arrest, or other harm. In unfortunate circumstances such as Tibet
under Chinese occupation since 1950, very few choices exist for the marginalized party in
that ascent to an oppressive rule means the acceptance of the dominant party’s total control
over cultural and religious life as well as the deprivation of freedom and civic rights. In
such situations that gross injustice is inevitably embedded in an oppressive relationship, a
weaker party can be morally or politically supported by advocacy groups.
30   Anatomy of conflict resolution and management
Theories on decision making
Although a coherent body of knowledge on conflict has yet to emerge, diverse theoretical
perspectives have offered an explanation about the causes of violent behavior and its
control. The roots of social conflict are connected to the struggle for the imposition of a
hierarchical system and the denial of dignity through institutional control of religious,
social, and economic aspirations. A variety of theoretical explanation seems to be necessary
due to difficulties in capturing multiple dimensions of conflict behavior and attitudes
under one gigantic umbrella theory. As conflict is considered innate in human interactions,
research on conflict resolution should pay more attention to decision making in broad
social relationships.
Rationality and decision-­making behavior
In “rational choice” theory perspectives, optimal decisions satisfy a set of calculations
which serve cost–benefit analysis based on the principles of minimizing losses and maximizing
gains; therefore, weighing rewards and costs of various courses of action is guided
by the single criterion of self-­interest. The utilitarian principles are often either implicitly
or explicitly applied to decision making on initiating or ending a fight as well as negotiation
strategies. Israel could have directly invaded Gaza to stop rocket fire by Palestinian
militants, but given its expected heavy casualties, in June 2008, the Israeli government
chose to agree to relax the economic blockade of Gaza in return for the cessation of further
attacks originating from the Hamas-­controlled territory.
	 In “rationalist” thinking, the motivations for the termination of conflict are ascribed to
decreasing chances for gains through continued fighting and the availability of less costly
options of settlement. In order to recover the Sinai, the Egyptian President Anwar Saddat
decided to negotiate instead of preparing for yet another war after the American-sponsored
truce in October 1973. In a rational choice paradigm, thus, conflict behavior is adapted to a
changing balance between different interests embedded in continued fighting versus early settlement.
In zero-­sum situations, one’s gain is diametrically opposed to an adversary’s loss.
	 Negotiated settlement is aimed at converting a zero-­sum game situation into win–win
outcomes. By agreeing to return the Sinai occupied during the Six Day War, Israel was
able to enhance security since the deal eliminated any possible future attacks by an alliance
of Arabic states. Although Egypt became the first Arabic state which recognized Israel and
gave up some other territories, Cairo was able to reclaim a vital part of its territory without
shedding any blood.
	 In many real world situations, individual actors seek competitive strategies to maximize
short-­term, narrow self-­interests, but cooperative moves are often necessary to yield a better
long-­term outcome in a highly interdependent relationship. For instance, unregulated pollution
may increase one country’s economic competitiveness in international trade due to cheaper
production costs, but it eventually hurts the country’s own long-­term well-­being through the
negative effects of global warming. Thus multinational cooperation is essential to obtain public
goods (the prevention of climate change) by regulating each state’s polluting activities.
	 The rules of a game can create incentives and disincentives for certain behavior.
Because the outcome is in the hands of more than one player, structural features of the
game itself (manifested in gains and losses associated with different moves) are key concerns
in decision making. In considering that an adversary’s response changes the outcome
matrix of one’s choice of actions, as in a prisoner’s dilemma games, the expected utility is
Managing intractable conflict   31
closely related to the effects of each other’s strategic choices. The dramatic increase in
Chinese and Indian emissions of greenhouse gases can easily outstrip reduction in the
emission level of carbon dioxide by Western Europe. The overall reversal in global
warming trends cannot be achieved without collective actions which prevent a “free rider”
who wants to shoulder less than a fair share of costs needed to fix the problem.
	 One’s welfare can be increased only by cooperation with adversaries. As exemplified by
the arms race, one country’s attempt to maximize unilateral gains (military superiority)
would lead a rival state to do the same thing since unconditional cooperation (unilateral
disarmament) in this situation generates the worst outcome (insecurity). In the absence of
trust and agreement on coordinated actions, the most rational strategy is to persist with a
competitive strategy (an arms race) to avoid an undesirable result of unilateral disarmament.
Gains achieved by seeking exclusive self-­interests are only shortlived, since the other
party is most likely to reverse its own course of action even if they might have initially
taken a cooperative move.
	 The pursuit of self-­interest by each party yields an outcome that is far less attractive than
is produced by mutual cooperation. When achieving unilateral gains is a dominant strategy
for each player, mutual defection (competition for superior arms capabilities) produces a less
desirable outcome (decreased economic growth in combination with growth in destructive
military capabilities by an adversary) than joint cooperation (disarmament and devotion of
financial and technological capabilities to economic prosperity and social welfare).
	 The dilemma in a collective bargaining situation is that cooperation produces a better
outcome than competitive strategies, producing the greatest benefit for all. Yet competition
remains as a dominant strategy owing to a suspicion of an adversary’s motives (for unilateral
advantage at the expense of one’s loss). Given a lack of trust in most conflict situations,
a tit-­for-tat strategy has been presented as a solution to this dilemma with stress on
the norm of reciprocity. One party may start with a cooperative move on the basis of an
expectation of an opponent’s reciprocal action. In the event of defection by an adversary,
the party can quickly switch to a competitive game with a retaliatory move. However, once
the other party opts to choose a cooperative strategy, the party will forgive and return to a
reciprocal exchange of cooperation. In the end, cooperation can be institutionalized to
develop predictable patterns of transactions.
	 Despite its great heuristic (conceptual) value, the application of utilitarian perspectives
is often limited in managing adverse relationships. The outcome of conflict may not be
evaluated from universalistic assumptions about an individual actor’s calculations about
utility values if differences in psychological or other personal characteristics (such as emotional
arousals and willingness to take a higher risk for bigger political gains) play a more
important role in determining ultimate decisions. The decision-­making choices can also be
circumscribed by organizational constraints as well as the group psychology of a policy-­
making body. Internal divisions complicate the choice of actions by a group in that discussion
about the stakes in conflict is likely to involve power struggles reflecting different
factional interests. In addition, rational choice theories are more suitable for assessing
purely interest-­based bargaining structures than value-­based, multicultural conflict settings.
Cognitive and perceptual limitations
People do not always choose decisions on the basis of maximum interests. Prospect theory
suggests that most people can settle less with more certain outcomes than seeking higher
benefits that are less likely to be gained with more effort. Indeed, time pressure and
32   Anatomy of conflict resolution and management
complexity of data drive many decision makers to choose the most minimally acceptable
alternative (encountered first) as opposed to exhaustively gathering information in a search
for the maximum.
	 According to bounded rationality defined by Herbert Simon (1996), humans are not
being fully informed to make the most suitable decisions in many given situations due to
difficulties in the management of information overload. Individual cognitive functions are
programmed differently to process most information which we encounter. It is often the
context of an individual’s experience that orders perceptions according to preset belief
systems, theories, or images.
	 In many socio-­psychological theories of conflict behavior, perceived threats are attributed
to a lack of trust and misinterpretation of intentions. A high level of threat causes
stress to decision makers, producing cognitive biases. As is most clearly illustrated by the
Bush administration’s decision on going to war in Iraq, both the limited ability to consider
various options and the misrepresentation or distortion of data can be factors which contribute
to the initiation of a conflict. Collective misjudgment and risk-­taking behavior result
from a small group decision-­making environment which encourages a tendency to seek
conformity, prohibiting questions about each other’s reasoning and confidence in the
success of aggressive actions. In ethnic warfare in Bosnia-­Herzegovina and Rwanda, group
dynamics are affected by stereotyped images of enemies and the dehumanization of competing
out-­groups.
	 In general, psychological challenges to conflict resolution are, to a great extent, derived
from rigid perceptions and cognitive inflexibility. In fact, pessimistic attitudes toward the
cessation of a struggle produce perceptional limitation on any initiatives to bring about
conciliation along with a lack of knowledge about each other’s true intentions and necessities.
Sustainable peace might be difficult due to long-­held attitudes especially hardened
after the experience of atrocities. Exclusive values and ideological commitments put cognitive
limitations on the recognition of an adversary’s rights, needs, and interests. Orthodox
Jews are making historic, biblical claims to land with expanded settlement, while Hamas
denies the existing state of Israel that cannot be reversed. The dim prospect for a negotiated
settlement is ascribed to rigid belief systems deduced from a blind loyalty to a group and a
continued commitment to its extreme values.
Culture and social behavior
Resolving conflicts that include such dimensions as ethnic claims to territories and political
autonomy often requires negotiation of incompatible values beyond material interests. In
cross-­cultural perspectives, an overall process of conflict and its resolution is not separable
from complex systems of meaning that prescribe rules about mutual interaction, verbal
interpretation, and management of expectations. Most importantly, cultural norms provide
a point of reference for communication and acceptable patterns of behavior. Collective sentiments
are represented in a diverse set of understandings about the outside world.
	 The social world is fragmented into a multitude of cultural meanings which advocate
particular moral visions and knowledge bases. The articulation of issues and expectations
regarding desirable forms of agreement are heavily influenced by our understandings of the
self and the world. In conflict resolution, the mediation of different social worlds is derived
from the interpretation of alien cultures. Meanings attached to conflict by individuals and
groups are revealed through different concepts of social life which in turn affect behavioral
manifestations. In a Western dispute resolution model, the conceptions of a person
Managing intractable conflict   33
prescribe the control of emotion, measured behavior and logical calculations. To be successful
in interest-­based bargaining, we have to adopt rational narratives.
	 Recurring cultural patterns and underlying principles emerge from particular social settings
and institutions that facilitate the internalization of beliefs and attitudes about the
establishment of our relations with an external world. A cultural scheme of reference can
be utilized for understanding the identity and behavior of a social group. As people do not
share the same value judgments about each other’s behavior as well as assumptions about
conflict processes, interaction patterns between adversaries can be relegated to differences
in cultural norms about honor, respect, and trust (Faure, 2003). From the perspectives of
culture, conflict resolution is considered in terms of the unique patterns of relations embodied
in specific time and space.
	 Negotiation between North Korean and US government officials has been full of suspicion
and mistrust often associated with different interpretations of each other’s behavior. In
arguing over the responsibility for the collapse of the 1994 landmark agreement to freeze
Pyongyang’s nuclear programs, the Bush administration officials focused on a specific set
of issues (such as uranium enrichment programs). On the other hand, the North Koreans
accused Washington of a lack of commitment to improving bilateral relations which is, in
their view, essential to trust building that would in turn let them fully proceed to the abandonment
of their nuclear programs without a fear of future US attacks. Insulting words
(such as “tyrant” and “pygmy”) and other statements disparaging the North Korean leadership
by President Bush (such as “loathing” President Kim Jong-­Il as well as categorizing
North Korea as one of the “axes of evil”) were taken far more seriously in Pyongyang than
US government officials imagined. An extreme sense of humiliation, contempt, and insecurity
provoked the North Koreans to take highly provocative actions that culminated in the
testing of nuclear bombs in the fall of 2006, even further risking their isolation from the
outside world.
	 In a high-­context culture, the issues are not distinctively separated from the relationship
or person. It is contrasted with a low-­context culture which does regard the sources of contention
as separate from the protagonists (Avruch, 2002). In particular, conflict in industrial
societies is interpreted from an impersonal, instrumental, solution-­oriented stance, but
affective, relational, personal issues such as respect and shame are inevitably crucial in a
traditional culture which emphasizes communal links. Thus individualistic, low-­context
cultures shed light on competitive bargaining strategies without much consideration of the
implications for future relationships. The adoption of collaborative strategies is encouraged
in collectivistic, high-­context cultures that stress inclusion and association.
	 In many high-­context cultures, “face” is viewed as a psychological-­affective construct
closely connected to the notions of disgrace, honor, and obligation, along with its contribution
to the maintenance of mutual obligations of group members. Indeed, these relational qualities
“are reciprocal forces that serve to unite groups, police the boundaries, define who is included
or excluded, and enforce conformity” (Augsburger, 1992, p. 103). While “face” needs to be
respected, face saving can be manipulated in international conflicts for political gains.
	 China is known to aggressively defend its self-­image and skillfully uses face-­saving
devices to fend off foreign pressure to improve human rights conditions or demand
balanced trade. The Chinese government successfully convinced US policy makers that
pressure tactics would not encourage them, for instance, to deregulate their currency values
in an international market, effectively taking the issues off official negotiation agendas. In
authoritarian Asian countries, any foreign scrutiny of human rights violations has been
countered under the name of “Asian values” oriented toward a collective cultural context.
34   Anatomy of conflict resolution and management
This notion has been effectively challenged by former South Korean President and Nobel
laureate Kim Dae-­Jung who illustrated that there is no such thing as human rights abuses in
Asian values.
	 Face saving can be applied to the promotion of the reputation and values of one’s own
community, but paradoxically it can lead to ignorance of the collective interests of a larger
community. Japan is known for highly regarding social obligations, honor, and shame for a
wrongful deed and policing its own members’ behavior. For instance, when some Japanese
tourists scribbled on the Italian historic monuments, they were socially ostracized in their
own society, and the Japanese voluntarily offered Italy payment and other compensation
with their sincere apology. However, on the issues of whaling, the Japanese government
has been adamant about its violation of the international whaling ban and even attempted
to sabotage and derail the long-­established international policies. In spite of a widespread
international outcry and condemnation, the Japanese have defended their position on
whaling by referring to their “cultural tradition.”
The role of power in conflict process and outcome
Power relations as well as different psychological and cultural attributes play an important
role in a conflict process. In the paradigm of realpolitik one country’s ability to affect the
outcome of an international conflict is reflected in the parties’ power status vis-­à-vis their
opponent’s. In a relational context, power yields the capability to force another to act in
one’s own desires or wishes by changing the party’s future welfare conditions (Blalock,
1989). Thus power superiority puts one group in a position to either dictate or influence
another group’s behavior via the control of a reward or punishment system.
	 The impact of power distribution on a conflict outcome can be mitigated by a range of
political and psychological factors such as national unity, ideological commitment, morale,
etc. While there are quantitative indicators to measure the amount of power such as economic,
technological, and physical capabilities, these elements do not directly translate into
specific effects. Each party certainly has different capabilities to mobilize resources to
effectively resist a rival’s attempt to force their own way. In direct military clashes with
Israel, such antagonists as Hezbollah are likely to have more ability and determination to
provide sustained resistance than the standing armies of Syria.
	 In understanding contemporary political realities, some argue that power struggles
remain as the genesis of human conflict, since those dissatisfied with the status quo inevitably
challenge dominant group positions (Darhendorf, 1959). As represented by protracted
political battles in Lebanon for the last 18 months, political landscapes were redrawn by
the mobilization and counter-­mobilization of opposing groups in an organized campaign
for challenging and defending a political status quo. In Uzbekistan and Burma, the regime’s
willingness to shoot unarmed civilians protesting on the streets has silenced any voice of
opposition to the brutal dictatorships, but a highly oppressive state apparatus cannot be sustained
for ever, and will eventually have to come to an end.
	 The existence of power asymmetry seems to be ubiquitous in most contentious struggles,
ranging from labor strikes to competition for scarce water and land in Africa. Racial
and ethnic tension arises from the superimposition of power relations on major social
cleavages along with political and economic disparities. The power of a majority government
can be a source for social injustice when it suppresses minority group rights to survival.
The deconstruction of dominant power relations may come from the transformation
of social values and institutions which permit their justification.
Managing intractable conflict   35
Further reading
Boutros-­Ghali, B. (1995) Agenda for Peace, New York: United Nations.
Burton, J. W. (2001) “Conflict Prevention as a Political System,” International Journal of Peace
Studies, 6 (1): 23–32.
Byrne, S. (2001) “Consociational and Civic Society Approaches to Peacebuilding in Northern
Ireland,” Journal of Peace Research, 38 (3): 327–352.
Conteh-­Morgan, E. (2004) Collective Political Violence, New York: Routledge.
Franke, Volker (2006) “The Peacebuilding Dilemma: Civil–Military Cooperation in Stability Operations,”
International Journal of Peace Studies, 11 (2): 5–24.
Galtung, J. (2007) “Conflict Formation and Transformations: Deep Culture and Structure,” in C. P.
Webel and J. Galtung (eds) Handbook of Peace and Conflict Studies, New York: Routledge.
Lee, H. (2001) “Cultural Confrontation and Compromise: The Response of Non-­Western Societies to
Western Political Ideas,” International Journal of Peace Studies, 6 (2): 53–74.
Sandole, D. (1998) “A Comprehensive Mapping of Conflict and Conflict Resolution: A Three Pillar
Approach,” Peace and Conflict Studies, 5 (2): 1–30.
Singer, J. D. and Small, M. (1972) The Wages of War, 1816–1965: A Statistical Handbook, NJ: John
Wiley & Sons.