Engaging in the Face of Non-Negotiability: From Resolution to Transformation (original) (raw)
Related papers
2020
Exciting and transformative changes are taking place in the field of peace and conflict work. By expanding current paradigmatic thinking, more holistic interpretations of peace, methods for transforming conflicts, and implications for peaceworkers are being introduced. However, contrary to its intent, much of peacework is still predominantly conflict-focused. This runs the risk of contributing to further imbalance in conflictive systems, and missing important opportunities for transformation. This thesis seeks to counterbalance that tendency by providing an alternative approach to conflict analysis. Drawing on the epistemological framework of transrational peace philosophy and its corresponding method of elicitive conflict transformation, and combining this with assumptions underlying solution-focused practice, the proposed approach encourages practitioners to make experiences of peace the primary point of focus. To this end it asks: How can elicitive conflict transformation and solution-focused practice be brought together to enrich the current practice of elicitive peacework in constructive and innovative ways? Based on cross-disciplinary, literature-based research, coupled with a personal exploratory case study, this thesis expands on current practices by contributing a peace-focused approach. Augmented by practical application, conclusions are drawn which support the idea that a peace- focused approach may lead to more constructive processes than what has historically been the result of the dominant, problem-focused approach.
Dilemmas and Trade-Offs in Peacemaking: A Framework for Navigating Difficult Decisions
Politics and Governance
This article focuses on the dilemmas and trade-offs that third parties face when mediating violent political conflicts. Should they ignore human rights violations because pushing the issue could jeopardize relationships with political actors who grant access for humanitarian aid? Will bringing moderates and hardliners together help the peace process or radicalize moderate actors? What should dialogue facilitators do when the act of identifying non-mainstream groups to be included into dialogue increases division and polarization? The activity of peacemaking is inherently characterized by such process and strategy dilemmas where two equally compulsory imperatives seem not to be attainable at the same time. The article proposes a framework to break out of either-or thinking in these situations. We argue that: 1) making oneself aware of how a decision is perceived, and 2) systematically exploring a set of different strategies for creating new unexpected options helps to ease these deci...
Mitigating violence by solving the commitment problem in post-conflict negotiations
Asian Journal of Comparative Politics, 2018
Why do some political groups choose to remain militant when they have the opportunity to transform into political parties or become members of state organs? By scrutinizing the power-sharing negotiations held before a country’s first election, this article argues that the group that leads the negotiations faces the challenge of accepting or declining the policy proposed by its counterpart who poses a threat of violence. Even if the counterpart proposes policy that is acceptable to the leading faction, fulfilling the commitment in regard to the political deal is another challenge for the leading faction. Such challenges often fail and consequently cause violence. In contrast, some counterparts can successfully transform themselves into non-violent political agencies regardless of whether they make compromises in policies or not. Third parties can play a vital role in avoiding violence by influencing actors’ decision-making or enhancing the leading faction’s ability to achieve its com...
Perspectives on Conflict Resolution
2019
I examine two paradigms that have informed the large and growing literature on conflict resolution. The first, the Believer paradigm, draws from liberal ideas and values, and argues that conflicts are best remedied by way of negotiation, democracy, and markets. The second, the Skeptic paradigm, draws from political realism, and argues that conflicts can be managed only through authority or allowing belligerents to fight to exhaustion. This examination reveals the contrasting—even contradictory—assumptions about the means by which conflict should be understood and remedied. The lack of consensus says that not only experts and practitioners do not sufficiently understand their subject matter but that they are unable to conceptualize complexity in ways that will produce peace.
Impact of non-conflict interventions on de-escalation of conflict and acceptance of negotiations
K4D Helpdesk Report 1130, 2022
There exists is a broad range of academic and grey literature that looks at non-conflict interventions and its impact on de-escalation of conflict and reduction of violence. There seems to be little in relation to the acceptance of negotiations. Of this literature there are a few studies of high quality, that demonstrate a clear connection between the intervention and reduction in violence or conflict. This report focuses on those studies and, in particular, those related to protracted conflict and involving local actors. The report aims to Identify literature which shows how non-conflict (eg. humanitarian, environmental) interventions have impacted on the de-escalation of conflict and acceptance of negotiations with focus on contexts of protracted, multi-actor conflicts and the role of local conflict actors. It entails a detailed summary of these studies, followed by an annotated bibliography of the studies.
What Does It Take to Stem and Transform Conflict?
Asian Perspective, 2018
Mel Gurtov's handbook for peacemakers distills and sums up a lifetime of analyzing international relations. A sinologist retired from research at the RAND Corporation and decades of college teaching, Gurtov lays out the obstacles to conflict resolution and outlines the most promising avenues toward conflict management between the United States and adversary states-China, Russia, North Korea, Iran, and Cuba. (Gurtov does not address relations between a status quo power and revisionist terrorists, drug lords, or criminal syndicates, which could be even more complicated than state-to-state conflicts.) But can reason and empathy reduce violence in relations between states? Mephistopheles warned the Lord that the pathetic humans He created call it "reason but use it only to act more beastly than any beast."1 Against this dark perspective, Gurtov makes the case that enlightened pursuit of mutual advantage can reduce interstate tensions and then transform confrontation into cooperation and mutual gain. How valid is his hope? Cases of armed conflict and numbers of battle deaths have diminished since the end of World War II (Pinker 2018, 155-166). Still, there has been a cascade of violence across South Asia, the
Policy Insights from the Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 2014
Resolving intergroup conflicts is one of humanity’s most important challenges. Social psychologists join this endeavor, not only to understand the psychological foundations of intergroup conflicts but also to suggest interventions that aim to resolve conflicts peacefully. The present article begins by describing a specific type of conflict, namely, an intractable conflict that has distinguishing characteristics. One characteristic that fuels its intractability is the presence of socio-psychological barriers. These barriers result in one-sided information processing that obstructs the penetration of new information to promote peace: Members of a society immersed in an intractable conflict are frozen in their conflict-supporting societal beliefs. The most challenging question is how to unfreeze these beliefs, to overcome these barriers. Various interventions have been designed to promote intergroup peace, within a new taxonomy specifying the nature and goals of the interventions. Peac...