Between War and Peace: Frozen Conflicts in Eurasia (special issue of Asia Europe Journal, eds.) (original) (raw)
Between war and peace: a dynamic reconceptualization of “frozen conflicts” (Asia Europe Journal)
Asia Europe Journal , 2019
Frozen conflicts, situations in which war ended yet stable peace did not materialize, trouble both Asia and Europe. Despite the clear policy relevance of this problem, the notion of frozen conflicts remains surprisingly blurred in peace and conflict studies literature. In this paper, we seek to provide a rigorous conceptualization of frozen conflicts. We situate frozen conflicts into a broader debate about enduring rivalries in international politics and demonstrate the theoretical relevance of the term vis-à-vis existing concepts. Furthermore, we outline a theoretical model of frozen conflict dynamics, which portrays frozen conflicts as dynamic configurations undergoing a periodical “thawing” in relations between the opposing sides: either toward diplomatic negotiations (“peaceful thawing”) or re-escalation toward use of armed force (“violent thawing”). We illustrate the usefulness of our model with empirical observations from other articles in this special issue and conclude with possible avenues for further research.
Introduction: Beyond 'Frozen Conflict'
Armenia and Azerbaijan: Anatomy of a Rivalry, 2019
The Armenian-Azerbaijani conflict for control of the mountainous territory of Nagorny Karabakh is the longest-running dispute in post-Soviet Eurasia. This book looks beyond tabloid tropes of ‘frozen conflict’ or ‘Russian land-grab’, to unpack both unresolved territorial issues left over from the 1990s and the strategic rivalry that has built up around them since. Far from ‘frozen’, this book demonstrates how more than two decades of dynamic conceptions of territory, shifting power relations, international diffusion and unsuccessful mediation efforts have contributed to the resilience of this stubbornly unresolved dispute - one of the most intractable of our times.
FINDING A THEORETICAL APPROACH FOR STUDYING POST-SOVIET 'FROZEN' CONFLICTS
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RUSSIAN STUDIES, 2017
It is critical to understand the forces and phenomenon behind regional conflicts, inhibiting development of various regions around the world. This paper focuses on two regions South Caucasus and Eastern Europe that face unresolved conflicts which can also be termed as 'frozen' conflicts with an in depth look at four particular conflicts in the post-Soviet region i.e. Transnistria, Nagorno Karabakh, Abkazia and South Ossetia. The main aim of the paper is to identify the most suitable theoretical lens needed to look at these conflicts, from the various international political theories available. The paper compares three approaches that can provide a framework to understand these conflicts-structural realism, critical theory and liberalism but argues that these conflicts can be best understood under the realm of structural realism.
Transcending Multilateral Conflicts in Eurasia: Some Sustainable Peaceful Alternatives
In this article I argue that notwithstanding intermittent conflicts and wars among the nomadic and sedentary peoples since early times, the Asian and Middle Eastern region has been characteristic of relative peace and prosperity. This region has been known for the boom in energy trade, globalization and amalgamation of local, national and global economies during the post-Cold War era. I show how, at least in part, the gradual improvement in the indicators of social sustainability, human security and economic growth, was the natural concomitant of the historical position of this region. Yet, speedy progress in the region, this article shows, is impeded by divergent geo-political, geo-economic and geo-strategic agendas of the regional and global powers; these find manifestation in the conflicts in Middle East, Caucasia, Afghanistan, Indian Kashmir, Chinese part of Turkistan (Xinjiang) etc. The conflicts are diverse in nature, time and space, and are pre-emptive of enormous malice, hatred and heart burning among the contending parties. To downs-size one another, they perpetually build military capability and enhance defense expenditure, in hundreds of thousands of US dollars at the cost of public works, human security and precious national resources. I conclude that the conflicts can be overcome through peaceful means rather than use of force. Several alternatives are warranted for the purpose: (i) engagement of conflicting parties in composite 350
Journal of International Relations and Development, 2021
Albeit not ignored in the field of International Relations (IR), the local history of East-Central Europe has seldom been a primary subject of historical IR syntheses: the leading volumes on war and peace focus on decisions made and actions taken by great powers, viewing the region generally as their playground. Theoretical ideas of East-Central European political thinkers about the emergence of war and peace have also only rarely become part of the international discourse. This article highlights the potential of a more inclusive approach in improving the existing theories in security studies. Applying Benjamin Miller's concept and theory of state-to-nation balance (a central element of which is the compatibility between political boundaries and national identifications) to East-Central European political history, the article argues that focusing on the political and social history of the East-Central European region provides valuable lessons vis-à-vis the question of war-proneness of regions and states. Invoking the theoretical framework for peace-making in ethno-territorial conflicts developed by István Bibó, a Hungarian political thinker, the paper demonstrates how connecting the works of lesser known East-Central European academics with the established mainstream of IR could prove beneficial for the study of international politics in the region and further beyond.
The Corridors Proceedings Vol. I "Obstacles and Opportunities for Dialogue and Cooperation in Protracted Conflicts" (ISBN 978-3-945232-01-9) provides the reader with fresh research from young scholars and established researchers and practitioners. All of the papers offer a different perspective on the diverse set of obstacles and opportunities for dialogue and cooperation in protracted conflicts. Most importantly, the contributions add the local perspective to a debate that is dominated by Western scholars who sometimes lack in-depth knowledge of the different cases. This provides us with a more nuanced picture of the specific structures, elements, dynamics and consequences of protracted conflicts. Meanwhile, the authors also identified opportunities to (re-)establish dialogue and cooperation in respect of the conflict divide.
A brief intellectual history of international conflict management, 1990-2010
In this volume, the term 'the liberal peace' is understood as the dominant critical intellectual framework currently applied to post-Cold War policies and practices of postconflict intervention. However, as Heathershaw observes, its use within analysis has sometimes tended, misleadingly, to claim that the liberal peace has had only a singular logic or set of assumptions (2008a: 603), gradations of this logic notwithstanding. Both he and note that different ideas are at work in the movements between peacebuilding and statebuilding as modes of conflict management. This chapter gives an alternative historical overview of these developments and locates the academic critiques in the context of these changes, giving a sense in which academic critique and political practice have co-evolved. These shifts and expansions reflect something rather more complex, and perhaps more opaque, than a hardening or deepening of a liberal logic in interventionrather they reveal a reflexive anxiety about inadequacy of this logic to address seemingly intractable challenges of conflict, insecurity and underdevelopment. By tracking the recent evolution of these discourses and the critiques of the paradigm, this chapter sets the stage for the other contributions to the volume which interrogate and broaden empirically and conceptually the problem of 'the liberal peace'.
Conflict Resolution and Power Politics/ Global Conflict After the Cold War:Two Lectures
1996
Conflict resolution is a new field of study and practice that seeks to resolve serious social conflicts by assisting the conflicting parties to identify and solve the problems that generate violent or destructive behavior. At George Mason University's Institute for Conflict Analysis and Resolution, we are working to develop more penetrating, comprehensive, and useful theories of intergroup conflict and to test and improve them by acting as mediators or facilitators in a wide variety of conflict situations. Many other institutions, I am happy to report, are similarly engaged. There are now some 20 university-based centers specializing in conflict resolution in the United States, and perhaps 50 more worldwide. The University of Malta's new Institute for Peace and Conflict Studies is a welcome addition to this growing number. At ICAR, we focus primarily on internal or transnational conflicts of the sort that are sometimes called "intractable" or "deep-rooted," signifying that they resist resolution by ordinary military or political methods. During the past few years, my faculty colleagues and I, together with a number of our graduate students, have involved ourselves as consultants to the parties or facilitators in connection with violent racial, ethnic, religious, and class-based struggles both in the United States and abroad. What I have to say here grows out of these theory-building efforts and practical experiences. The relationship of conflict resolution to power politics is a subject that concerns us greatly both as scholars and as practitioners. Conflict Resolution, Management, and Settlement Let me begin with a distinction that may seem "academic" but has proved vital to our work. We are accustomed to distinguishing between the resolution, management, and settlement of conflicts. Conflict resolution attempts to get at the root causes of destructive conflict and to eliminate themif necessary, by altering the system that embodies or produces them. Conflict management aims at moderating or "civilizing" the effects of conflict without necessarily uprooting its causes. And conflict settlement interrupts hostilities for the time being without either identifying their underlying sources or creating a system of conflict management. 1 Using these definitions, it is easy to see that much of what is often called "conflict resolution" is really conflict settlement. Not long ago, for example, former U.S. president Jimmy Carter procured an agreement by which the generals then ruling Haiti agreed to leave the country in exchange for certain guarantees of personal and economic security. President Aristide, whom they had deposed, was then returned to office. That agreement represented a temporary settlement of the long-standing conflict between the Haitian military establishment and the social forces supporting it, and President Aristide and the social forces supporting him. Obviously, it did not resolve the underlying class struggle that for centuries has made Haiti a social and political battleground. Conflict resolution requires, above all, Two Lectures that all parties7 basic human needs be satisfied. Only when ways are found to satisfy the needs of all Haitians for identity, security, solidarity, justice, and development will we be I '1 able to speak of that conflict being resolved. The Haitian agreement is instructive for another reasonit teaches us something about the relationship between conflict settlement and political power. It seems clear that the generals would not have stepped down without the exercise of power by the United States, which took the form of political efforts to isolate Haiti, economic sanctions against the military regime, a naval blockade to interdict the shipment of military goods, and, finally, a threat by President Clinton to invade the country, if necessary, to restore President Aristide to office. The relationship between conflict settlement and coercion, as this example suggests, is intimate and direct. Conflicts can be settled temporarily by victory on the battlefield, credible threats to use force, or power-based negotiations. But they can be resolved only when their causes have been identified and eliminated. For this reason, the relationship between conflict resolution and power politics is problematic and complex.