Defining Conflict

Conflict is a complex phenomenon and can be better analyzed by looking at its three components:

Conflict situation

Conflict behavior

Conflict attitudes and perceptions

At its core, conflict is the dynamic element of a situation in which two or more parties perceive that
they have incompatible values, interests and/or goals. Conflict situations involve relationships
between parties concerning their perceptions and misperceptions, their shared and separate
values and their goals and motivations1. Conflict takes place within the political, social, economic
and institutional domains of those relationships. Conflict is endemic to healthy, evolving societies. A
central element in the cycle of conflict is a societys institutional capacity to settle incompatibilities
peacefully through regulating mechanisms such as courts or clan structures. Conflict persists and
may degenerate into violence and armed confrontation in the absence of such coordinating and
mediating mechanisms.
The conflict situation has four main components:

Parties

Issues

Goals

Context

Conflict Parties
Conflict requires the presence of at least two parties with incompatible needs, values, interests
and/or goals. Parties to a conflict often assume different roles because there are variations in their
level of involvement:

Primary parties have a direct interest in a conflict and actively pursue strategies designed
to promote their interests.

Secondary parties have a stake in the outcome of an event but may or may not perceive
that there is a conflict and may or may not decide to play an active role or be represented
in any decisionmaking process. Secondary parties may play a key role in facilitating,
spoiling or enforcing an agreement.

Third parties or intermediaries generally intervene to help facilitate the resolution of conflict
and to help improve the relationship between the parties. They may be impartial and have
no stake in any particular outcome, or they may take a side but are viewed as legitimate
facilitators by the primary and secondary parties.
United Nations Mission in Sudan.
(Image Source: United Nations Mission in Sudan.
UNMIS in Pictures. December 27, 2005.
http://www.unmis.org/english/events.htm)

Conflict Issues
Conflict issues are what the parties are concerned about, the source of perceived incompatibilities.
They can be broken into four categories:

Resources and how they are distributed. Resources are tangible goods and include:
Territory
Money
Sources of energy such as oil, natural gas or wood
Food
Other commodities such as timber, agricultural goods and metals destined for trade on
the international marked rather than personal consumption.

Power The allocation of and participation in the political decision making process.

Identity The cultural, linguistic, social or ethnic characteristics of peoples.

Values Core beliefs, especially as enshrined in systems of government, religion or

ideology.

Values emerge as a culturally specific expression of needs, ...

Incompatibilities
Incompatibilities can be seen in objective conditions or changes, for example in lower standards
of living, demographic changes or population movements, changes in technology, or dwindling
natural resources. Incompatibilities may also arise as a result of perceived conditions or
changes, independent of whether they have actually occurred.
At the same time, incompatibilities may not be perceived at all, even if they exist. Such a situation
is called latent conflict. When at least one of the parties becomes aware of the incompatibilities
and takes measures to act upon them the conflict becomes manifest.
Goals
Goals can be defined as consciously desired future outcomes, conditions, or end states. If issues
are what the conflict is about, goals are what the parties to the conflict want. In many conflict
situations, the distinction between goals and issues is not clear. Misperceptions about goals can
lead to misperceptions about the issues involved in the conflict. In Iraq, for example, many fear
that the ultimate goal of the Shiites is the establishment of an Islamic state. This assessment
would lead to the conclusion that the conflict is about values. If, however, the goal of the Shiite
leadership is to assure the representation of Shiite interests in any future political arrangement in
Iraq, then the conflict is about power in the decisionmaking process.
Parties frame their goals in two basic ways, positively and negatively:

Positive goals reflect tangible future outcomes, such as secure borders or an

independent state.

Negative goals reflect a desire to avoid an unwanted outcome, such as blocking a countrys
admittance into a treaty organization, or not wanting to admit refugees.

Conflict Context
The context of a conflict encompasses the political, social, economic and institutional dynamics
within which it takes place, including those at the regional and international levels. The context also
includes culture. Culture becomes especially important when the parties to the conflict exhibit
strong cultural differences.

Culture can be understood as a system ...

Parties to a conflict are guided by their own culturally created system of meaning to: (1) interpret
what is happening in a situation; (2) decipher their own and others behaviors; (3) understand all
the communication that is exchanged between their group and the others. When parties to a
conflict have been shaped by different cultures, there may be substantial variations in their
interpretation of the meaning of the behavior of others. These variations can spark conflict, they
can also lead to misunderstandings and prevent the clear communication that is necessary in
conflict resolution processes.
An Iraqi policeman with an election pamphlet for the Shiite list
United Iraqi Alliance with a picture of prominent Shiite cleric
Grand Ayatollah Ali alSistani on his chest in Baghdad, Iraq,
Tuesday Dec. 13, 2005.
(Image Source: NewsVantage. December 27, 2005.
http://www.newsvantage.com/perl/p/wed/aa/Ayb86662462.RuHp
_FNC.html?day=Tue&yqy&g=news.front_page)

Burton, J. (1991). Conflict Resolution as a Political System. The Psychodynamics of International Relationships. V. D.
Volkan, J. V. Montville and D. A. Julius. Lexington, MA, Lexington Books. Vol. II: Unofficial Diplomacy at Work: 7192.

Conflict Behavior
Conflict can be good (functional) or bad (dysfunctional) depending on the nature and degree of
incompatibility as well as the way in which conflict is handled.2
Conflict is a process in which parties, independently or together, deploy ways and means to deal
with their incompatibilities. These ways and means can be broadly summarized as conflict behavior.
Conflict behavior is based on a partys perception of the problem at hand, on desired outcome(s)
and on the action(s) taken by other parties to the conflict. Conflict behavior can take the following
five forms3:

Contending occurs when one party seeks to achieve its goals without regard to the other
partys interests, usually by getting the other party to yield. The tactics employed are
often coercive and can include making threats, taking preemptive actions and imposing
penalties or sanctions that will be withdrawn if the other concedes.

Yielding occurs when one party concedes to another party, usually after aspirations have
been lowered. Sometimes yielding is used to buy time while a party develops a new
strategy. At other times, it involves only a partial concession, as other interests have been
met.

Withdrawal and Inaction are similar behaviors because both involve sidestepping the
conflict without settling the issues that gave rise to it. Withdrawal refers to a permanent
situation. Inaction is often a temporary move, usually with the intention of gaining time to
develop a stronger position.

ProblemSolving involves identifying the issues in contention, with the goal of developing
and implementing a solution that is acceptable to all the primary parties. Ideally, neither
party has to lower its aspirations because the solution reconciles the parties previously
incompatible goals.

Problemsolving workshop in Sudan.

The strategies chosen are linked to the quality

of the relationship between the parties. If their
relationship is mutually valued, parties are less
likely to engage in contentious or coercive
strategies. Problemsolving approaches tend to
foster betterrooted relationships because they
build a strong basis for positive postconflict
interaction: parties are less likely to feel bitter or humiliated and the source of their conflict has
been addressed. In addition, they now have experience working together on difficult issues and
may have enhanced feelings of mutual trust.

2
3

Robbins, S. P. (1998). Organizational Behavior. New Jersey, Prentice Hall.

Pruitt, D. and J. Z. Rubin (1986). Social Conflict Escalation, Stalemate and Settlement. New York, Random House.

Conflict Attitudes and Perceptions

While perceptions and emotions are individually developed and controlled, it is common for
members of a group to share similar attitudes and psychological responses to their adversaries.
These responses often lock a group into conflict because their perceptions of the other group are
clouded by overlays of fear and suspicion, emotions that can form a barrier to working through the
conflict. In situations of conflict the parties involved inevitably develop some problematic attitudes
towards their adversaries. Attitudes and perceptions may take the following forms 4:

Emotions. It is common for parties locked in conflict to experience feelings of fear, anger,
distrust, resentment, scorn, envy and suspicion about the intentions of the other.

Cognitive Processes shape and maintain perceptions about both ones own group and the
adversary in conflict situations and can include the following:
o Groups often develop blanket stereotypes about their opponent. Through a process
known ascognitive dissonance5, parties screen out all information about
adversaries that does not fit with their preexisting collective image/idea of the
opponent.
o Bolstering is a process that involves seeking out evidence to support ones own
position and actions, while denying evidence that gives legitimacy to the others
concerns.

Enemy Images. Parties often assume that their adversaries are and will always be their
enemies. Despite assumptions to the contrary, enemies are not born but are constructed
out of the conflict situation and subsequently generated psychological dynamics 6. The
following psychological phenomena are often at work:
o Transference or displacement occurs when a group has been frustrated by another,
usually more powerful, group that cannot be directly confronted. Because the
primary group is inaccessible, feelings of hostility and aggression are directed at a
third group.
o Enemies are dehumanized when members of one party depict members of the
opponent group as not fully human or even as inhuman 7. This mechanism is often
stimulated by propaganda during mobilization for war. If the enemy is seen as not
fully human, then it is psychologically easier to suspend moral sanctions, present
in virtually every culture, against senseless destruction.

Poster at Iranian protest march.

The Rwandan station Radio Television des Milles Collines sought to demonize and
dehumanize Tutsis. The station created the impression that killing Tutsis was not akin to
killing other humans, thus making the act somehow more acceptable. RTLM referred to
Tutsis as inyenzi, meaning cockroaches and tried to spread the myth that Tutsis were
inhuman in their thirst for blood, urging listeners to understand that the cruelty of the
inyenzi is incurable, the cruelty of the inyenzi can be cured only by their total extermination.

In situations of protracted conflict, a dynamic of systemized

victimhood can develop. This dynamic occurs when the basic
identity of a party has been shaped by its historic experiences of traumatic violations by others,
creating a pervasive sense of victimhood8. The three main components of systemized victimhood
are:

a history of violent, traumatic aggression and losssuch as past experiences of genocide;

a conviction that such aggression was unjustified by any standard;

an often unstated fear on the part of the victim group that the aggressor will strike again,
when feasible, in the future.

Even though conflict is a universal phenomenon, it does not follow that violence is equally
universal. However, some researchers argue that without the proper intervention mechanisms,
such as domestic courts, international organizations or clan structures, social conflicts have the
propensity to gravitate towards violence.

Mitchell, C. R. (1981). The structure of international conflict. London, McMillan.

Festinger, L. (1957). A theory of cognitive dissonance. Stanford, Stanford University Press.
6
Stein, J. G. (1996). Image, Identity and Conflict Resolution. Managing Global Chaos: Sources of and Responses to
International Conflict. C. A. Crocker, F. O. Hampson and P. Aall. Washington DC, US Institute for Peace Press: 93111.
7
Opotow, S. (2000). Aggression and Violence. The Handbook of Conflict Resolution: Theory and Practice. M. Deutsch
and P. T. Coleman. San Francisco, JosseyBass: 403427.
8
Montville, J. V. (1990). The Psychological Roots of Ethnic and Sectarian Terrorism. The Psychodynamics of
International Relationships. J. V. Montville, V. D. Volkan and D. A. Julius. Lexington, Lexington Books. Vol. I.
5

Conflict and Violence

Violence is conceptually very different from conflict, though the two are linked.
The World Health Organization defines:
Violence
... the intentional use of physical force or power, threatened or actual, against oneself,
another person or against a group or community, that either results in or has a high
likelihood of resulting in injury, death, psychological harm, maldevelopment or
deprivation.9

The use of direct violence is a contending behavior to deal with incompatibilities. In this sense, it is
a tactical means of attaining ones goals and is sometimes called instrumental aggression 10. The
decision to use direct violence may have two purposes:

overpower and physically eliminate the other party; at its most extreme end, this leads to
genocide and is often motivated by ethnoreligious rivalries. Hitlers plan to exterminate
the Jewish people and the genocides in Rwanda and Bosnia are examples of this use of
violence in armed conflicts. The Global War on Terrorism (GWOT) may also be viewed as
an effort to eliminate terrorism and terrorists.

influence the other partys behavior and choices. Terrorists and insurgents in Iraq use
various forms of violence including suicide bombings and targeted killings to force a
change in U.S. policy, i.e. make the U.S. withdraw its forces.

When violence is exhibited at the group/community/state level, we often use such terms as violent
conflict, armed conflict, war, high intensity conflict and low intensity conflict. Many
definitions of armed conflict in international relations contain threshold levels of violence measured
by the number of deaths suffered either by the armed forces or the population (or both) 11. Even
though the threshold levels vary, sometimes considerably, as do the terms associated with them,
they illustrate the link between conflict and violence.
The following violence road map provides an overview of different acts of direct physical violence
categorized by their primary motivation12. The nature of todays armed conflicts makes all
categories relevant for conflict managers. The increasing importance of war economies, terrorism,
ethnic cleansing and rape as forms of coercion demonstrate the complexity of war as a system of
violence operating at multiple levels.
An Iraqi insurgent appears in a video displaying three
abduction victims, Italian humanitarian aid workers.
(Image Source: Socialist Unity Network. Iraqs Kidnapping
Horror. December 29, 2005.
http://www.socialistunitynetwork.co.uk/news/iraq3.htm)

Members of the Afghan security forces and foreign

peacekeepers with the wreckage of a car destroyed when a
suicide bomber detonated explosives near two Norwegian
peacekeeping vehicles in the Afghan capital Kabul
December 16, 2005.
(Image Source: Alertnet. Suicide Bomber dies in Attack on
Kabul peacekeepers. December 29, 2005.

http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/SP340993.htm)

(adapted from Moser and McIlwaine 2004)

With increasing levels of violence, conflict behavior tends to
become more contentious and negative conflict attitudes become
more engrained in the cognitive processes of the parties. If high
levels of violence persist over time conflict behaviors and attitudes
become driving factors of the conflict in their own right, adding to
the intractability of the conflict.

Rwandas has a history of genocide that goes back

40 years. The Belgians considered the Tutsis as
superior to the Hutus. Not surprisingly, the Tutsis
welcomed this idea and as a result they enjoyed
better jobs and educational opportunities than their
Hutu neighbors. Resentment among the Hutus
gradually built up, culminating in a series of riots in
1959. More than 20,000 Tutsis were killed and
many more fled to the neighboring countries of
Burundi, Tanzania and Uganda. When Belgium
relinquished power and granted Rwanda
independence in 1962, the Hutus took their place.
Over subsequent decades, the Tutsis were portrayed as the scapegoats for every crisis it was
during this time that the term cockroaches for Tutsi was coined. These enemy images, violent
oppression of Tutsis and previous genocide played and important role in the events and actions that
led to the genocide in 1994. Together, they still form one of the primary obstacles for durable
peace.
Peace researcher Johan Galtung argues that direct violence is too narrow a definition for violence
and proposes two addition categories of violence that do not rely on the use of physical force but
are important when analyzing conflicts and transforming relationships 13:

Structural violence occurs where the actions of governments or society as a whole

negatively affect the human rights of certain segments of the population. Such violence is
entrenched in the social fabric, political economy and the governmental structure of a
society. Structural violence is observable at the societal level in the form of systematic
shortfalls in the quality of life of certain groups of people. Structural violence can be
manifested in the following domains:
o Political: depriving people of freedom and political rights.
o Economic: depriving people of basic needs for food, clothing, medicine and access
to the economic system.
o Cultural: depriving people of their cultural identity by repressing their cultural
expressions in public and private life.

Cultural violence, sometimes also referred to as institutional violence, is the

legitimization, or delegitimization, of the use of direct and structural violence by shaping
the norms and values that guide such actions. Leaders in conflict situations seek to justify
their own actions, while at the same time trying to cast their opponents actions as
illegitimate or unjustified.

World Health Organization (2002). World Report on Violence and Health. E. G. Krug, L. L. Dahlberg, J. A. Mercy, A. B.
Zwi and R. Lozano. Geneva.
10
Fishbach, S. (1971). Dynamics and Morality of Violence and Aggression: some psychological considerations. The
American Psychologist 26(3): 28192.
11
Conflict Dataset Catalog, Department for Peace and Conflict Research, Uppsala University (2004).
12
Moser, C. and C. McIlwaine (2004). Encounters with violence in Latin America: Urban poor perceptions from
Colombia and Guatemala. London, Routledge.
13
Galtung, J. (1969). Violence, Peace and Peace Research. Journal for Peace Research 6(3): 167191. See also
Galtung, J. (2002).

Peace and Conflict

There is no consensus on a conceptually clear definition of peace to guide the work of conflict
managers14. The following short overview looks at the most important elements and concepts of
peace relevant for conflict management.

Negative definitions of peace

Traditionally, peace has been defined negatively: peace is the absence of violence. In most cases,
these definitions refer to the notion of direct violence. Over the past 30 years, the concept of
peace, however, has evolved beyond the absence of direct violence towards the absence and
rejection of all levels of violence, including its cultural and structural varieties.
Galtung has related the various forms of violence to the concepts of negative peace and positive
peace15:

Negative peace is a situation where direct violence is absent 16. This is the case for
example in Cyprus, where direct violence between Greek Cypriots and Turkish Cypriots has
subsided, but the underlying issue about the future of the island remains at the heart of
the conflict.

Positive peace is achieved through the absence of structural, cultural as well as direct
violence. Mozambique is often cited as a successful case of a country that is well under
way to achieve positive peace. After years of civil war, the country has gone through a
process of national reconciliation, established a multiparty system and achieved economic
growth as well as a sense of national cohesion.

One can also find the terms cold peace and warm peace as equivalents of negative and positive
peace, respectively, in the peace and conflict literature. 17
Positive definitions of peace
Attempts to describe peace as what it is, rather than what it is not, include definitions of peace as

a situation of harmony, concord, unity, tranquility. This conception of peace is heavily

influenced by nonWestern philosophies. In Chinese, for example, there is no single word
for peace. It is expressed by joining two symbols: harmony and balance. 14

an agreement or a pact structuring relationships. Based on the English legal tradition, there
is also a strong emphasis on the proposition that peace flows from contractual relations.
As a result, peace is seen as a relationship among people based on a common
understanding or agreement15. This notion has direct relevance for the peace processes in
conflict situations as peace agreements restructure and reestablish relationships among
conflict parties along mutually accepted lines.

an experience shared by the affected people as a whole. Peace is a collective rather than
individual reality and as a result there are strong subjective elements in what groups of
people perceive as peace. In order to gain a fuller understanding of this phenomenon, one
must talk to the affected people and discover what they define as peace.

a process through which political, social, economic and social goods are distributed.

Peace and justice

The subjective nature of peace is also expressed in the debate about the relationship between
peace and justice:

Peace as a process is concerned with (re)distributing political, economic and social goods
in a manner acceptable by all parties.

Peace as a relationship deals with mending social fissures after violence and establishing
justice for wrongful actions in a legal sense.

Peace as a harmonious condition is concerned with social justice.

If peace is to be achieved, one needs to be aware of what justice means to the affected
communities. One commentator argues that:

In the end, justice is no more than the legitimacy of the social order. If people regard the
constraints under which they live as just, then they must be considered so and peace will
prevail.16
Peace then is not just the absence of war or violent conflict, but
the establishment of a just social order as well. The following
graph puts conflict, violence, peace and justice on the following
continuum.18

14
15
16
17
18

Anderson (2004) op. cit.

idem
Fogerty, B. (1992). Peace and Justice: Towards a Culture Neutral View. Peace & Change 17(3):267285. p. 279.
Fisher, S. (2004). Spirited living: Waging conflict, Building peace. London, Quaker Books.
Gugel, G. (2003). Seminar Gewaltprvention.

Summary
Conflict is defined as a situation in which two or more parties perceive that they have incompatible
needs, values, interests and/or goals. We then looked at the components of the conflict situation
and reviewed how parties may behave in situations of conflict: contending, yielding,
withdrawal/inaction and problem solving conflict behaviors. The section on Conflict Attitudes and
Perceptions was devoted to analyzing psychological factors shaping conflict behavior such as
stereotyping, bolstering, the creation of enemy images, dehumanization and feelings of
victimhood.
The lesson identified three levels of violence that relate to conflict: direct violence, structural
violence and institutional violence. We presented in a table the manifestations of violence that are
likely present in political, institutional and socioeconomic contexts and related conflict and
violence to a comprehensive notion of peace that includes not only the absence of direct violence
but the presence of integrative institutions that allow all citizens to participate equally in public life,
provide equal protection under the rule of law and are accepted under a common notion of justice.

The Causes of Armed Conflict

The majority of research on the causes of armed conflict has focused on interstate conflict even
though their number has declined dramatically since the end of World War II. During this period
intrastate conflicts have become increasingly common and today outnumber interstate wars by a
large margin. The literature on the causes of intrastate conflict has made significant advances
since the end of the ColdWar.
There are very few necessary causes of armed conflict and many sufficient conditions. Accordingly,
it makes sense to distinguish between underlying and proximate causes of armed conflict.

Underlying causes of armed conflict are the fundamental lines of political, economic or
national cleavage, ... found at the level of the group, rather than the individual 1. They
relate to the characteristics of the political, economic and social structure of the state or
the international system. Underlying causes of armed conflict explain why some states or
regions are more susceptible to armed conflict than others. They are sometimes referred
to as permissive causes or background causes.

Proximate causes of armed conflict are also called conflict triggers. Triggers are events and
actions that explain why an armed conflict erupts at a particular time. While underling
causes tend to develop over long periods of time, triggers are characterized by their short
term impact they cause changes in the conflict situation in a single act.

In general, the body of research on explaining why wars occur can be divided into three categories:
theories that locate the causes of armed conflict at the level of the system, the state and the
individual.2

System: war occurs as a result of events and conditions that are related to the
international system.

State/Society: the causes of war can be found in the structure of a states political,
economic and/or social system.

Individual: armed conflict is the result of individual behavior and processes.

Underlying causes of armed conflict are normally associated with system and state characteristics,
while triggers are more often attributed to the behavior of individuals. However, fast and significant
changes in the international system, such as changes in commodity prices, or at the state level,
such as a drought, may constitute triggers as well.

Dessler, D. (1994). How to sort causes in the study of environmental change and violent conflict. Environment,
Poverty, Conflict. N. Graege and D. Smith. Oslo, International Peace Research Institute.
2
Levy, J. S. (2001). Theories of Interstate and Intrastate War. Turbulent Peace: The Challenge of Managing
International Conflict. C. A. Crocker, F. O. Hampson and P. Aall. Washington D.C., USIP Press: 327.

Systemic Level Causes of Conflict

Anarchy and Power
Neorealism, a dominant international relations theory in the second half of the 20 th century,
underscores the importance of selfhelp by states and the consequent drive to maintain or increase
power and security in a system devoid of laws or other instruments capable of constraining the
actions of other states. The anarchic nature of the system compels states to maintain or increase
their power because they fear domination by others. States build up their armies and engage in
alliances in order to deter an attack by others. This defensive posture, however, can be interpreted
as a threat by other states, leading to compensatory measures and an ensuing arms race. This is
the origin of what has been characterized as the security dilemma.
The relationship between the distribution of power and the inclination of states to go to war has
given rise to two theories within the neorealist paradigm:
1. According to the balanceof power theory, war is most likely where large differences in
power exist. States form alliances and build up armies to minimize power disparities
especially with regard to those states that threaten to achieve a hegemonic position. Wars
occur either because a more powerful state prevents the formation of a countering alliance
or because the deterrence provided by such an alliance fails.
2. Powertransition theory, in contrast, maintains that war is most likely when states possess
equal capacities3. Hegemony by one state is a normal condition in the international
system. In order to protect and advance their interests, hegemonic states establish a set
of political and economic institutions and norms, which enhance the stability of the
international system. Due to growth differentials among states and eventual overextension
of the hegemonic state, challengers will rise over time and threaten the position of the
leader. War is most likely, when a challenger has developed enough power to overcome
the hegemonic state.
Resource Scarcity and Population Growth
Rapid population growth and urbanization, coupled with resource scarcity, i.e. the lack of food or
wood, resource degradation, i.e. deforestation or desertification, and the territorial concentration of
resources, i.e. goods that are only available at certain locations (oil, grain fields) lead to
competition over those very resources. This systemic problem generates famines, social and
economic problems and political instability4. As a result, there can be armed conflicts over scarce

resources, i.e., one state or subnational group attacks another to gain access to economic
resources.
A boy works in a diamond mine under the control of the
Revolutionary United Front (RUF) rebels in Sierra Leone.

The conflicts in Sierra Leone and Liberia have both been linked to
the control and trade of resources. Liberian armed factions fought to gain hegemony over trade in
diamonds, timber, rubber and coffee. Sierra Leone has suffered the same problem, compounded by
the fact that it possesses much larger and richer deposits of diamonds. Diamonds and other
resources traded in a free market system have provided income for states and rebels alike. Liberia
has supported the Revolutionary United Front in Sierra Leone with weapons in exchange for
diamonds, which were then sold on the international market.
Weapons proliferation and technology innovations
Research on weapons proliferation, technological innovation and the likelihood of war is not
conclusive. However, the Global War on Terrorism, the invasion of Iraq as well as the potential
nuclear capabilities of Iran and North Korea indicate that weapons proliferation of the nuclear,
chemical and biological type may increase the chances for armed conflict. The argument made by
the U.S. before the United Nations Security Council regarding the necessity for armed intervention
in Iraq explicitly referred to the link between terrorism and weapons of mass destruction. The
possibility of Saddam Hussein passing on nuclear material and technology to al Qaeda, according to
the argument, warranted a preemptive military campaign.
Nuclear proliferation among states as of 2005.
(Image Source: CNN, North Korea Nuclear
Tension. December 20, 2005.

http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2005/north.korea/)

3
4

Gilpin, R. (1981). War and change in world politics. Cambridge; New York, Cambridge University Press.
Kennedy, P. M. (1993). Preparing for the twentyfirst century. New York, Random House.

Society and State Level Causes of Armed Conflict

Underlying causes of armed conflict at the state or societal level can be divided into four
categories:
1. Structural factors

2. Economic/Social factors
3. Political factors
4. Cultural factors
Structural Factors
Weak, failed or failing states lack a central authority that is able to control its territory. Such states
are often the result of the dismantling of colonial empires. Many of these states lack sensible
borders, inherited inadequate political institutions and lack legitimacy. Some states become weak
and subsequently fail to assume their role in protecting their territorial integrity and monopoly on
the use of force.
The absence of strong state structures leaves space for competing political and economic interests,
including warlords and transnational criminal networks. Without the possibility of state intervention,
regional leaders may establish de facto control over parts of a state. Criminal enterprises, drugs
and arms trade thrive. Weak states are of rising concern because terrorists may operate, train,
recruit and plan attacks there without interference.

Somalia is portrayed as being the failed state ...

Ethnic geography, the way ethnic groups are distributed within or across borders, has an impact on
the likelihood of conflict and on the issues that the conflict is about:

Ethnically homogenous states are less prone to war than multiethnic societies. However,
the former are not immune to armed conflict, as Somalia has shown.

Multiethnic societies, where ethnic groups live in separate regions of the state are likely to
experience armed conflicts over issues of secession. The conflict in Sri Lanka between the
government and the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE) is about the secession and
independence of the Tamil region in the Northeast of the island.

In states where ethnic groups are intermingled, conflicts are more likely to be about values
and identities. Because each group will seek to establish control over contiguous territory,
attacks on civilians, ethnic cleansing and genocide are more likely as well. This was the
case in former Yugoslavia.

In regions where decolonization has led to artificial borders that ignore and divide ethnic
communities, an armed conflict involving ethnic groups in one country may spread across
borders.
Ethnic map of Yugoslavia in 1990.
(Image Source: National Geographic Vol. 178, No.2, August 1990,
p. 105. December 13, 2005.
http://www.srpska-mreza.com/library/facts/map-NatGeogr1990.jpg)

Ethnic map of Sri Lanka.

(Image Source: University of Texas at Austin, PerryCastaneda
Library Map Collection. December 27, 2005.
http://www.lib.utexas.edu/maps/islands_oceans_poles/
sri_lanka_charts_76.jpg)

Security Dilemma. The security dilemma suffered by states at the international level can also be
experienced by subnational groups in cases where the state is weak or failed, or where empires
break up. Subnational groups take independent security measures because the state is no longer
able to provide security or may even be the source of insecurity. Other groups may see a threat in
this defensive posture and take similar measures to bolster their security, leading to a spiral that
can quickly lead to armed conflict.
Transitional States. States that undergo transitions towards democracy and free market
economies are found to be especially vulnerable to conflict.

Transitions from planned to market economies, are almost always accompanied by some
economic shock, leaving some people worse off than before. International financial
institutions that support economic transitions often demand cuts in state assisted health
care, welfare and subsidies for certain industries. As a result, the safety net for those who
are unemployed or become unemployed disappears, which adds to the discontent about
the economic situation.5

Democratization brings new social groups with sometimes very different interests into the
political process, which causes a shift in the power distribution among subnational
groups. In multiethnic societies where one ethnic group has dominated others, the newly
found power may lead the formerly oppressed to seek revenge. In cases of parallel
economic turmoil, elites competing for popular support may blame other ethnic groups for
the problems, a phenomenon known as scapegoating.

Political factors
Discriminatory political institutions. In many states that experience internal armed conflict, the
causes can be traced back to discriminatory access to the political institutions of the government
where certain groups of people are inadequately represented or even prevented from participating.
This may include inadequate representation in the:

Federal, regional and local administration

Cabinet of the government

Court system

Military

Police

Because democratic regimes distribute access to political institutions equally among citizens, some
people argue that they are less likely to engage in armed conflicts with each other. This has been
termed the democratic peace theory. There are three arguments that may explain this
phenomenon6:
1. The democratic culture and norms argument posits that democratic societies are
inherently adverse to armed conflict and the casualties of war. The understanding that
conflicts may be resolved through democratic mechanisms leads to a similar perception of
conflict resolution among states. Peace would prevail, or war would be obsolete, in a
system comprised of democratic states only because those states would reject war as a
means to resolve conflict.
2. The institutional constraint argument focuses on the system of checks and balances that
prevent the military and political leadership from taking unilateral military action that will
burden citizens.
3. The signaling argument is based on the notion of transparency, i.e., free press and open
political competition. The model stipulates that the political leadership will not engage in
hostile actions unless it has domestic backing. The adversary knows this and will avoid
confrontation in cases where domestic backing is high in the rival state. 7

Empirical analysis supports the democratic peace theory, democracies have been nearly immune
from war among themselves. However, democracies go to war with nondemocratic states as often
as other regimes, and the topic is currently hotly debate at least one study suggests that
democracies are generally more peaceful than authoritarian regimes, not just in their relationships
with other democracies. Its findings concluded 8:
1. The more authoritarian a regime the greater is the probability of provoking a crisis through
the use of violence.
2. There is a higher frequency of violent response by military regimes than by democratic
regimes.
3. Nonviolent military responses were most often employed by democratic regimes.
4. Generally, the more authoritarian a regime the more likely its response to a crisis will be
violent.
The three arguments of democratic peace presented above are not by themselves able to identify
the causes of armed conflict. However, they illustrate that a certain combination of institutions,
transparency of the political process and accountability of the leadership are related to peace and
the prevention of conflict. As a result, there has been a push for democratic transitions in non
democratic states.
Exclusionary national ideologies are based on an ethnic notion of citizenship, which denies
ethnic minorities the rights and duties enjoyed by citizens 9. Civic nationalism in contrast extends
citizenship to all individuals who live on the state territory and is based on institutions rather than
ethnicity.
Members of a Pec Militia during the Kosovo war.
Known for their brutality against ethnic
Albanians.
(Image Source: Human Rights Watch.
December 27, 2005.

http://www.hrw.org/campaigns/kosovo98/photo/
pics899/kos899f.htm)

Socioeconomic causes of armed conflict

Unemployment and high inflation contribute to societal tensions and frustration among the
population, especially if some groups suffer more from these economic problems than others.
Riot police observe young rioters standing
around a burning vehicle during the Paris riots,
December 2005.

Discriminatory economic systems. Unequal economic opportunities and access to resources

leave people feeling disenfranchised and lead them to question the legitimacy of the structures and
policies in place. Frustration and resentment are the first signs in a process that ultimately leaves
people in fear for their livelihoods.
Many researchers have cited development and modernization as an underlying cause of armed
conflict10. Economic development and industrialization result in profound changes that undermine
traditional social systems and political institutions11. Urbanization and migration are just two of the
driving forces, which also include higher education levels and a media presence. As a result,
individuals and groups are more aware of their position in society and they raise their political and
economic expectations. According to a respected analyst: The result is instability and disorder. The
primary problem, ... is the lag in the development of political institutions behind social and
economic change.12
Demonstrators clash with police at the World Trade
Organization meeting in December 2005.

Cultural discrimination, difficult group histories

Cultural discrimination focuses on the limitation
and in some cases, prohibition of the use and
teaching of minority languages and puts significant
constraints on religious freedom. In its extreme form,
cultural discrimination leads to forced assimilation of minority groups and/or the relocation of large
ethnic groups into minority areas.
Some researchers make the argument that ancient hatreds and grievances for crimes committed
in the past together with the glorification of heroes are underlying causes of armed conflict. 13

Samarasinghe, S. W. R. d. A., R. Coughlan, et al. (1991). Economic dimensions of ethnic conflict. New York; St.
Martins Press.
6
Levy (2001) op. cit.
7
Schultz, K. A. (1998). Domestic Opposition and Signaling in International Crises. American Political Science Review
92(4): 829844.
8
Wilkenfeld, Jonathan, Michael Brecher and Sheila Moser (1988) Crises in the Twentieth Century. Volume 11:
Handbook of International Crisis. New York: Pergamon; pp. 197.
9
Snyder, J. S. (1993). Nationalism and the Crisis of the PostSoviet State. Survival 35: 526.
10
Newman, S. (1991). Does Modernization Breed Ethnic Conflict. World Politics 43: 451478.
11
Johnson, C. A. (1982). Revolutionary change. Stanford, Calif., Stanford University Press.
12
Huntington, S. P. and Harvard University. Center for International Affairs. (1968). Political order in changing
societies. New Haven, Yale University Press.
13
Rothchild, D. and A. J. Groth (1995). Pathological Dimensions of Domestic and International Ethnicity. Political
Science Quarterly 110(1): 6982.

Individual Level Causes of Conflict

There is a long tradition of attributing the occurrence or absence of war to the very nature of
human beings. There are those who think that human nature tends towards aggression and those
who think that humans are sociable and seek cooperative relationships. In both cases, human
nature is a constant characteristic and therefore cannot explain variations of war and peace.
Bad Leadership
Bad leaders are concerned with their personal status and well being rather than the well being of
the people they represent. They seek to:

Strengthen their personal status visvis other leaders.

Influence and decide how the political, economic, social and religious affairs of a state
should be run.

Enrich themselves through criminal assaults on the state, including corruption.

The role that leaders play in decisions about war and peace has not received sufficient attention in
the literature on conflict14. In the presence of permissive causes of armed conflict the decisions and
actions of domestic elites often determine whether a political dispute is resolved peacefully or
results in armed conflict.
The influence of leaders is not limited to domestic leadership. Bad neighbors as one conflict
researcher calls bad foreign leaders, take deliberate actions to incite conflict in a neighboring
country for their own political, economic or ideological purpose. This includes direct military
intervention in support of one or the other faction within a state. 15
President Robert Mugabe of Zimbabwe and and Kin Jung Il (right)
of North Korea terrorize their own people and pose a threat for
regional stability.

Misinterpretation
War is often the result of misperceptions because individuals are limited in their cognitive capacity
to process information. Perceptions are influenced by the 16:

Conflict environment

Prior beliefs and experiences

Objective evidence

The most important misperceptions occur when assessing the capabilities and intentions of
adversaries and third parties. Individuals tend to exaggerate the hostile intentions and engage in
actions that result in the security dilemma. The reasons for this misperception are:
1. Lack of understanding of the adversarys values and interests.
2. Misperception of the situation.
3. Wrong expectations about the future.
4. Domestic bureaucratic constraints.17
Terrorist Poison and Explosives Factory, Khurmal (U.S.
Government, Feb 2002). In the terrorist training camp pictured on
the left, U.S. intelligence reported to have found a production site
for chemical weapons.

United States Secretary of State Colin Powell addressed the United Nations on February 5, 2003
presenting evidence of Iraqs secret weapons program and links to terrorist organizations, including
AlQaeda. In the terrorist training camp pictured on the left, U.S. intelligence reported to have
found a production site for chemical weapons.
The information provided by the U.S. to the UN Security Council has since come under scrutiny and
the U.S. may have overestimated the extent of both Iraqs weapons program and the regimes ties
to terrorism.

In contrast, the capabilities and resolve of an adversary are most often underestimated. As a
result, a state or group may initiate armed conflict in the belief of being the stronger party. The
hopes of achieving a quick victory dwindle when the other partys resolve and capabilities turn out
to be much greater than anticipated. On the other hand, a party may belief to be in the weaker
position and decide to build up its army initiating an arms race. 18

14

Brown (2001) op. cit.

idem
16
Gilovich, T., D. W. Griffin, et al. (2002). Heuristics and biases: the psychology of intuitive judgment. Cambridge,
U.K.; New York, Cambridge University Press.
17
Levy (2001) op. cit.
18
idem
15

Conflict Cycle
Conflict is most often described as a cyclical progression that involves various stages of escalation
and deescalation. The following list identifies five stages of conflict escalation and conflict de
escalation19:
1. Durable peace: Peace at this stage involves cooperation and trust within and between
nations and a high degree of social justice. Cooperation on a wide range of issues is taking
place and nonviolent ways for preventing, managing and resolving disputes are
institutionalized. Due to social, political and economic integration and the high level of
trust, there is no perceived conflict and the outbreak of violence is highly unlikely.
2. Stable peace: The level of communication and cooperation within and among nations is
still high and conflicts are resolved in a nonviolent manner. However, there are areas of
latent conflict where people perceive incompatibilities but do not act in a violent way
outside the institutionalized mechanisms for preventing, managing and resolving conflicts.
3. Unstable peace: Rising levels of suspicion between parties characterize unstable peace.
Previously latent conflicts emerge and result in isolated and lowlevel violence.
4. Crisis: At this stage, hostility and violence escalate in a volatile environment.
Communication and cooperation breaks down or is strained. Initially, the hostility may only
involve a limited number of parties and issues, but in an attempt to raise the stakes or
project power other parties and constituencies are mobilized and issues are superimposed
or added. The stage is also characterized by increased polarization of the parties, which
forces previously neutral actors to take sides.
5. War: As polarization continues, the parties enter the state of armed conflict and violence
escalates. Militaries and armed groups occupy center stage and the parties become
entrapped in a course of action that involves the continuation and intensification of the
conflict. Fear of loosing face, influence or status, unwillingness to admit mistakes and a
desire to exact revenge or recoup losses contribute to continued violence despite heavy
losses.
The graph illustrates the stages of the conflict cycle, the
corresponding conflict management tools and the dynamics of the
conflict.
(Image Source: Adapted from figure 2.1 in Michael S. Lund,
Preventing Violent Conflict: A Strategy for Preventive Diplomacy
(Washington, D.C.: United States Institute for Peace, 1996), pp.
38)

Escalation and deescalation of conflict

Conflict escalation involves an increase in the severity of coercive inducements used, an increase in
participation and often an increase in the scope of issues. Escalation may occur progressively with
the parties being unaware of the implications of their actions, or as a result of calculated steps
taken by the parties to increase violence, extend participation and broaden the issues. 20
Progression from one stage of the conflict to the next is influenced many factors including:

Number and intensity of incompatibilities.

Parties awareness of their differences, attitudes and perceptions toward each other.

Amount of direct interaction and communication between the parties.

Level of mobilization and organization behind the parties positions.

Cohesion between the leadership and its constituencies.

Use and degree of violence used by the parties.

Identity
Another key element in the escalation of conflict is the formation of identities. Perceived
threats encourage people to seek their security in increasingly narrow identity groups 21.
Leadership, whose legitimacy is threatened, can manipulate the identity of its population
and mobilize it along ethic and/or religious lines for collective action.
Polarization
Polarization can be described as the intensified separation and segregation of conflicting
groups. Polarization of peaceful relations is therefore often seen as the major factor leading
to the escalation of conflict. As parties begin to attribute their grievances to the other side,
they often reduce the number of nonconflicting relations and interactions that they have
with the other party. As tensions rise and intergroup relations are seen as more
antagonistic, members are less constrained by crosscutting ties, allowing for the
employment of ever more severe means of violence.
Deescalation of conflict
Deescalation of conflict, normally initiated through a peace process or conflict prevention,
must therefore not only deal with the underlying issues that caused the conflict but also
with the formation of negative group identities, polarized communities and weapons
availability related to the dynamic of the conflict cycle. Measures to deconstruct narrow
group identities in favor of a national identity, as well as measures to facilitate group
interaction and rapprochement are characteristics of the deescalation phase of conflict.

19
20
21

Lund, M. S. (1996). Preventing Violent Conflict: A Strategy for Preventive Diplomacy. Washington D.C., USIP Press.
Kriesberg, L. (1998). Constructive Conflicts: From Escalation to Resolution. Lanham, MD, Rowman & Littlefield.
Lederach, J. P. (1997). Building Peace: Sustainable Reconciliation in Divided Societies. Washington D.C., USIP Press.

Summary
In this lesson, we looked at the causes of armed conflict and distinguished between permissive
causes and triggering causes of conflict. Our analysis identified causes at the systemic, state and
individual level. We specifically pointed out the effect of resource degradation, state failure,
democratic governance and economic integration. We concluded that misperceptions and bad
leadership contribute to the causes of armed conflict at the individual level.
Finally, the lesson illustrated the various stages of the conflict cycle, from stable peace to crisis to

war and back, and explained the characteristics of each phase. We then outlined the critical roles
that identity and polarization play in the escalation as well as deescalation of conflicts.

Armed Conflict and International Law: Contemporary

Challenges
Clashes between great powers, regional conflicts, traditional interstate wars and armed
liberation/resistance movements remain relevant in international politics, but their number has
declined significantly. The contemporary era is witnessing the rise of conflicts that are markedly
different from those prevalent during the last century. The fact that most wars are fought within
rather than between states is only the most obvious transformation. Additionally, modern warfare
is distinguishable from the past by virtue of the following characteristics 1:

Goals: Political goals related to foreign policy interests of states have been pushed aside
by the consolidation of new forms of power based on ethnic/religious homogeneity. Even
though ethnicity and religious affiliation are rarely sources of armed conflict, they often
are the basis of social mobilization and an expression of the deeper causes of war.

Values: With few exceptions, notably the Global War on Terrorism (GWOT), armed
conflicts are no longer about universal principles, such as those advanced by fascism,
socialism or democracy, but about identities at the tribal and communal levels. Third party
intervention, in contrast, is most often guided by universal principles, including democracy,
human rights and humanitarianism.

Mobilization: Rather than mobilizing constituencies by creating a sense of national

patriotism, leaders use fear, corruption, religion, ethnicity and the media to advance the
interests of narrowly defined identity groups. In many instances, boys, girls, men and
women are forcibly recruited to serve as soldiers, cooks and sex slaves or to perform other
duties.
Child soldier in Sierra Leone.
(Image Source: United States Institute for Peace. Michael
Douglas Hosts Film on Child Soldiers. December 2003.
http://www.usip.org/peacewatch/2003/12/soldiers.html.
January 30, 2006.)

External Support: In the absence of super

power patrons, external support comes from Diaspora communities, foreign mercenaries,
criminal networks and bad neighbors. Support is not limited to financial contributions, but
encompasses active participation in the fighting. For instance, Mudjahedeen of the
RussianAfghan war have fought in Bosnia and Kosovo, and are now supporting the rebels
in Iraq. In Africa, mercenaries are playing an important role in many conflicts.
Seventy suspected mercenaries are escorted from a prison in
Zimbabwe. They are accused of partaking in the efforts to topple
the president of Equatorial Guinea in 2005.
(Image Source: The Sidney Morning Herald. Mercenaries were
after Taylor: report. March 25, 2004.

http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2004/03/24/1079939716746.html.
January 30, 2006.)

Warfare: In most of todays armed conflicts fighting is dispersed and fragmented and front
lines disappear. Instead of heavy artillery and tanks, armed nonstate actors use light
weapons, rocketpropelled grenades and improvised explosive devices. Forced recruitment
and child soldiers are common.

In traditional warfare, conflicting parties deploy organized armies, relying on the strength
and quantity of equipment and troops. Nonstate armed actors do not have the military
capacity of states and the resulting mismatch in capabilities and methods of engagement
results in asymmetric warfare.

Targets: The laws of war are increasingly disregarded and the civilian population has
become the deliberate target of atrocities, rape and siege. Genocide, systematic rape and
other violence against civilians, including terrorism, are characteristic of asymmetric
warfare.

Financing: Finally, armed conflicts today are financed by war economies that are often
sustained through outside emergency assistance and parallel grey and black markets,
including illicit trade in commodities, drug trafficking and weapons trade. Most countries
engaged in conflicts today are poor and cannot finance their military campaigns through
taxes alone, and armed nonstate actors, even though they often levy forced taxes within
the territory they control, rely heavily on other forms of income.

Terrorism, if not a new phenomenon, follows in its most recent global manifestation the changes
outlined above. In this sense, terrorist groups differ only in degree from other armed nonstate
actors.

The following paragraph is a compilation of arguments made by Kaldor and Vashee, eds, 1997: 719.

Armed Conflicts and International Law

International law governing armed conflicts is divided into two branches:
Ius ad bellum
Ius ad bellum refers to when it is proper to resort to armed conflict. The main source of this
justification to resort to war is the United Nations Charter. Article 2(4) of the UN Charter
prohibits the use of force and the threat thereof in international relations. This overall
prohibition of the use of interstate force is subject to two exceptions:

Article 51 recognizes the use of force as selfdefense in response to an armed

attack by another state.

Articles 3941 allow military action authorized or taken by the Security Council,
if it is determined that there is a threat to international peace, a breach of peace
or an act of aggression.

The UN Charter only regulates the use of force between states. There are no provisions in
the Charter, or anywhere else in international law, that regulate when it is proper to resort
to force in intrastate affairs.

Ius in bello
Ius in bello refers to international humanitarian law (IHL). IHL is known by many other
names such as humanitarian law law of conflict and laws of war. All these terms refer
to the rules regarding the treatment of civilians and noncombatants in areas of armed
conflict and the rules of engagement for soldiers and combatants. IHL is only applicable in
times of war and consists of two branches:

The Hague Law, based on the 1899 and 1907 Hague Conventions, relates to the
proper use of weapons and military tactics. It states that choice of methods and
means of warfare is not unlimited. In order to spare the civilian population, armed
forces shall at all times distinguish between civilians and civilian objects on the
one hand and military objectives on the other. The Hague Law sets forth the
principles of military necessity and proportionality.

Geneva Law, which relates, among other things, to the proper treatment of
prisoners of war, civilians and other noncombatants. It states that persons who are
not, or are no longer, taking part in hostilities, including captured combatants,
shall be respected, protected and treated humanely. They shall be given
appropriate care, without any discrimination.
The main sources of ius in bello are the four 1949 Geneva
Conventions and the two Additional Protocols of 1977.

In contrast to ius ad bellum, the 1977 Additional Protocol II to the Geneva Conventions contains
provisions that apply to noninternational conflicts.
The two bodies of law, ius ad bellum and ius in bello, are based on the premises that there are
clear distinctions between2:

International and noninternational conflicts

Crimes and acts of war

Geographic boundaries

Peace and war time

Individuals

The Impact of Globalization

The changes in the nature of contemporary conflict outlined at the beginning of this unit have to be
viewed in the context of globalization. Increased transnational activities, growing interdependence
and integration, as well as the emergence of nonstate entities in international relations have had a
profound impact on the international system and local communities. As a result, the distinctions on
which the laws of armed conflict were based slowly eroded. The advent of the new generation of
wars and global terrorism have exacerbated and accelerated this erosion.
International versus Noninternational Conflicts
The table provides definitions for international and non
international conflicts. It also states which provisions of the Geneva
Conventions and its Additional Protocols are applicable in each
case.
(Image Source: International Committee of the Red Cross. What is
International Humanitarian Law? January 30, 2006.

http://www.icrc.org/web/eng/siteeng0.nsf/iwpList2/Humanitarian_law?
OpenDocument)

Geneva Conventions Common

Article 3
Rwandan rebel groups.
(Image Source: AP)

The majority of contemporary conflicts do not fit squarely into

the category of international or noninternational armed
conflict. The following cases illustrate the difficulties involved:

Rwandan rebel groups have bases in Eastern Congo and regularly undertake attacks into
Rwanda. Neighboring states may be too weak to prevent such activities, or they may
implicitly allow them.

Armed nonstate actors receive outside help from another state in their fight against their
government. Syrias support of certain factions in Lebanon is one example.

In 2001, the Taliban regime in Afghanistan was involved in a long standing civil war with
the Northern Alliance while at the same time fighting an interstate war with the
Americanled coalition as a result of the regimes connection to AlQaeda and the
September 11 attacks.

The internal conflicts in Bosnia and Kosovo have resulted in an international response.

The U.S. invasion of Iraq in 2003 to remove Saddam Hussein because of his threat to
international peace has triggered an internal armed struggle among the Shia, the Sunni
and to a lesser degree, the Kurds.

The problem is not only that the boundaries between international and noninternational conflicts
have become blurred for analytical reasons. Far more important is the fact that as a result, it has
become difficult to determine and even disputed which body of law is applicable in a specific case.
Crime versus Armed Conflict
The Geneva Conventions, its Additional Protocols and the United Nations Charter all assume that
not every act of violence constitutes an act of armed conflict. Additional Protocol II states that the
Protocol:

... shall not apply in situations of internal disturbance and tensions such as riots, isolated
and sporadic acts of violence and other acts of a similar nature, as not being armed
conflicts.3
Violence against property in Kaduna Province, Nigeria, in March
2000.

In 1974, the United Nations General Assembly defined aggression

as:

... the use of armed force by a state against the sovereignty, territorial integrity or political
independence of another state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Charter of the
United Nations ...4

This statement raises three important questions with regard to the distinction between crimes and
armed conflict:
1. What is the threshold level of violence?
2. Who uses violence?
3. What is the purpose of the violence?
The threshold level of violence and armed conflict has been debated among researchers for a long
time. A wide range of definitions of armed conflicts reflects this. At the political level and in
practice, the intensity and type of violence that amounts to armed conflict is equally debated. The
ambiguity of international law in distinguishing between acts of crime and armed conflict results in
distinctions based on policy rather than the law.5
Under the UN Charter, only states can take aggressive actions that result in international armed
conflict. According to Article 1 of the Additional Protocol II, nonstate armed groups in non
international conflicts must:
1. Be under responsible command.
2. Exercise control of part of the states territory.
3. Be capable of carrying out sustained and concerted military action.
4. Be capable of implementing the Protocol.
The purpose of the violence, as alluded to in the definition of aggression, must be to threaten the
sovereignty or integrity of the state. In many of todays armed conflicts, forms of violence are used
that dont threaten the integrity or sovereignty of the state:

rape, torture, the burning of houses and fields, theft and other forms of violence are crimes
often committed in times of war.

criminal activities, such as drug and weapons trafficking, are necessary to sustain conflict.

extrajudicial killings, political assassinations and kidnappings are used to protect the flow of
resources generated by those criminal undertakings.

In Colombia, the initial ideological ...

The Global War on Terrorism (GWOT) illustrates the difficulty of distinguishing between crimes and
armed conflict. Many commentators argue that the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001 did not
constitute an act of war but were simply a crime 6. Their argument is based on the following
assertions:

AlQaeda is not a state, and as a result there can be no international conflict.

AlQaedas attacks were isolated and sporadic and therefore the laws of war do not apply.

AlQaeda holds no defined territory and controls no population, certainly not in the U.S.
One cannot speak of a noninternational conflict.
Suspected AlQaeda terrorist cells in Europe.

(Image Source: Debka. MegaTerror Menaces on Three Continents. February 4, 2003.

http://www.debka.com/article.php?aid=255. January 30, 2006.)

AlQaeda is best described, so it is argued, as a criminal network similar to weapons and drug
traffickers. Criminal law, then, is the best way to deal with the terrorist organization.
Opponents of this view, including the United States government, argue that the violence used by
AlQaeda is of a magnitude amounting to an act of war. In addition, the AlQaeda leadership
stated that it is in a state of war with the U.S. and that the organization intends to conduct more
attacks against U.S. interests. Finally, terrorist attacks are far from sporadic and isolated and point
to a pattern of hostile action against U.S. interests that began with the 1993 bombing of the World
Trade Center and continue until today.7
The options available in responding to crimes and armed conflicts differ drastically. Under the
criminal law perspective, there is no immunity for acts that are normally allowed during war times
and humanitarian law does not apply. Military responses, selfdefense and preemptive measures at
home or abroad are not allowed. Instead, the government must engage in a process of national
and international legal investigation and is dependant on cooperation, warrants and the
demonstration of probable cause.
The U.S. approach has been to treat the September 11 terrorist attacks as an act of war warranting
a military response. In contrast, Britain has always regarded the terrorist activities in Northern
Ireland as a criminal matter outside the scope of the law of armed conflict 8. This difference has had
a significant impact on the manner in which each country has responded to the terrorist threat.
Blurring Geographic Boundaries
The traditional paradigm of armed conflict assumes that there are clear spatial boundaries between
zones of war and zones of peace. In other words, one can clearly distinguish between those places
where the laws of war apply, and those places where regular domestic laws and international
agreements govern.
As mentioned at the beginning of this unit, asymmetric warfare has resulted in fragmented and
dispersed pockets of fighting, ambushes and hitandrun attacks. Often the war zone only
encompasses parts of a country, as in Sudan, where the fighting occurs in the Darfur region.
Sometimes, attacks are staged from areas across international borders, as is the case in the
Democratic Republic of Congo and Rwanda. With the advent of international terrorism, the
distinction has become even more blurred. It is not clear where the next attack is going to occur, it
is not clear where the highly mobile terrorist cells operate.
In 2002, the U.S. launched a missile attack against a car
carrying AlQaeda operatives in Yemen (picture). The U.S.
government justified this action by way of the argument
that AlQaeda operates in many countries, and in order to
protect the United States from terrorist attacks, it may be
necessary to use preemptive strikes in selfdefense, as
allowed by the UN Charter. The U.S. government further
argued that the mere presence of AlQaeda on Yemeni
territory automatically rendered Yemen part of a conflict
zone, where the United States can legitimately use military
force against enemy combatants.
(Source: Howard Witt. U.S.: Killing of Al Qaeda Suspects
was Lawful. Chicago Tribune, November 24, 2002.)
The implications of the U.S. approach are that any terrorist, regardless of his whereabouts, can be
the target of a military strike sanctioned by international law and the principle of selfdefense.
Following the same line of reasoning, Britain could order the targeted killing of an IRA terrorist on
vacation in Italy and this right would extend to all other states. Whether this interpretation should

and will prevail is the subject of a heated debate among legal scholars, diplomats and international
affairs specialists. At a minimum, it challenges the principle of territorial sovereignty.
Distinguishing Times of Peace from Times of War
Similar to the spatial delimitations between zones of peace and zones of war, the international law
of armed conflict rests on the temporal distinction between times of peace and times of war.
Global terrorism makes this distinction less salient. While the GWOT (Global War on Terrorism) is a
political reality, a significant number of legal experts and specialist in international relations
question whether the United States is in a state of war, because:

AlQaeda is not a state. International conflicts may only occur between states.

The attacks of September 11, as well as the fatwas issued by Osama bin Laden, do not
constitute acts of war or declarations of war.9

AlQaeda does not control territory in the U.S.; therefore this does not constitute a
situation of internal conflict.

It is also unclear what would mark the end of the Global War on Terrorism (GWOT). The fact that
there is no clear end to the hostilities has important ramifications for detaining Prisoners of War
(POWs). POWs are to be returned as soon as possible after the cessation of armed conflict. In a
war with no end, POWs could legally be detained indefinitely.
During times of war, many states give the government extended war powers that may conflict with
domestic laws, particularly in the area of civil liberties. Those powers are normally extended for a
finite period of time. In reaction to September 11, the United States Congress has granted the
president a wide array of powers with the adoption of the Patriot Act. Many of the provisions
expired at the end of 2005. Even though Congress renewed the provisions for six months,
lawmakers are not prepared to curtail civil liberties at the expense of executive power indefinitely.
Blurred Distinctions in the Status of Individuals
Civilians and combatants
The distinction between civilians and combatants is one of the most important distinctions in
international humanitarian law. Civilians are:

Persons taking no active part in the hostilities, including members of armed forces who
have laid down their arms and those placed hors de combat [out of the fight] by
sickness, wounds, detention, or any other cause ...". 10

Article 43 of the Additional Protocol I defines a combatant as a member of the armed forces of a
party to the conflict. As important as this distinction is, there is an ongoing debate about the
definition of civilian and the meaning of taking no active part in hostilities.
Somali combatant without uniform in Mogadishu

The distinction is based upon the assumption that wars are fought
between uniformed armies along clearly identifiable front lines. It is
increasingly difficult to distinguish between civilians and combatants
because:

combatants deliberately seek to blend into the civilian

population.

civilians often take part in violence against each other, as Bosnia, Somalia, Rwanda and
Kosovo have shown.

advances in technology and communications render problematic the distinction between

the operations of military systems and civilian support systems.

private security services and armed contractors operate in conflict zones.

Terrorists, like many guerilla fighters, wear no uniforms and blend in with the local population.
Many actively engage in acts of violence and can be tried for war crimes, under the law of armed
conflict paradigm, or for murder, under the criminal procedure paradigm. However, questions
remain about the status of the many hundreds of supporters that never actually detonate a bomb.
Are members of a charitable organization that funnels money to AlQaeda combatants or civilians?
Unlawful combatants and lawful combatants
The detention of suspected terrorists and Taliban fighters at
Guantanamo Bay has resulted in the distinction between lawful
and unlawful combatants.

The terms lawful combatant and unlawful combatant are not

mentioned in the Geneva Conventions and the Additional
Protocols. The distinction is made because combatants who act within the parameters set forth by
the laws of armed conflict are immunized for their actions, and are thus lawful. If they are
captured, they must be treated as prisoners of war and returned after the cessation of hostilities.
Combatants who violate the laws of armed conflict either by committing a war crime or by failing to
comply with the formal definition of combatant, are not protected by the Geneva Conventions and
the Additional Protocols, they are therefore unlawful combatants and can be tried and punished by
a military tribunal or a regular court. 11
There are two criteria that must be satisfied for the status of lawful combatant:
1. Comply with the following conditions12:
a) being under the command of a person responsible for his subordinates;
b) wearing a distinctive sign recognizable at a distance;
c) carrying arms openly.
2. Conduct military operations according to the laws and customs of war.
The U.S. government has applied these criteria in its decision to deny AlQaeda operatives prisoner
of war status. Since they do not wear uniforms, do carry concealed weapons and deliberately
target civilians, they are violating the laws of war and are, therefore, unlawful combatants. The
same standard has been applied to the Taliban fighters.
Human rights groups, military lawyers and diplomats have challenged this interpretation of the law
because of its blanket application to all terrorists and Taliban members. They argue that some of
the detainees, specifically the members of the Taliban captured in Afghanistan, could have worn
recognizable uniforms or signs, or could have carried arms openly.
Fighters of the rebel Sudan Peoples Liberation Army at a base in
Sudans Nuba Mountains region.

In addition, Article 5 of the Geneva Convention on Prisoners of War states that:

... should any doubt arise as to whether a person, having committed a belligerent act and
having fallen into the hands of the enemy, [is a lawful combatant], such persons shall
enjoy the protection of the present Convention until such time as their status has been
determined by a competent tribunal.

The U.S. has not held any hearings pursuant to Article 5 to determine the status of Guantanamo
Bay detainees.
The reality of todays conflicts, in which impoverished regimes and militias may lack the resources
to get uniforms, which identify them as soldiers, makes the determination between lawful and
unlawful combatants problematic to some ...

Brooks, R. E. (2004). War Everywhere: Rights, National Security Law, and the Law of Armed Conflict in the Age of
Terror. University of Pennsylvania Law Review 153: 674761.
3
Article 1.2 of the 1977 Additional Protocol II to the Geneva Conventions of 1949
4
United Nations G.A. Resol. 3314, U.N. GAOR, 29th Sess., Supp. No. 31, at 143 U.N. Doc. A/9621 (1974)
5
Brooks (2004) Op.Cit p. 719
6
Fitzpatrick, J. (2002). Sovereignty, Territoriality and the Rule of Law. Hastings International & Comparative Law
Review 25: 302340.
7
Paul Butler, Principal Assistant Secretary of Defense (Feb. 13, 2004). Briefing on Detainee Operations at Guantanamo
Bay. January 20, 2006. (http://www.defenselink.mil/transcripts/2004/tr20040213-0443.html)
8
Mary Ellen OConnell and Richard B. Bilder (Ed.). 2003. Recent Book on International Law: Review Essay: Re
Leashing the Dogs of War: International Law and the Use of Force. By Christine Gray. New York: Oxford. The American
Journal of International Law. 97(2): 446.
9
Public Broadcasting Service. Online NewsHour: Al Qaedas Fatwa. January 11, 2006.
10
Article 3.1 of the 1949 Geneva Convention (IV) relative to the Protection of Civilian Person in Time of War.
11
Drmann, K. (2003). The legal situation of unlawful/unprivileged combatants. International Review of the red
Cross 849: 4574.
12
Article 13.2 of the 1949 Geneva Convention (I) for the Amelioration of the Condition of the Wounded and Sick in
Armed Forces in the Field.

Aggregater Data on Armed Conflicts

Armed Conflicts: 1990200513
As a general trend, the number of armed conflicts in the aggregate has declined since the end of
the Cold War and was at the level of the 1950s at the end of 2004. Interstate wars have become
increasingly uncommon and since 1990 there have been only a few international armed conflicts:
the invasion of Kuwait by Iraq (1990), the Gulf War (1991), the border war between Eritrea and
Ethiopia, the U.S. led intervention in Afghanistan (2001) and Iraq (2003), and the military clashes
between India and Pakistan (2002). In addition to these more clearcut armed interstate conflicts,
the following cases also fall within this category: U.S. led intervention in Bosnia (1995), against
Iraq (1998: enforcing protection zones over Kurd and Shia Arab regions), and in Yugoslavia (1999:
ending the repression of Kosovar Albanians). The United States and others argue that the AlQaeda
attacks on U.S. soil on September 11, 2001, amounted to an act of international war as defined by
the UN Charter.
Parallel to the decline in international wars there has been a steady rise in intrastate armed
conflicts in the years before the end of the Cold War and shortly thereafter. Since the year 2000,
most intrastate conflicts have occurred in Africa and Central Asia, and a trend has emerged
indicating increased armed conflicts in the Middle East and the predominantly Muslim countries in
Africa and Central Asia. This trend may be related to U.S. activities in connection with the GWOT.
Intrastate armed conflicts often have regional and/or international dimensions, thus challenging
the traditional distinction between the two. At the same time, Afghanistan and Iraq have shown
that international intervention may significantly raise the possibility of civil war.

In early 2005, twenty major armed conflicts were being fought of which eight were of
medium or high intensity: Colombia, Russia (Chechnya), India, Myanmar, Nepal, Iraq,
Sudan and the Democratic Republic of Congo.

Low intensity conflicts include Afghanistan, Northeast India, Indonesia and the Philippines,
as well as Algeria, Israel, Burundi, Ivory Coast, Nigeria, Somalia and Uganda.

55 of 161 countries were affected by intrastate armed conflict since 1990 and of those
nearly twothirds (35) witnessed conflict lasting seven or more years.

In the year 2005, only eight of these protracted conflicts were highly active and resistant to
settlement and international pressure: Algeria, Burundi, Colombia, Democratic Republic of
Congo, India, Myanmar, Nepal and Russia.

Conflicts in India, the Philippines and Somalia continue at low levels with negotiations for
peace ongoing.

13

Marshall, M. G. and T. R. Gurr (2005). Peace and Conflict 2005: A Global Survey of Armed Conflicts, Self
Determination Movements and Democracy. Center for International Development & Conflict Management.

Countries Emerging from Armed Conflict Since 200014

Angola
The year 2002 marked a turning point in the civil war between the National Union for the Total
Independence of Angola and the Government of Angola. After the death of UNITAs leader Jonas
Savimbi in February 2002 fighting stopped in March and a peace agreement based on the 1994
Lusaka protocol was signed in August. Even though UNITA has been transformed into the
opposition party holding about 1/3 of the seats in parliament, integration and demobilization efforts
for UNITA fighters have been slow. Poverty, the absence of ruleoflaw and the integration of a
large number of returning refugees continue to pose problems for the government.
Liberia
In the year 2000, a twopronged insurgency led by the Liberians United for Reconciliation and
Democracy (LURD) and the Movement for Democracy in Liberia (MODEL) against the regime of
Charles Taylor mobilized international pressure and culminated in the approach of U.S. warships. As
a result, Taylor resigned in 2003 and left the country. A peace agreement between the insurgents
and the remnants of Charles Taylors National Patriotic Party was signed shortly thereafter, followed
by the deployment of a United Nations peacekeeping mission (UNMIL) to provide security. In
November 2004, the three factions agreed to disband their militias and UNMIL has confirmed the
completion of their disarmament. Elections were held in October 2005.
Rwanda
In May 2001, the Hutuled Army for the Liberation of Rwanda, since 1994 based in the Democratic
Republic of Congo, launched incursions into Rwanda. The Tutsidominated Rwandan Patriotic Army
(RPA) repelled the attacks and forced the Hutus to retreat. The Army for the Liberation of Rwanda
maintains a strong presence in the Kivu region of the DRC, threatening the Rwandan government,
which periodically crosses into the DRC in pursuit of Hutu militants.
Sierra Leone
In May 2001, the government and the Revolutionary United Front signed a peace agreement under
the auspices of the United Nations and initially enforced by British troops. A United Nations
peacekeeping mission (UNAMSIL) was established and its mandate subsequently extended through
July 2005. Free and fair elections were held in 2002 endorsing the Sierra Leone Peoples Party
(SLPP) and installing its leader, Ahmad Tejan Kabbah, as President. Disarmament was completed at
the beginning of 2004, and the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees announced in July
of 2005 the completion of its operation to repatriate 270,000 refugees. Tensions remain, however,
as poverty is still widespread and the central government is weak. Of particular importance are
tensions over the control of the diamondproducing region.

Nigerian members of the peacekeeping mission in Sierra Leone.

Sri Lanka
At the end of 2001 a new coalition led by the United National
Party (UNP) took control of the government after violent elections.
The coalition started talks with the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE) in an effort to negotiate
and implement a conciliatory agenda with the rebels. A ceasefire agreement was struck under
international auspices in February 2002. Norwaylead negotiations between the parties continued
and at the end of 2002 they committed to ending the war and instituting a federal system in Sri
Lanka. Deep divisions still exist within the LTTE, the UNP and the former ruling coalition, the
Peoples Alliance. Further peace talks were suspended in 2003 and have not yet resumed because
the government views the LTTEs demand for an Interim SelfGoverning Authority (ISGA) in the
Tamil region as a move toward independence. In addition, factional fighting continues within the
LTTE and a mutiny led by Colonel Karuna was put down by force in 2004. The lack of cooperation
between the government and the LTTE in the aftermath of the 2004 Tsunami was indicative of the
frozen nature of the peace talks. However, at the beginning of 2006, the parties agreed to meet in
Switzerland under the aegis of Norway to revive the process.
Tamil Tiger rebel leader Vellupillai Prabhakaran with Norwegian
envoy Erik Solheim. The rebel leader and Sri Lankas president,
Mahinda Rajapakse agreed to renewed peace talks in January
2006.

United States
On September 11, 2001, a concerted terrorist attack on the World Trade Center in New York and
the Pentagon in Washington DC caused the collapse of the skyscrapers, badly damaged the
Pentagon and killed and injured thousands of people when two hijacked commercial airplanes were
crashed into the sites. Yet another target was spared when civilian passengers of a third flight
resisted the terrorist attackers causing the plane to crash into a Pennsylvania field. The attack by
AlQaeda is widely regarded as an act of war and has led to U.S. military action in Afghanistan and
Iraq. While AlQaeda continues to attack U.S. targets abroad, mainly in Muslim countries, there
have been no further incidents on U.S. territory since the 9/11 attacks.
Countries with ongoing major armed conflict through 2005
Afghanistan
As a result of the 9/11 attacks, a U.S. led coalition ousted the Pashtun dominated Taliban regime
in late 2001. In 2002, a Loya Jirga established the Transitional Authority and elected Hamid Karzai
as interim president. A new constitution was approved in 2004. Presidential elections marked by
violence were held in October 2004 giving victory to Hamad Karzai. The provinces of Afghanistan
remain largely outside the control of the central government and violence persists. Recent attempts
to prohibit opium production have further aggravated the relationship between Kabul and the
warlords in the provinces.
U.S. forces and coalition members continue to mount
attacks against Taliban forces and AlQaeda operatives,
particularly along the border with Pakistan.

Algeria
The Armed Islamic Group (GIA) and a splinter faction, the Salafist Group for Preaching and Combat
(GSPC), continue their violence to undermine the secular government of President Bouteflika. They
rejected the presidents offer of negotiations toward a peace agreement as well as his offer of
amnesty for all Islamic guerillas who would lay down their weapons. At the beginning of 2005, the
government announced that it broke the resistance of GIA and that the GSCP was severely
weakened due to the loss of much of its leadership and internal dissension.
Burundi
The Party for the Liberation of the Hutu PeopleForces for National Liberation (PalipehutuFNL)
remained the only rebel group in armed opposition to the government in early 2005. The principal
Hutu rebel group, the National Council for the Defence of Democracy Forces for the Defence of
Democracy (CNDDFDD), agreed to a comprehensive peace agreement with the government in
2003, after a power transfer within the transitional government from President Buyoya, a Tutsi to
Hutu President Ndayizeye. An interim constitution was approved in 2004. The transitional
government is scheduled to end in November 2005.
President Buyoya, a Tutsi.

Colombia
Peace talks initiated by President Pastrana collapsed at the
beginning of 2002 after four years of negotiations that failed to
end the 30year civil war. The government recaptured the demilitarized zone that had been
granted to the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC). In response to the government
offensive the FARC attempted to disrupt the 2002 elections and mounted a counterattack. Newly
elected President Uribe declared a state of emergency, backed by the U.S. and abandoned all
prospect for negotiations in favor of counterinsurgency measures. The U.S. provided $3 billion in
military aid under Plan Colombia to support the government in Colombia. By attacking FARC
strongholds and destroying coca fields the government plans to weaken FARC forces and
undermine the rebels financial base. The National Liberation Army (ELN), the smaller rebel faction,
has kept a low profile since 2002. Talks between the government of Colombia and the ELN were
agreed upon at the end of 2005, signaling a breakthrough in negotiations. The major right wing
paramilitary group, the United SelfDefense Forces (AUC), signed the Santa Fe de Ralito
Agreement to demobilize in 2003 after serious human rights violations put pressure on its
leadership. However, the group is slow in implementing the terms of the agreement.
Democratic Republic of Congo
The Democratic Republic of Congo (formerly Zaire) has been fractured into four distinct regions
since armed rebellion first flared in September 1996, forcing the fall of the longstanding and
corrupt Mobutu regime in May 1997. The coalition of rebel forces that brought Laurent Kabila to
power in 1997 quickly disintegrated and violence resumed. Kabila himself was assassinated in
January 2001 and was replaced by his son Joseph Kabila. The presence of large numbers of
fighters and refugees from armed conflicts in neighboring states and the active involvement of
troops from several regional states has further complicated the situation. Strong international
pressure on the warring parties has led to a string of ceasefire and peace agreements including the
Lusaka peace accord in August 1999, negotiated withdrawals of foreign troops, and the December
2002 powersharing agreement signed in Pretoria. Negotiations between the government and the
two main rebel groups begun in February 2002 ended in early 2003, resulting in a draft constitution
calling for an allparty transitional government and the signing of a peace agreement. Joseph
Kabila was sworn in as president of the transitional government in April 2003. In 2004, Kabilas
transitional government faced failed coup attempts in March and June, a military rebellion in June,
and increasing tension with Rwanda in December. The transition to a permanent government was
scheduled for June 2005. However, the parliament extended the process to December 2005.
Similarly, national elections were also postponed from June 2005 to March 2006. Violence

continued in the more remote regions, especially in the provinces of Ituri and Katanga.
In 2004, The United States has sponsored a tripartite Commission bringing together officials from
Rwanda, Congo and Uganda in an effort to foster regional cooperation and build confidence.
Burundi joined the commission in 2005.
Congolese refugees in Bunia, Congo, in May 2003.

India
Indias strategy of creating peace and stability in the disputed
Kashmir territory from within (i.e., attempting to legitimize its
administration over the territory by holding democratic elections and engaging in dialogue with the
local authorities over selfrule and governance issues) continued to be undermined by Muslim
militant groups that seek to either establish an independent Kashmiri state or bring it under rule by
Pakistan. Attacks by Islamist militants on the Kashmiri legislative assembly in late September 2001
and on Indias parliament building in December 2001 drastically raised tensions between India and
Pakistan. Persistent infiltration from Pakistan and attacks by Kashmiri separatists brought the two
countries to the brink of interstate war in MayJune 2002. While the Indian and Pakistani armies
instituted a comprehensive ceasefire agreement for the Line of Control in November 2003 and
began bilateral talks in early 2004, separatist violence continues to flare in Kashmir.
Indonesia
Following the failed implementation of a January 2001 regional autonomy agreement, Free Aceh
Movement (GAM) militants and Indonesian armed forces engaged in renewed violence. Although
President Megawati Sukarnoputri had pledged, as recently as August 2002, to crush the GAM
rebellion, the Indonesian government responded to intense international pressure and signed a
new regional peace and autonomy measure with the GAM leadership in Geneva in December 2002.
In May 2003, the government imposed martial law in Aceh following the breakdown of the ceasefire
and the failure of peace talks in Japan. In November 2004, newlyelected President Yudhoyono
extended the state of civil emergency for six months. Coastal and lowland areas of Aceh were
devastated by the December 2004 tsunami; the provincial capital, Banda Aceh, was destroyed.
Despite offers of a ceasefire by GAM rebels during relief operations in the province, Indonesian
forces claimed to have killed 120 rebels during offensive operations in January 2005. Peace talks
resumed in late January although the main hurdle continues to be GAMs insistence on, and the
governments rejection of, an independence referendum.
Iraq
The United States, with the support of the UK, invaded Iraq on March 20, 2003, with the stated
goal of deposing the Baathist regime of Saddam Hussein, as it was allegedly developing WMD
capability in contravention of UN Resolutions and was refusing to allow mandated weapons
inspections. The Baathist regime was quickly deposed and a Provisional Authority was established
on April 23 and an Iraqi Governing Council was established in July 2003. Despite concerted efforts
to locate them, no weapons of mass destruction or evidence of their development were found.
Local armed resistance to the U.S. led occupation increased through the year, particularly among
SunniArab communities and formersupporters of the Baathist regime. Equally disruptive has
been an influx of Muslim jihadists from across the Middle East. Major armed resistance by a Shia
militia based in Najaf erupted in April 2004 and again in August 2004 before it was effectively
repressed. Insurgency in the socalled Sunni triangle north and west of Baghdad continued to
grow through 2004 and early 2005, despite major offensives against the rebel stronghold of
Fallujah in April 2004, and again, in November 2004. An interim Iraqi government was installed in
June 2004 and general elections were held, as planned, on January 30, 2005; the elections were
boycotted by most SunniArabs. As expected, the majority Shia community captured the largest
number of seats in the new National Assembly, with the U.S. favored secularists gaining only a
small percentage of the vote. At this writing, efforts were ongoing to forge a ruling coalition
between the two largest factions: the religious Shia and ethnicKurds. The conflict inside Iraq
shows no sign of abating.

Iraqi insurgents in Baghdad.

Israel
Violent confrontations between Palestinians and Israelis have
continued with only short spells of relative calm since the latest
outbreak of the Palestinian Intifada (uprising) in September 2000. Both sides have escalated their
tactics, with Palestinians using suicidebombings of mainly civilian targets and Israelis enforcing
containment, mounting military invasions of Palestinian enclaves (with massive military invasions
carried out in the Gaza Strip), and launching preemptive attacks on Palestinian militants.
Particularly controversial has been Israels construction of a security wall outside its internationally
recognized border. The conflict continues despite a road map peace plan devised by the U.S. and
announced in April 2003, and Ariel Sharons proposed plan for Israeli disengagement from the Gaza
Strip approved by the Knesset in October 2004. Hopes for a breakthrough in the stalemated
situation have risen following the death of the longtime leader of the Palestinian Liberation
Organization, Yasser Arafat, in November 2004 and the January 2005 election of moderate
reformer Mahmoud Abbas as the new Palestinian leader. However, Hamas victory at the polls in
January 2006 may slow the peace process down considerably. The U.S. has already cancelled funds
to the Palestinian Authority (PA) because Hamas is considered a terrorist organization. The
European Union, for now, is still providing much needed funding, but will decide later whether the
funds will continue to flow once Hamas has formed a new government. Whether and to what extent
Israel is willing to negotiate with the new Hamas led PA will further depend on the results of the
parliamentary elections in March 2006.
Ivory Coast
The situation in Ivory Coast first began to unravel in December 1999 with a military coup that
ousted President Bedie, widely accused of corruption. When coup leader General Guei attempted to
thwart the October 2000 presidential elections by first disqualifying the most popular candidates
and then nullifying the results, massive demonstrations ensued and a little known politician,
Laurent Gbagbo, was sworn in as the elected president. A second, violent confrontation occurred in
December 2000 when legislative elections were marred by political maneuvering. After a failed
coup attempt in January 2001, all parties pledged to work toward reconciliation. The reconciliation
ended with an apparent coup attempt in September 2002, which was quickly followed by the killing
of General Guei. These events triggered an eruption of open warfare. A rebel group, calling itself
the Patriotic Movement of Ivory Coast (MPCI), seized control of several areas in the north. In
November 2002, two new groups emerged and took control of territory in the west: Movement for
Peace and Justice (MPJ) and the Popular Ivorian Movement for the Great West (MPIGO). The Linas
Marcoussis peace accords, providing for a powersharing government, were signed in January 2003
and a ceasefire between the northernbased rebels and the southern government was brokered in
May 2003. French forces were deployed to enforce the accords. All sides in the conflict have decried
lack of commitment to the peace process and have continued to threaten violence, leading to
stalled implementation of the accords. In February 2004, the UN sent a peacekeeping mission
(UNOIC) to the country. In March 2004, the government violently suppressed an opposition
demonstration. Rebel forces failed to disarm by the October 2004 deadline and the government
launched air strikes on rebel positions in the north, killing a number of French peacekeepers in the
process. France retaliated by destroying the Ivorian air force, sparking antiFrench and anti
foreigner attacks throughout the country. The human rights situation in the country continues to
deteriorate and authority is fragmented among government and rebel controlled enclaves.
Cars burning in Abidjan, Ivory Coast.

Myanmar (Burma)
The ruling military junta, the State Peace and Development

Council (SPDC, formerly the State Law and Order Restoration Council), maintains its repressive
hold on power, however, the SPDC has moved haltingly toward political pluralism by opening up
dialogue with the main opposition movement, the National League for Democracy (NLD) under
pressure from international donors. Sporadic clashes with ethnic militias continue, particularly with
the Shan, Karen and Karenni groups, which have established de facto autonomy over traditional
lands. The Prime Minister announced in August 2003 that the government would convene a
National Convention to draft a new constitution, the first phase of its sevenstep road map to
democracy; ethnic groups meeting in February 2004 at the Third Ethnic Nationalities Seminar
rejected the road map and instead called for a tripartite dialogue between the SPDC, the NLD
and other political parties, and the ethnic minorities. The Karen National Union held peace talks
with the military government in January 2004; a second round of talks was held in February. It was
reported in August 2004 that the SPDC had launched a military offensive against rebels of the
Karenni National Progressive Party (KNPP), the KNU and the Shan State Army (SSA). Fresh
assaults against rebel bases of the KNPP and the KNU were carried out in January 2005.
Nigeria
Since the movement to impose Shari a law in the northern Muslim states gained momentum in
1999, tens of thousands have died in communal clashes in the central plains region of Nigeria. The
clashes, mainly involving ethnicHausa (Muslim) and ethnicYorubas (Christian) but also Fulani
(Muslim) and Tarok (Christian), generally diminished in 2002 but broke out once again in Kaduna in
November 2002 and quickly spread. Serious communal violence between Christians and Muslims
continued unabated through mid2004 but had decreased considerably in the latter months;
President Obasanjo lifted the state of emergency in November 2004.
Since the movement to impose Shari a law in the
northern Muslim states gained momentum in 1999,
tens of thousands have died in communal clashes in
the central plains region of Nigeria.

Throughout the conflict in Nigeria, the distribution of

oil revenues from the Niger delta has been a central
element of disagreement between conflict parties. At
the beginning of 2006, rebel groups have kidnapped
oil workers, stolen tankers and attacked oil fields
claiming to support impoverished communities in the delta and beyond with the proceeds of their
activities. Corruption among oil workers and government officials tied to the oil business is high
and adds fuel to the conflict. In addition, foreign oil companies are blamed for exporting the profits
without investing in local communities.
Philippines
The transition of power from President Estrada to his vicepresident Gloria Macapagal Arroyo
prompted a significant change in the governments policy toward the Moro Islamic Liberation Front
(MILF), which broke from the main Moro National Liberation Front (MNLF) following the latter
groups signing of a peace agreement and continued to seek an independent Muslim state in
Mindanao. In 2000 Estrada had adopted a hardline policy against the MILF and launched a military
offensive against them. Arroyo, however, initiated a more conciliatory path. Peace talks between
the government and MILF began in May 2001 and a ceasefire was signed in August 2001. The
peace process stalled, however, in early 2002 as a splinter, extremist group, Abu Sayyaf, staged
high profile attacks on civilian targets and the United States extended its global war on terrorism to
the Philippines. Malaysia acted as broker for talks between the government and the MILF
leadership, and in September 2004, sent a monitoring team to monitor a ceasefire between the
two sides. The government and the MILF had in July 2004 agreed to cooperate against kidnapping
gangs and the Islamic terrorist group Jemaah Islamiah (JI). Fighting continues with the extremist
Abu Sayyaf faction.
President Arroyos position within the government remains unstable in 2006. In September 2005,

she escaped impeachment on the grounds of corruption and fraud after the opposition in
parliament was not able to garner the necessary votes. As a result of a thwarted coup detat by
senior military official, President Arroyo has for the first time since the demise of the Marcos
Regime, declared an emergency status.
Russia
The armed conflict between the Russian government and separatist rebels in the republic of
Chechnya that had originally begun in 1994 and ended with de facto autonomy for the enclave in
1996 resumed in autumn 1999 when rebels staged attacks in neighboring Dagestan. The
continuing war has defied Russias concerted attempts to crush the resistance and contain the
fighting. Failure to contain the rebels has led to increased friction with neighboring Georgia, which
has been accused of harboring rebel forces, and periodic attacks by militants in neighboring
regions, the most serious incident being an attack on a school in Beslan, North Ossetia on
September 1, 2004, that resulted in over 330 deaths (official count; actual numbers may be much
higher). Chechen militants have mounted several deadly terrorist attacks as far away as Moscow
over the course of the conflict, including the seizure of 800 hostages in a Moscow theater in
October 2002 (that ended with Russian troops storming the theater and resulted in over 150 dead,
including all the militants), a metro train bombing that killed 40 in February 2004, and
simultaneous commercial airliner bombings in August 2004 that killed 89 persons. Chechen rebels
launched attacks into the Russian republic of Ingushetia in June 2004, raiding arms depots and
briefly occupying the Ingush Interior Ministry, killing the acting Ingush Interior Minister and nearly
100 others (mostly police and security forces).
Russian armed forces fighting in Ingushetia.

In February 2005, Aslan Maskhadov, the Chechen

rebel leader, was killed during a Russian special
military operation, shortly after calling for peace talks
with Russia, a move not supported by the entire
Chechen leadership. The new leader, AbdulKhalim
Saydullayev, signaled the end of peace talks with
Russia. In an attempt to widen the conflict,
Saydullayev formed the Caucasus Front. Chechen
rebels continue to attack Russian military installations
and government buildings in Chechnya. Regional
elections were held under tight security in November
2005. The Russianbacked United Front won more
than 50% of the seats, a result that was decried by the separatist forces.
Somalia
Sporadic armed clashes continued to plague Somalia in 2004; many of the more serious factional
clashes continue to occur in the capital city, Mogadishu, which has been carved up among rival
warlords since the ouster of the Barre regime in 1991. Various regions of Somalia have emerged
with fairly stable regional administrations, including Somaliland (1991), Puntland (1998) and
Southwestern Somalia (2002). A Transitional National Government (TNG) was formed in September
2000 but it failed to establish any effective authority inside Somalia. In the most recent attempt to
reestablish a central authority, a peace agreement including all the main warlords and feuding
factions, was signed in Nairobi, Kenya on January 29, 2004, providing for a 275 member
transitional legislature and a referendum on a new constitution. Fighting broke out along the border
between Somaliland and Puntland in September 2004 and in the southern port of Kismayo. In
October 2004, the President of Puntland, Col. Yusuf, was elected President of the new transitional
government. Prime Minister Ali Mohammed Ghedi survived two assassination attempts in 2005. The
various regional administrations and warlords were slow to concede authority to the new
government and it remains unclear whether it will be able to establish authority inside the country.
Lawlessness in Somalia continued through 2006. In addition to violence on land, militias have
targeted freighters and passenger ships off the coast of Somalia. The transitional parliament has,

for the first time since it was formed in Kenya in 2004, met inside Somalia in February 2006.
Sudan Darfur
Darfur, one of Sudans most isolated regions, has experienced communal violence in the past but
no organized armed group operated in the area until the emergence of the Darfur Liberation Front
(DLF) (subsequently renamed the Sudan Liberation Movement/ArmySLM/A) and the Justice and
Equality Movement (JEM) in February 2003. The harsh response of the Sudanese government and
its support of Arab janjaweed militias, accused of massive human rights violations, brought
international condemnation of the ethnic cleansing being carried out in the region. Escalating
violence in Darfur has claimed tens of thousands of lives and resulted in massive refugee flows.
The humanitarian situation in Darfur continued to decline despite a ceasefire called in early 2004.
Under threat of international sanctions, the government had agreed to disarm the militias and allow
human rights monitors in the area, but little progress had been made throughout 2005.
Bags of wheat provided by USAID are loaded on a truck for
transport to Darfur.

Sudan South
Fighting has ceased between the government of Sudan and
the main rebel group, the Sudan Peoples Liberation Army
(SPLA), since a comprehensive ceasefire was signed in October 2002. The war had continued
through the summer of 2002, despite peace talks and the signing of the Machakos Protocol in July
2002 declaring agreement on a selfdetermination referendum for southern Sudan after a sixyear
interim period. Numerous rounds of peace talks held throughout 2003 and 2004 finally resulted in
a comprehensive peace agreement signed on January 9, 2005, establishing a permanent ceasefire
between the rebels and the Sudanese government. It was hoped the agreement, characterized as
one of the most complex peace deals in history, would bring an end to the twentyyear civil war.
Uganda
The conflict in north Uganda defies conventional analysis as the main rebel group, the Lords
Resistance Army (LRA), has established a fairly secure base of operations in the troubled area
across the border in the Sudan. The LRA has been preying mainly on the very large refugee and
internally displaced populations in the region. A December 1999 agreement between Sudan and
Uganda to cooperate in lessening the strength of armed rebel factions in the border regions led to a
March 2002 agreement allowing Uganda armed forces to attack LRA bases in south Sudan. One
immediate result of the Ugandan offensive in Sudan was an increase in LRA attacks in north
Uganda. The March 2002 agreement was extended in December 2002 to allow Ugandan forces
access to Sudan territory until the end of January 2003. Despite a 46 day ceasefire and highlevel
peace talks in late 2004, the government and the LRA failed to reach agreement on a longterm
ceasefire and extended peace negotiations. LRA rebels ambushed an army unit in northern Uganda
in January 2005, prompting President Museveni to order the resumption of fullscale operations
against the rebels.

14

Marshall, M. G. and T. R. Gurr (2005). Peace and Conflict 2005: A Global Survey of Armed Conflicts, Self
Determination Movements and Democracy. Center for International Development & Conflict Management.

Summary
The international system is in the midst of substantial change. This may be partially due to the end
of the Cold War and the consequent break up of the eastern and western blocs as well as the
severing of relationships with states on the periphery that were once deemed strategically
significant by the superpowers. The last 20 years have seen a rise in internal conflicts and the

proliferation of nonstate actors. The nature of contemporary conflicts has changed in many
respects. This lesson has identified seven changes:
1. Political goals related to foreign policy have been replaced by the consolidation of new
forms of power.
2. The underlying values are based on identities at the communal level and no longer on
universal principles.
3. Mobilization is achieved through fear and coercion rather than a sense of nationalism.
4. The sources of external support have shifted from superpowers to Diasporas, mercenaries
and bad neighbors.
5. Asymmetrical warfare.
6. Civilians have increasingly become the target of violence.
7. Armed conflicts are often financed through illegal activities rather than taxes.
The second part of the lesson introduced the laws governing international and noninternational
conflicts, i.e. ius ad bellum and ius in bello. It pointed out that the mechanisms of globalization and
changes in the nature of armed conflict have challenged five key distinction that form the basis for
the international law of armed conflict:
1. International vs. noninternational conflicts.
2. Crime vs. conflict.
3. Zones of war and zones of peace.
4. Times of war and times of peace.
5. Civilians and (un)lawful combatants.
The lesson then highlighted the sources of these challenges and the latest developments,
particularly with reference to the Global War on Terrorism.
The final sections of this lesson presented some aggregate data and provided a brief summary of
the ongoing armed conflicts through the year 2005. The data shows that since 1990, roughly 1/3
of all states have experienced internal conflicts, and that 35 of those conflicts have lasted over
seven years. Most conflicts take place on the African continent.
During periods of conflict, communities and civilian populations experience massive destruction and
dislocation. This damage leads to immediate social and humanitarian emergencies that cannot be
ignored. Violence often leaves communities unable to meet their most basic needs for survival.
Famine, disease and political anarchy create an immediate need for assistance. In other cases,
sudden political instability, natural disaster, or economic collapse may provide the spark that ignites
violent conflict. Immediate measures must be taken to minimize the human suffering and to
prevent the conflict from further escalating. These types of crises, whether natural or manmade,
are known as Complex Emergencies.
2005, Hurricane Katrina causes massive destruction in the Gulf of
Mexico.

Hurricane Katrina

Complex Emergencies combine internal conflict with:

largescale displacements of people;

mass famine or food shortage;

fragile or failing economic, political and social institutions.

Often, natural disasters and severely inadequate transportation networks exacerbate Complex
Emergencies. Complex Emergencies require immediate attention. The multiple causes of
Complex Emergencies can be described as the entanglement of four scourges:
1. War
2. Disease
3. Hunger
4. Displacement
The fabric of society including economic, political and social institutions becomes frayed or torn.
A Complex Humanitarian Emergency may be defined as a national crisis in which:

political authority and public services deteriorate or completely collapse;

internal ethnic, tribal, or religious conflict occurs, with widespread atrocities against
noncombatants;

massive population movements take place, with people escaping violence or searching for
food;

widespread food insecurity appears, frequently deteriorating into starvation;

a public health emergency causes epidemics of communicable disease.

The chaos leads to macroeconomic collapse with massive unemployment, devaluation of the
currency and negative GNP growth.1
Sudan: Darfur
Internally displaced people in Darfur waiting for food.

Sudan

Natsios, Andrew, Commanders Guidance: A Challenge of Complex Humanitarian Emergencies from Parameters, US
Army War College Quarterly, Summer 1996.

Complex Emergencies
Definition
Two researchers have defined the failed nationstate as: utterly incapable of sustaining itself as a
member of the international community2. The definition was extended to include states facing
serious internal problems that threaten their continued coherence or significant internal
challenges to their political order.3
Primary Causes of State Failure
1. Major shifts in the global political order

According to one commentator, the problem of failed states stems from the collapse of the colonial
order and the later collapse of the Soviet Union. Some states are failing today because, after
colonial rule, they never established the institutions, processes and political legitimacy essential for
effective governance. Competition between the Soviet Union and the United States during the Cold
War only added to the problem, as each camp competed for influence in weaker countries by
providing them with economic and military help. When the Cold War ended, this steady stream of
assistance stopped, plunging these countries into economic and political crisis. 4
The emergence of global terrorist networks has since September 11, 2001, added another
dimension to the shifts in the global political order. The capacity of internationally active terrorist
organizations to organize local actions undermines efforts by the international community to
stabilize countries in danger of collapsing. Experts argue that members of AlQaeda have
congregated in Iraq, actively participate in attacks against U.S. troops, and stir up tensions
between religious groups.
School of Jihad

2. Premature or unstable democratic institutions

Women in Yemen protesting for more rights in front of a
court.

While few would argue against the desirability of

democracy generally, it is important to maintain some
sense of perspective on the specific challenges that
confront this type of political system. Three challenges
in particular merit further attention in light of recent
events in international relations:
Democratic transitions
As has been noted in Unit 2, transitions often offer an opportunity for those who stand to
loose power to defend their status through the use of violence. In contrast, parties that
ascend to power may abuse their new power status to retaliate against the members and
supporters of the former regime. Fears of retaliation and loss of power make democratic
transitions difficult, as the recent experiences in Iraq and Afghanistan have shown.
Authority and freedom
In democracies, the authority of the state is carefully weighed against the freedom of
individuals, and safeguards are in place to prevent the abuse of state power at the expense
of individual freedoms. Authoritarian philosophies, such as radical political Islam, represent
a particular challenge to the promotion of democratic values. In many Muslim countries,
governments perceive the extension of individual freedoms and the democratic process as
a threat to the authority of the state and to society as a whole. As a result, particularly in

the Middle East, states have been reluctant to respond to popular demands for more
democratic institutions.
Alternative political powers
Democratic governments are the expression of a choice made by the population at the
ballot box. The election results in Algeria, Egypt and the Palestinian Territories highlight the
popularity of organizations associated with antiwestern, radical Islam that have used and
are linked to terrorism. One explanation for their success may be the rise of radical Islam in
the Middle East; another explanation, particularly in the case of Hamas, may be the
dissatisfaction of the population with the previous government couples with a lack of
political alternatives. The open nature of the democratic process may lead to outcomes that
can pose a threat national, regional or international stability.
Palestinians celebrate the victory of Hamas after the January 2006
election.

3. Increasing Ungovernability
On one hand, ungovernability is related to the declining ability of governments worldwide to carry
out the responsibilities of managing a modern state in an increasingly complex environment. Three
phenomena increase the difficulty of governing a state:

The growth of transnational crime, including drug and weapons trade, and international
terrorism. Criminal organizations that effectively control territory and populations, such as
the rebel forces in Columbia, or warlords in Afghanistan and Somalia, make it impossible
for the governments to enforce laws and maintain order. This problem is aggravated for
states that are weak to begin with.

During the past two decades, there has been a growth in ethnic and religious conflicts that
cause fragmentation within countries. Yugoslavia is one example, but Rwanda, Sri Lanka,
Indonesia (Aceh) follow the same pattern.

Formal government authority is threatened by the challenges of globalization, which places

many important decisions affecting national interests into the hands of outside forces. New
states and developing states are particularly affected by this problem as they often lack
the technical expertise in many issue areas related to foreign and domestic policy.
Governing Somalia ....

4. Natural disasters
Serious natural calamities, such as droughts, hurricanes, earthquakes and volcanic eruptions, may
cause suffering and damage far beyond a nations ability to cope. Such disasters, when they occur
in already troubled regions, may provide the spark for violent conflict and state collapse. Farmers,
already desperate over economic conditions, may be driven to rebellion by severe crop failures.
Ethnic enclaves contemplating independence may see the central governments inability to cope
with a disaster as further reason to secede.
The 2004 Tsunami in South Asia, 2005 earthquake in Pakistan and the famine in Sudan all showed
the burden that natural disasters can place on governments.
Good Disaster

5. Uneven economic development

A recent study by a peace research institute on failed states indicates that uneven development
within a country, and not merely poverty, is a cause of failing states. 6
Results of State Failure
Failing states may struggle to regain their balance for a long period of time while they seek creative
solutions and outside assistance. During this period, these states have a diminished capacity to
deal with additional crises and disasters and are especially susceptible to complex emergencies.
When complex emergencies do develop, they have a significant impact on neighboring states,
regional stability, and the international community in general. This may lead to an immediate rise
in crime, massive suffering and loss of life, uncontrolled population movements, and economic
turmoil throughout the region. The failed state is unable to respond to the problems at hand,
leading in turn to further violence, suffering, and destruction. The following factors may be
especially prominent:
1. Fragmented political authority
Failed states usually face deterioration or complete collapse of central political authority. Foreign
governments and relief agencies have great difficulty determining who is in charge and who they
need to work with. This creates obvious difficulties in diplomatic relations as well is in relief
operations. Neighboring states may send in military forces to secure the border, stabilize the
situation, or oppose one of the rival factions vying for power. In the absence of any central political
authority, regional warlords come to play a central role. These warlords, often operating with local
popular support, have little or no political legitimacy. In many cases, they come from a military
background and have little interest in civilian administration. For this reason, foreign governments
often avoid recognizing these individuals as legitimate authority figures. At the same time, those
attempting to work in the field recognize the necessity of working with these warlords, since they
control most if not all real power in the region. Official responses, therefore, often recognize
certain leaders who are deemed acceptable allies while dismissing all others who are branded
bandits unworthy of official recognition. This type of response which is based on extreme
positions should be avoided.
Afghanistan's fragmented landscape: the territory under
control of warlords in 2004.
(Image Source: GobalSecurity.org. Military Maps. March 8, 2006.
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/afghanistan/images/
afghan-map_warlords_2004.gif)

The reality in most collapsed states is that warlords must receive some recognition in order to
coordinate ground activities and facilitate assistance efforts, but not so much recognition that they
are seen as having the full support of outside parties. Additionally, by only focusing on warlords
who derive their power from military might outside parties risk ignoring traditional leaders who
may be essential to rebuilding the society.
The rule I followed while managing the humanitarian relief efforts of the US government in
Somalia in 1992 was this: meet with local militia or warlord figures only when the Somali clan
elders (most of whom despised the warlords) were physically in the same room. The warlords did
not like it, but they had no choice; this arrangement sent a strong message to the community
about US government support for traditional authority figures.7
(Source: Andrew Natsios, U.S. Special Coordinator of Somalia Relief, 19911993)
2. Rise in organized crime

In situations of confusion and chaos, organized crime will very quickly establish itself as the
dominant force in civilian life. This is especially true in regions with valuable natural resource such
as gems, minerals, and narcotic agriculture (coca, opium poppies). While lowlevel illegal activities
such as black market smuggling are to be expected and can be tolerated to some extent,
largescale criminal syndicates pose a considerable risk for future recovery. Organized crime will
oppose any legitimate political structure that might hinder or regulate its operations. Furthermore,
fighting between different criminal elements may escalate the crisis and make resolution of any
existing conflicts that much more difficult. Many atrocities in conflict situations are committed by
criminal elements vying for power and control and may be the single largest threat to the safety of
civilian populations.
Drugs and Conflict in Colombia
3. Regional instability
Failed states create serious problems for their neighbors and threaten the stability of the entire
region. Neighboring economies suffer, creating unemployment and hardship. Ethnic and religious
groups are rarely confined within national boundaries, increasing the chance that social conflict will
spread. Refugees, seeking food or fleeing from violence, may flood across national borders. The
political vacuum that exists will create a strong sense of uncertainty, encouraging numerous
elements to compete for control. Natural disasters may have created similar conditions throughout
the entire region, leaving neighboring states illprepared to deal with these sudden pressures.
Great care and quick action by the international community is necessary to keep this regional
instability from spreading.
4. Base for terrorism
With the elevation of terrorism to a national and global security threat, weak states have attracted
more attention in recent years. It is feared that in the absence of a government capable of
controlling its territory and enforcing laws, failed states offer a base for terrorist organizations to
seek refuge, maintain training camps and plan attacks.

Gerard B. Helman and Steven R. Ratner, Saving Failed States, Foreign Policy, 89 (Winter 199293), p3.
William J. Olson, The New World Disorder: Governability and Development, in Max G. Manwaring, ed., Gray Area
Phenomena: Confronting the New World Disorder (Boulder, Colo.: Westview Press, 1993), p.5.
4
Dorff, Robert, Democratization and Failed States: The Challenged of Ungovernability from Parameters, US Army War
College Quarterly, Summer 1996.
5
United Nations Development Programme. Programme on Governance in the Arab Region. Statistics and Indicators:
Somalia. March 4, 2006.
6
Fund for Peace. Failed States Index. Foreign Policy July/August 2005.
7
Natsios, Andrew, Commanders Guidance: A Challenge of Complex Humanitarian Emergencies
3

Potential Triggers for Complex Emergencies

While failed states often accompany Complex Emergencies, they are not the only possible cause
or consequence. Complex Emergencies are complex for the simple reason that they are not
created by any single event. Despite this complexity, there is often a single event or situation that
sets the crisis in motion. This is known as a triggering event. The following categories should be
watched closely as potential Complex Emergency triggers:
Environmental crisis
This includes natural disasters such as drought, famine and flood as well as manmade crises such
as extreme pollution, environmental destruction and the competition over water resources. Many
developing nations are in lowlying or tropical regions of the world where they are especially
susceptible to extreme weather conditions, such as the tsunami that has caused so much damage
in South East Asia in 2004. Countries arid environments such as Sudan, Afghanistan and western
China face problems of drought and massive crop failure. States in conflict may suffer extreme

environmental destruction, as for example the damage caused by oil spillage and burning refineries
in the Persian Gulf in 1991. In other cases, human error may lead to environmental catastrophe.
Examples of the latter include the 1984 poisonous gas leak in Bhopal, India and the 1986
Chernobyl nuclear meltdown.
Social crisis
Ethnic and religious conflicts exist in many societies without becoming violent. If these conflicts
suddenly become violent, social and government institutions can collapse rapidly. While the
grievances of both sides may be longstanding, the outbreak of actual warfare leads to a sudden
breakdown of coexistence. Former neighbors are unable to live sidebyside in safety, and armed
militia groups will quickly emerge. This type of fighting may be encouraged by the media (as in
Rwandas infamous hate radio), by leaders who make dramatic threats, and by government
legislation that is seen to strongly work against the interests of one group. In general, societies
resort to violent conflict when one group feels that it has no other options and must fight to defend
its very existence.
After the bombing of the Samarra mosque, one of the
holiest shrines of the Shia Muslims, violence broke out
in retaliation.

Currently, Iraq exhibits strong signs of a breakdown of

the social tissue. After the bombing of the Samarra
mosque, one of the holiest shrines of the Shia Muslims,
violence broke out in retaliation. Even though the attacks are commonly viewed as an attempt by
terrorists to ignite a civil war, the Shia and Sunni people increasingly seek security within their
groups and crosscultural ties slowly break down. The fact that Sunnis move out of predominantly
Shia neighborhoods and vice versa illustrates how group identities become isolated.
Economic crisis
The sudden collapse of a nations currency can cause rapid poverty, unemployment and crime. This,
in turn, can lead to the collapse of distribution systems. Food and other essential goods fail to
reach the people most in need. Individuals cannot afford to pay their bills, industry comes to a halt,
more jobs are lost and the cycle repeats. Without outside intervention, economic collapse can occur
within only a few months. This can both cause conflict (as people struggle to survive) and be the
result of conflict.
Political crisis
Sudden political crises, such as the assassination of a leader, charges of highlevel corruption, or
the unexpected election of a radical extremist, can also trigger a Complex Emergency. If the
existing government is seen to have no legitimacy, it may face sudden challenges from rival
groups. Popular revolts or rebel insurgencies may paralyze the government and lead to further
crisis. Likewise, a military coup may trigger rebellion within minority groups, or may lead to
economic collapse.
Togo

Security crisis
Militia groups within national borders can cause sudden and unexpected crises, such as the January
1, 1994 Zapatista revolt in Chiapas, Mexico. Security crises can also be caused by a lack of
adequate police presence within the country. If the government cannot guarantee the safety of its
citizens, additional problems are likely to follow. Likewise, problems will arise if the government
cannot adequately control its external borders, thus allowing criminal elements and foreign rebel
groups to enter unrestricted.

Consequences of Complex Emergencies

Uncontrolled population movement
Almost all complex emergencies that occur in the world today involve largescale movements of
civilian populations away from their homes in search of either food, shelter, or security. In many
cases, between 25 and 50 percent of the local population is displaced either by force or by
necessity. This creates a host of problems:

When people leave their homes they become exceptionally vulnerable to hunger and to
epidemics of communicable disease.

Refugee groups can be politically destabilizing to receiving countries. Sudden population

changes can alter delicate political arrangements based on ethnic or religious
representation. Refugees often move to neighboring countries where they are not
welcome, and sometimes even viewed as enemies. Under international humanitarian law,
however, they must be accepted under the doctrine of safe haven.

The presence of refugees may invite military action against the harboring state from the
home country they have just left.

Fleeing refugees invariably form squalid refugee or displacedperson camps which are in
every respect undesirable. These camps are a social, economic and political nightmare
yet for the people who inhabit them, they sometimes provide a better alternative than the
prospect of returning to their home.
Dealing with Displaced Persons

Refugee movement in Rwanda (1996)

The number of refugees that fled Rwanda into neighboring
countries has put a large burden on the stability in the region. All
of the recipient countries (Zaire, Burundi, Tanzania, Uganda) were
and still are faced with significant political, economic and social
problems and widespread violence. Particularly in the Democratic
Republic of Congo (former Zaire) and Burundi, refugees have
exacerbated tensions.

Lack of adequate food

Complex Emergencies invariably involve a food crisis. This may be
caused by floods, droughts, or crop failures. Famine may also be
the result of political, military, or economic turmoil that blocks
regular food distribution channels. There may be adequate food within the country, but its
distribution may be irregular or unpredictable. This creates a deep sense of insecurity and suffering
within the country, and will likely lead to additional problems such as refugee movements, political
upheaval and environmental degradation.
Since World War II, famine relief and food distribution has been the traditional mission of
emergency relief organizations. These organizations, however, face a very different situation in the
PostCold War world and are reacting quickly to change their approach. Famine is nearly always
accompanied by the many other complex issues addressed here. Because of this, foreign aid
including food, shelter and service contracts can have a strong influence on other aspects of the
crisis, influencing population movements and strengthening the position of one faction over
another. Any relief program should take special care to understand the ramifications that
humanitarian intervention will have on the situation. Gone are the days of simple food delivery to
starving rural populations. Aid missions must deal with the possibilities of continuing violence,
economic collapse, political anarchy and collapsed infrastructure.
Poor health care

Complex Emergencies are also likely to involve a health crisis. This may be brought about by
unsanitary conditions that lead to sudden outbreaks of disease and plague. Natural disasters leave
communities especially vulnerable to widespread sickness. Local medical facilities are usually
inadequate or nonexistent, and are thus unable to handle the crisis. The lack of local hospitals or
clinics also means that basic medical needs cannot be met. This may include everything from
physical injuries to maternity care.
Economic collapse
Failed economies are both cause and consequence of Complex Emergencies. As discussed above,
economic crisis may trigger a Complex Emergency. Economies also suffer severe damage during
periods of crisis. This includes:
1. A sudden rise in unemployment.
2. The breakdown of distribution channels (including food and basic necessities).
3. A high level of social uncertainty.
Even strong economies facing a Complex Emergency will have considerable trouble. As economies
falter, they create additional crisis and further escalate the existing emergency.
Continued escalation of violence
Sudden economic collapse, food shortages, refugee movements, health crises and political anarchy
all serve to further inflame grievances that may have contributed to violent conflict in the
beginning. All sides will feel more vulnerable and will be less inclined to compromise, preferring
instead to defend their own interests. As the situation within the country deteriorates and becomes
more desperate, violent conflict over access to resources and control of territory increases. By
mixing social and political turmoil with devastating humanitarian crises, ceasefires become much
more difficult to negotiate and enforce.

Ibid.

Responding to Complex Emergencies

By their very nature, Complex Emergencies involve a wide range of individual crises that serve to
reinforce each other and make the situation continually worse. It is this combination of crises that
make such situations complex, posing serious difficulties for any organization or government that
seeks to send assistance to the troubled region. The following scenarios demonstrate only a few of
the ways different crisis can interact:
Humanitarian assistance may be blocked by:

Closed or damaged roadways.

Highway bandits.

Political anarchy and official indecision.

Corrupt official who divert funds away.

Extreme snow conditions prevent a convoy of the World
Food Program to deliver assistance.

Political settlements may be blocked by:

Ethnic hatred, distrust and violence.

Endemic poverty leading to social unrest.

Rogue militias or military splinter groups.

Population displacement (refugees and internally displaced people).

Environmental disasters can:

Trigger conflict by increasing suffering beyond a regions ability to cope.

Be caused by conflict through environmental degradation or sabotage.

Involve contamination by nuclear, biological or chemical agents.

Lead to famine, disease, and uncontrolled population movements.

Economic recovery may be hindered by:

Lack of political leadership.

Warring militia groups.

Environmental destruction.

Displaced communities.

Any response to conflict emergency must be as dynamic and responsive as the emergency itself.
This means that military leaders who are essential to dealing with issues of peace and security
must work closely with nongovernmental relief agencies, indigenous leaders, regional warlords,
international negotiators, the media and business professionals. Each of these actors brings their
own relative strengths and has a unique role to play in resolving the crisis. Actions taken by any of
these groups affect the process and impact the way other groups will respond. Different groups and
organizations responding to a crisis may have different objectives, perspectives and priorities.
Successful interventions require that these various forces be coordinated in a constructive manner.
Relief efforts must also contend with the exhaustion both physical and emotional that is
common among relief workers who often find themselves overworked and overextended.
In general, there are four major requirements for an effective Complex Emergency response:
Leadership
Comprehensive strategic leadership is essential to bring together all of the different actors
and elements present in dealing with a Complex Emergency. In the absence of reliable
leadership, relief efforts can actually make the situation worse and place responding
personnel in extreme danger.
Comprehensive plan
A comprehensive plan, developed in advance, should focus on the core objectives of the
intervention. Such a plan provides the general framework within which all relief efforts will
operate. When dealing with humanitarian assistance, success cannot be defined strictly in
military or tactical terms. One does not win a Complex Emergency. Rather, goals must be
established to ease human suffering, halt the continued downward spiral of conflict, and
prepare the region for longterm recovery. Quick exit strategies that are based on political
agendas, not conditions on the ground, should be avoided. Military forces entering conflict
zones in an attempt to stabilize the situation must understand that their mission halting
the crisis may be successful even without a tactical victory. Likewise, military success
does not insure a solution to the emergency.
Adequate resources

Often, relief efforts fail when they lack the resources necessary for success. National
governments, as well as the international community as a whole, have become weary of
spending massive amounts of money on what are perceived as failed interventions. Having
a comprehensive plan will help outline the objectives to be met and the resources required
to meet them. Solid leadership will help insure that resources reach their intended
destinations and are not wasted. In most cases, adequate resources exist, but are withheld
by governments and agencies that are uncertain about the mission or its prospects for
success.
Monitoring Mechanisms
Establishing accountability is essential to any mission. Unforeseen circumstances may force
sudden changes in plans and alter relationships with local actors. In this complex and
evolving situation, resources must not become misdirected and tactics must not become
counterproductive. Monitoring helps prevent corruption and insure that tactics are
effective and have the desired results. Often, the relationships and techniques that worked
at the beginning of the intervention are no longer as effective several months later, and
must be reevaluated.
Immediate responses to Complex Emergencies often focus on the short term, as actors struggle to
meet the basic human needs of health and security.
Humanitarian Interventions
Humanitarian interventions attempt to meet the most basic needs of the population: food, water,
shelter and health care. Such assistance must be delivered to besieged cities or remote enclaves,
often across difficult terrain, enduring tough weather and relying on staging areas near the crisis
that often are nearly as remote and hostile. Security is essential, as humanitarian assistance can
be easily affected by closed roads, bandits, or warlords.
Human tragedy is usually the catalyst for external involvement in Complex Emergencies. These
humanitarian tasks are often the first to draw the attention of outside actors, and can therefore
have a tremendous impact on international involvement.
Security interventions
Security interventions vary widely in their goals and implementation. Important immediate tasks
typically include ensuring access and security for relief workers, monitoring adherence to
agreements, and separating former warring parties. Longterm goals should include demobilizing
armed factions, enforcing sanctions and restoring all elements of a law and order system. Security
missions will depend greatly on the nature of the violence and the level of consent among the
warring parties.
As soon as the immediate situation has been stabilized, ending the immediate crisis and breaking
the cycle of escalation, responding agencies and governments must begin thinking about
transitioning to a longterm strategy, focusing on development, reconstruction and peacebuilding.

Summary
This lesson started out by defining Complex Emergencies as situations, which combine internal
conflict with largescale political and humanitarian crises. Typical crises include population
displacement, spread of disease, famines, economic collapse, Failed States, escalating violence and
environmental degradation.
The lesson then looked at the role of Failed States in Complex Emergencies and outlined the causes
of Failed States and their consequences. The section pointed out that fragmented political
authority, organized crime, regional instability and the threat of terrorists establishing a base for
operations are particularly important results of failing and Failed States.
The third section of the lesson was concerned with the triggers of Complex Emergencies at the
social, political, economic, environmental and security levels. Finally, the unit outlined the elements

of a successful response to Complex Emergencies, including leadership, planning, resources and

monitoring mechanism.

Approaches to Conflict Management (CM)

The European Union defines conflict management as:
Actions undertaken to prevent the vertical (intensification of violence) or horizontal
(territorial spread) escalation of existing violent conflicts.1
The definition put forth by the International Crisis Group is slightly more encompassing
and includes actions that:
Respond to a crisis that has crossed the threshold into armed conflict, to prevent it from
escalating and to bring it to a conclusion.2
For the purpose of this lesson conflict management is defined even broader to include actions that
prevent, limit, resolve or transform conflicts. This definition integrates the concepts of horizontal
and vertical escalation as well as the goal of ending a conflict, and adds the dimension of conflict
prevention that addresses situations before they cross the threshold of prevention.
The term conflict management is often used interchangeably or in connection with conflict
resolution, conflict settlement and conflict transformation. There is no agreement among
practitioners and academics on the precise definition and use of these terms. This course uses the
terms in the following ways:

Resolution solving the causes of conflict.

Transformation changing the relationship between the conflicting parties.

Settlement suppresses or ends the conflict without addressing the deeper causes and
relationships.

For the purpose of this course, we use conflict management as an overarching term, encompassing
elements of resolution, transformation and settlement. Conflict management can be divided in five
distinct activities3:
1. Preventive Diplomacy (routine diplomacy, conflict prevention, crisis diplomacy)
2. Peacemaking
3. Peace Enforcement
4. Peacekeeping
5. Peacebuilding
Preventative Diplomacy
Preventive Diplomacy, as defined in the UNs Agenda for Peace, consists of all actions geared to
prevent disputes from arising, escalating, or spreading. Preventive Diplomacy encompasses routine
diplomacy, which takes place during stable peace, conflict prevention, which is used during
unstable peace, and crisis diplomacy, which is applied during the crisis stage of the conflict cycle.
With the rise of India and China as economic powers and the shift towards leftist regimes in
Venezuela, Brazil and Bolivia, routine diplomacy is an important instrument in maintaining
relationships that are based on mutual respect and oriented toward problemsolving. The
potentially harmful longterm strategic impact of Chinas and Indias rise in power can be mitigated
through some of the instruments used in preventive diplomacy. The same instruments can also be
applied to limit the possibility of societal breakdown in countries like Venezuela, Brazil or Bolivia.

The Director of the Office for Democratic

Institutions and Human Rights, Christian Strohal
(on the right) hands a certificate to a Hungarian
police officer who completed the ODIHR
sponsored training program on combating hate
crimes.

Strategies for routine diplomacy include:

Practitioner training and education in

areas such as history, civic education,
conflict management, news reporting,
police activities, rule of law and human rights. Switzerland, for example, provides expert
assistance in the field of forensic evidence to Guatemalas police officers.

Exchange visits prevent stereotypes and preconceived notions of the other side, create
trust and establish open channels for communication and information. Exchange programs
may include students, professors, economic leaders, military personnel and other
members of civic society. The 2006 U.S. budget includes $180 million for exchange
programs in countries with significant Muslim populations in Africa, South Asia, Indonesia
and others with the expressed goal to promote better understanding of America and
American values.4

Collaboration between local and international nongovernmental

organizations. (NGOS) and official organizations. NGOs are often familiar with local
conditions and local actors and can play an informal role in addressing the sources of
conflict and convening the parties into problemsolving dialogue to avert the escalation of
conflict. The United Nations NonGovernmental Liaison Service promotes partnerships
between the UN and NGOs with the goal to exchange information, advice and expertise,
specifically in the field of social and economic development.

Regime and institution building aimed at strengthening and maintaining relations and
institutions, including arms regimes and disarmament programs. For example, under the
Cooperative Threat Reduction Program, which took effect in 1993, the Unites States
provides funding and expertise to help the former Soviet Union safeguard and dismantle
its enormous stockpiles of nuclear, chemical and biological weapons, as well as its means
of delivery and related materials. In light of the September 11 attacks and the threat of
terrorists acquiring weapons of mass destruction, the U.S. has expanded the program to
include countries outside the former Soviet Union.

Interpol
Conflict prevention strategies include:

International law and treaty organizations, which employ arbitration, mediation as

well as sanctions, and implement accepted interpretations of international laws and
standards of behavior. Most of the principles regarding armed conflict and international law
have been integrated in the United Nations Charter, including the International Court of
Justice, which settles legal disputes between states in accordance with international law.
International Court of Justice in Action

Multilateral regional and international organizations, which use consensual processes

to determine appropriate responses to given situations and use their influence and
resources to provide support to other preventive processes. The United Nations is the
most prominent example of this type, but regional organizations such as the Organization
for Security and Cooperation in Europe, the Organization of American States, or the
African Union play an increasingly important role in conflict prevention.
Since the September 11 attacks, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) has
played an important role in limiting the proliferation of nuclear weapons and the threat
that terrorists may acquire fissile material. The reports issued by the IAEA, based on visits
and research, have been essential in determining preventive measures and international
responses to Iraq and Iran. The agency also plays a key role in supporting negotiations
with North Korea.

IAEA team examining the nuclear facility in Tuwaitha Iraq in 2003.

Factfinding conducted by third parties to investigate a

situation of budding conflict. Information gathered can
then be used to compare claims made by adversaries
against the fact on the ground. Factfinding missions that
make a concerted effort to identify and consider all the
major voices involved in the situation can contribute powerfully to conflict analysis. The
analysis can then be used to create appropriate responses to conflict situations. The Amani
Forum, initiated by a group of parliamentarians in the Great Lakes region, conducted fact
finding missions in Uganda that facilitated the repatriation of Ugandan exrebels living in
Kenya.

Early warning systems designed to alert the international community to potential conflict
situations early in the escalation cycle before hostilities breakout into war. Early warning
hinges on good analysis and can be essential in developing an effective lowcost, lowrisk
response at a time when conflicts are most amenable to prevention. Most importantly,
realities on the ground must be translated into concrete actions at the political level. There
are many early warning information systems available either through the UN system or
from other sources such government agencies (USAID), NGOs (Fund for Peace) and
research institutions/universities (University of Maryland, Minorities at Risk). 5

Confidence building measures are designed to demonstrate good faith and rebuild trust
between adversaries. Systematic exchanges and arrangements for the free flow of
information, regional and subregional risk reduction centers, and the monitoring of arms
agreements are examples. In 2003, for example, Belize and Guatemala, under the
auspices of the Organization of American States (OAS), established confidence building
measures, including plans for cooperative responses to natural disasters, to facilitate the
resolution of their dispute over territorial and maritime boundaries. 6
In December 2005, Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh and
Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf signed an agreement
exchanging 587 prisoners, who had been detained for illegally
crossing international boundaries. The action was specifically
designed to increase confidence between the two countries.

Support for the peacemaking efforts of local leaders and communities. Local
peacemakers are often neglected as a resource by the international community, which
instead focuses its attention on warmakerssometimes with the unintended consequence
of undermining indigenous peace efforts. USAID has provided funding in the form of
grants to local Colombian groups attempting to facilitate dialogue and prevent violence in
their communities.
UNPREDEP peacekeeper monitors the Yugoslav border
(1998).

Finally, crisis diplomacy has the following tools:

Sanctions have become an increasingly common

strategy to coerce parties to a conflict to change
their conflict behavior through strategically placed pressure. International sanctions are
typically deployed once a conflict has escalated and often only after it has reached the
entrapped or mutually hurting stalemate stage. Yet, it is possible to use them as a
preventative measure at an earlier phase in the escalation cycle. Sanctions can be

deployed unilaterally or multilaterally, though concerted multilateral efforts are usually

more successful. The secondary effects of sanctions must be considered carefully, because
they often entail high humanitarian costs. The comprehensive sanctions regime in Iraq and
the related OilforFood program illustrated the strategic elements of coercion as well as
the potential shortfalls and humanitarian costs of sanction.

Special Envoys are special representatives of governments or international organizations

that travel to crisis areas to help reduce tensions. They may assess circumstances, offer
conciliation or mediation services and report back to their governments or the
international community. The United Nations Secretary General has appointed a Special
Envoy for Ethiopia and Eritrea to provide his good offices in order to help support the
implementation of the Algiers Agreement between Ethiopia and Eritrea.

Preventive deployment of peacekeeping troops before hostilities have escalated into

armed violence. In 1992, UN peacekeepers were preventively deployed along the border of
the Republic of Macedonia to keep the war in Bosnia and tensions in Kosovo from
spreading to other Balkan countries. A preventive deployment is ormally based on a
decision at the international, i.e. the UN, or regional level, i.e. EU or AU and follows strict
procedures. Its impact on the dynamics of the conflict must be carefully assessed.

Demilitarized Zones are used to create a physical, and therefore psychological, space
between parties in conflict. Obvious examples of this include areas in the Middle East and
the Koreas. Traditionally they require the consent of the parties in conflict and are
accompanied by preventive deployment of troops or observer/factfinding missions to
guarantee compliance.

Arms control and deterrence capabilities can limit the means with which parties can
conduct their hostile behavior. In addition, regional arms proliferation can actually
contribute to conflict escalation by increasing tensions and perceptions of threats to
security.

Mediation and negotiation are increasingly used in crisis diplomacy.

Peacemaking
Peacemaking is the actual process for reaching an agreement to end a period of hostilities It refers
to nonviolent means to bring about peace, which include:

Good Offices is a term used when a third party provides a forum for the disputing parties
to begin a dialogue and to open the door to potential future agreements.

Conciliation processes are often used in the prenegotiation phase of deescalating a

conflict when the antagonists have very few constructive interactions. The function of
conciliation is to provide an informal communication link between the parties for the
purpose of identifying the major issues, lowering tensions, and laying the groundwork for
direct interaction and negotiations between the parties. Conciliation processes can include
factfinding, shuttle diplomacy for channeling messages by official or unofficial persons,
and good offices.

Negotiations are direct talks between the principle parties to the conflict who share ideas,
information and options in order to reach a mutually acceptable agreement.

Interactive conflict resolution and problem solving workshops. Often considered in

the realm of unofficial Track Two Diplomacy, these workshops bring together groups of
individuals who are often close to leaders of the different parties but who are acting in a
private, nonofficial capacity. These workshops are usually organized by a third party team
skilled in conflict analysis and resolution. The team facilitates honest discussion of the
underlying issues and perceptions of the conflict. The goal is to develop a joint
understanding of the motivating interests and needs of all parties. Such workshops also
address the relationship issues that impede the parties from working together
constructively on their joint problems. They can then assist the parties in developing
awareness of the obstacles to resolution, and begin to formulate an action plan for
peacemaking strategies. Problem solving workshops are valuable in the prenegotiation
phase of deescalation and can be used in conjunction with official negotiations that have
become stuck. These workshops have been used in some of the worlds most intractable
conflicts and have gotten public recognition for their value in the peace processes of
Northern Ireland, PalestineIsrael and South Africa.

Mediation involves a trusted and/or respected thirdparty that attempts to facilitate a

negotiated settlement on substantive issues. Mediators construct a forum for the talks,
facilitate communication, elicit information, suggest proposals/alternatives and use
persuasion. Mediation occurs both formally and informally at all levels, between
individuals, community leaders, state level actors, and in regional and international
organizations. One variation in the mediation model involves mediators who have
(potentially coercive) influence over one or more of the parties involved. This is sometimes
called mediation with muscle and includes the use of leverage or coercion by the
mediator in the form of promised rewards or threatened punishments. In this type of
process, the mediator is usually a representative of a third party that can take on the role
of guarantor of the agreement. An example of this type of mediation is the role played by
the United States in the Camp David Accord between Egypt and Israel.

Arbitration occurs when the conflicting parties voluntarily present their case to a third
party who renders either a binding or nonbinding judgment on the case. To impose a
settlement deemed fair and just, Arbitrators consider the merits of the opposing positions
and how they correspond with the context of rights and standards embedded in the law.
Arbitration has been formally established for settling disputes in the international arena
since the Hague Convention for the Pacific Settlement of International Disputes (1899).

Adjudication consists of the resolution of conflict by the International Court of Justice

(ICJ) of the United Nations, headquartered at the Hague. All UN members are
automatically party to the statutes of the Court. Judicial decisions are binding on the
disputing parties.

Citizen diplomacy and other forms of informal peacemaking. Increasingly, private

citizens, people affiliated with businesses or religious communities, activists, artists and
media organizations are taking the initiative to engage in informal peacemaking efforts to
promote understanding and reconciliation. These efforts can improve communication,
develop functional relationships, and promote other peace processes. Citizen diplomacy
and other forms of informal peacemaking are sometimes collectively referred to as multi
track diplomacy.

Coercive diplomacy is the diplomacy of threats. Rather than relying on negotiations,

arbitration and mediation, which are based on the consent of the parties, coercive
diplomacy demands steps to be taken, creates a sense of urgency, and threatens with
punishment for noncompliance.

Peacemaking does not aim to transform the structural conditions that may have fostered a conflict
situation, however it is an essential component to ending violence and improving the relationships
among parties, discussed earlier as negative peace, while laying the foundations for positive peace.

Peace enforcement
Peacemaking efforts are nonviolent means of conflict management, as mandated by Chapter VI of
the UN Charter. Should these measures fail, peace, or rather negative peace, may be imposed and
enforced by the use of force or threat thereof, as well as sanctions and arms embargoes, with the
goal to establish and control a seizefire agreement. Such peace enforcement operations fall under
and need the authorization of Chapter VII of the UN Charter. The NATOled multinational
Implementation Force (IFOR) in Bosnia and Herzegovina was established by UN Security Council
Resolution 1031 in 1995 to implement and enforce the military aspects of the General Framework
Agreement for Peace, known as the Dayton Peace Accords.
British troops with IFOR in Bosnia.

Peacekeeping
Peacekeeping involves the use of military forces to separate
combatants, control violence and monitor ceasefires as well as border activities. Peacekeeping

operations are conducted under international auspices by regional organizations or the UN. These
forces may be engaged to carry out humanitarian activities.
There are 15 ongoing United Nations peacekeeping operations.

Peacebuilding
Peacebuilding can be understood as:
... initiatives which foster and support sustainable
structures and processes which strengthen the prospects
for peaceful coexistence and decrease the likelihood of the outbreak, reoccurrence or
continuation of violent conflict."7
It requires the creation of an infrastructure that incorporates all the different levels of a society:

grassroots community groups;

midlevel leaders respected by a significant sector of the society;

the toplevel leadership.

It also requires the integration of interest groups, such as:

the business community;

political groups;

church groups;

civic organizations;

the military;

groups representing regional or communal interests.

This infrastructure for peace must be geared to empower local and domestic resources for
reconciliation and maximize contributions to these efforts from outside the society 8. In its broadest
form, peacebuilding encompasses fundamental economic, political, and social development that
change the underlying causes of conflict and transforms relationships.
A theatre group bringing together members of all communities in
Zimbabwe acts out politically motivated violence in an effort to
increase understanding and build relationships.

Peacebuilding efforts are thus far used in postviolent conflict

environments to create a transition to a positive peace. However,
conflict relationships and the systemic conditions generating conflict are usually present long before
a conflict has escalated into violent hostilities. It is important, therefore, to consider peacebuilding
as a preventive strategy aimed at ameliorating the conditions that generate conflict.
Activities include:

Economic integration and cooperation encourages economic growth and stability during and
beyond postconflict reconstruction. They also create international ties based on mutual
economic benefits that can spill over and induce cooperation in other areas. Southeast
Asia continues to be a region of instability both politically and economically. The
Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) provides one mechanism to enhance

economic stability through cooperation, with the longterm goal for political cooperation
and peace in the region. The European Union and the United States have supported the
regional associations attempts of integration, and have used it as a regional partner in
fighting terrorism and international crime.

Provision of international aid, humanitarian assistance and resources for development

programs, which are aimed at improving conditions for traditionally disadvantaged
populations and to reconstruct a society after the devastating consequences of war.
A continent plagued by unstable regimes, unemployment, civil wars, natural disasters,
refugees, AIDS and other threats to the political, economic and social cohesion of states,
Africa receives humanitarian aid and development assistance like no other region in the
world. Still, the humanitarian response to the crisis in Africa scratches only the surface of
what is needed. Genocide in Darfur, sectarian violence in Nigeria and an imminent collapse
of society in Zimbabwe may not be addressed by humanitarian aid alone. In a situation of
constant need, individual donors and donor countries often suffer from donor fatigue. In
addition, some argue, the lack of strategic relevance has prevented more sustained
interventions beyond humanitarian aid.
A U.S. military demining specialist trains Thai officers in the use
of mine sweeping equipment.

Provision of technical support and training for such tasks

as election monitoring, demining, refugee resettlement,
demilitarization and social or economic development
projects. The training of political leaders, party officials and other civic leaders is a central
part of this strategy. Iraq and Afghanistan currently receive aid in all these areas.

Supporting community reconciliation processes aimed at efforts to address relationships

between groups at the local level and to foster cooperative problem solving. The
international community can facilitate this process by supporting the efforts of local NGOs
who are knowledgeable about local conditions and local leaders, and by coordinating
activities with these local efforts when designing strategies to address conflicts. For
example, in Somalia, international organizations have played a role in supporting councils
of elders who can reknit social relations across the country.
Slobodan Milosevic at the War Crimes Tribunal in The Hague.

War Crimes Tribunals and other mechanisms have emerged as

a means for the international legal system to cope with
particularly horrific incidents of mass genocide or other
widespread crimes against humanity initiated by regimes.
Temporary war crimes tribunals have been established to
address human rights abuses in the civil wars in the former

Yugoslavia and Rwanda.

Instead of organizing conflict management activities based on their intended effect, i.e. maintain
normal relations, prevent conflict, make peace, enforce peace, keep peace and build peace, it can
be informative to look at the various activities by grouping them according to the main instruments
used:
Official Diplomacy
o
o
o
o

Informal consultations
Good offices
Special envoys
Mediation

o
o
o
o

Negotiations
International condemnations
Factfinding missions
Diplomatic and economic sanctions

Military Measures
o
o
o
o
o
o

Militarytomilitary programs
Arms control and disarmament agreements
Crisis management procedures
Peacemaking forces
Peace enforcement
Peacekeeping forces

Judicial and Legal Processes and Arrangements

o
o
o
o

Commissions of inquiry
Arbitration
Adjudication
War Crimes Tribunals

Political Development and Governance Structures

o Training of political leaders
o Institution building
o Election monitoring
Nonofficial Diplomacy
o Facilitation and dialogue
o Problemsolving workshops
o Mediation by nonstate actors
Human Rights Framework
o
o
o
o

Legal framework
Education, support and advocacy
Monitoring of human rights violations
Reporting human rights violations

Humanitarian Assistance
o Humanitarian aid
o Resettlement or repatriation of refugees
Economic and Social Development
o
o
o
o
o

Health assistance
Environmental aid and natural resource management
Targeted development assistance
Economic cooperation and integration
Economic reforms

Communications and Education

o
o
o
o

Exchange visits
Civic education and formal education projects
Specific conflict resolution training projects
International public diplomacy

Stiftung Wissenschaft and Politik / Conflict Prevention Network: PeaceBuilding & Conflict Prevention in Developing
Countries: A practical Guide, Draft Document, June 1999.
2
International Crisis Group (2001). EU Crisis Response Capability: Institutions and Process for Conflict Prevention and
Management. ICG Issues Report Nr. 2. Brussels.
3
Lund, M. S. (1996). Preventing Violent Conflict: A Strategy for Preventive Diplomacy. Washington D.C., USIP Press.

Office of Management and Budget. FY06 Budget Priorities: Protecting America. February 3, 2006.
(http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/fy2006/protecting.html).
5
For a list of early warning system, see http://www.reliefweb.int/resources/ewarn.html.
6
Agreement to establish a transition process and confidence building measures between Belize and Guatemala.
January 31, 2006. (http://www.oas.org/OASpage/eng/Documents/BelizeGuatemala_eng.pdf)
7
K. Bush (1998). A Measure of Peace: Peace and Conflict Assessment (PCIA) of Development Projects in Conflict
Zones. Working Paper No. 1. The Peacebuilding and Reconstruction Program Initiative and Evaluation Unit. IDRC:
Ottawa.
8
Lederach, J. P. (1997). Building Peace: Sustainable Reconciliation in Divided Societies. Washington D.C., USIP Press.

Timing of intervention
Scholars studying the phases of escalation and deescalation suggest that conflict management
measures need to be geared specifically towards the problems that arise in each phase. One of the
greater challenges for researchers is to try to integrate either the phases, or the timeline of
conflict with the different tasks of prevention and intervention into a complex framework of conflict
management strategies. This has been termed contingency approaches to peacemaking. The
conflict cycle model attempts to combine conflict progression with the management activities
outlined above.
Continuous assessment of the conflict and its dynamics is necessary to determine how far along
the conflict cycle the parties in conflict have progressed. In time, parties to a conflict become
exhausted and reach a point where they begin to contemplate how and under which terms to end
the hostilities. This moment, at the top of the conflict cycle, is the moment for peacemaking and
subsequent activities to begin.
In the literature, a prominent conflict management researcher has advanced the theory of the
Ripe Moment as a tool to discern the point at which parties are willing to consider ending the
armed conflict and starting the deescalation process 9. The ripe moment is contingent upon a
Mutually Hurting Stalemate, which describes a situation of deadlock that the use violence is unable
to break. As a result, the parties involved see a negotiated outcome as a better option than the
pursuit of war. Decisions to end conflicts usually involve calculating the potential benefits and costs
of settling versus the costs or benefits of continuing. Often these decisions are not considered until
a conflict has reached the stage of a hurting stalemate when the price for continuing is high and
no party is capable of achieving its goals or forcing the other parties to give up theirs. In these
cases, the adversaries may perceive that they are relatively equal in their ability to hurt each other
and neither believes that it is likely to get stronger in the near future. Third parties can play a
helpful role in reality testing these perceptions. They can facilitate a costbenefit analysis to
identify what can be gained or lost by continuing the conflict in its current form. They can also
skillfully alter the perception of the situation by the antagonists and therefore ripen the moment
for conflict deescalation and termination.
Some researchers argue that the presence of a mutually hurting stalemate is not enough to induce
parties to sit down and negotiate a peace agreement. They argue that issues of saving face,
unwillingness to admit guilt, fear of persecution, as well as economic incentives that result in war
economies prevent peacemaking efforts. They posit that on top of the mutually hurting stalemate
there must be Mutually Enticing Opportunities, especially for the leadership, to make a negotiated
settlement more attractive than continued fighting.
Strategies to ripen the moment include:

Third party intermediaries can serve as a catalyst in initiating and facilitating a de

escalation process.

Negative sanctions (sticks) that create the conditions of a hurting stalemate and can be
applied to encourage the parties to engage in a peacemaking process.

Positive inducements (carrots) used to lead protagonists away from a stalemate toward
agreement.

The introduction of a new idea that changes the way the parties perceive their situation or
that unlocks a formula to bridge conflicting points of view. These new ideas are often
generated when the participants gain a greater insight into the true underlying interests
and needs of one another and themselves.

In negotiation situations, the parties can try to expand the pie of divisible resources by
adding new resources or developing an integrative solution that accommodates all the
basic interests.

The parties engage in exchanging small, constructive and irreversible commitments to

create a rhythm of concession making.

One or more parties deliberately decide to wait and do nothing so as to allow conditions to
change, leading to circumstances more favorable to deescalation efforts.

Short, medium and longterm perspectives

In addition to the timing of interventions according to the conflict cycle, it is important to be aware
of the time horizon within which interventions occur. Conflict managers are confronted with short
term objectives and longterm goals that may go on concurrently and may even contradict each
other. As a result, pressing issues compete for resources and attention with less pressing but
equally important longterm objectives. A clear understanding of the conflict cycle and conflict
management activities helps to set priorities and allocate resources where they are needed for
long, medium and shortterm activities.

Longterm activities focus on the transformation of society, relationships between states

and groups and the underlying reasons for the conflict. They involve institution building,
economic growth, civil society strengthening, reconciliation and other projects that need
ten or twenty years to be accomplished and take root. Even though these processes have
a long time horizon, they should be initiated as early as possible.

Mediumterm activities are concerned with linking the shortterm relief and peace
efforts with the longterm development goals. Postconflict security measures, return of
refugees and internally displaced people (IDPs), critical infrastructure repairs, and
elections for office are some of the tasks that take place in the mediumterm.

Shortterm interventions to limit conflict escalation or foster a peace negotiation

process, such as ceasefires and peacekeeping forces, are normally what the public hears
about. Humanitarian assistance also has a short time horizon and plays an important role
in mobilizing the international community in the short term.

Zartman, I. W. (1986). Ripening Conflict, Ripe Moment, Formula, and Mediation. Perspectives on Negotiation. D. B.
Bendahmane and J. W. M. Jr. Washington D.C., Foreign Service Institute, US Department of State: 217218.

Actors in Conflict Management

Actors in CM can be divided into those who employ CM tools and
the target groups of CM tools. One commentator divides the
target group into three categories, illustrated by the following
triangle.10

1.

The elite or toplevel leadership is made up of military

and political leaders with high visibility and direct
influence over state affairs.

2. The middlerange leadership includes respected elders, academics, intellectuals and

leaders of civil society organizations, who have limited access to the decision making
process in the form of expert advice.
3. The grassroots level contains most of the population in a conflict and is often the level most
affected by the conflict. Grassroots leaders often have no influence in the decision making
process at the political level but are critical in building peace at the local level. Local
activists and elders, leaders of indigenous NGOs, health officials, refugee leaders and
other are instrumental in creating participatory civil societies in postconflict situations.

Conflict management tools must address each levels needs during the conflict cycle. The elite may
need encouragement and incentives to look beyond immediate interests and entrenched positions,
while the grassroots level may need humanitarian assistance, political empowerment and
reconciliation. The middlerange leadership often serves as the link between the top level and the
general population making sure that topdown peace programs are supported by the grassroots
level and that bottomup initiatives are heeded by the leadership. As a result, the midlevel
leadership is often the catalyst for change.
Conflict management actors can also be divided into internal and external actors:

Internal actors include national political organizations, regional and local government,
nonprofit and nongovernmental organizations, civil associations and religious groups
and local/traditional leadership. Internal actors are important during time of peace and the
early stages of conflict as well as during peace building efforts. In many cases these civil
society elements have been dismantled either by the conflict itself or in the process of its
escalation. External help is then needed to revitalize civic society.

External actors include international organizations, foreign governments, global non

governmental and nonprofit organizations, international relief agencies and regional
organizations.
They provide a variety of the above outlined conflict management
services throughout the conflict cycle as is illustrated by the
table.11

10

Lederach (1997) op. cit.

Adapted from the Conflict Management Toolkit developed by the Johns Hopkins School for Advanced International
Studies. (http://cmtoolkit.sais-jhu.edu/index.php?name=theory-intro)
11

Summary
This lesson defined conflict management in a broad way, including actions that prevent, limit,
resolve or transform conflicts. This definition also covers the limitation of horizontal (territorial
spread of violence) and vertical (increase in violence) intensification of conflict.
The lesson divided conflict management activities into five categories:
1. Preventive Diplomacy
2. Peacemaking
3. Peace Enforcement
4. Peacekeeping
5. Peacebuilding
The various strategies available for these activities can be grouped in the following way:

Official diplomacy, military measures, judicial and legal processes, political development
and governance, nonofficial diplomacy, human rights, humanitarian assistance, economic
development and communication/education.

Each conflict management activity contains a set of conflict management strategies specific to the
problems that arise at a particular point in the conflict cycle, as the table in the section on
intervention timing illustrated. The unit pointed to the concepts of the mutual hurting stalemate
and the mutually enticing opportunity and how conflicting parties can be induced to engage in a
peace process. The section on timing also highlighted the time horizons for various conflict

management activities.
Finally, the lesson looked at the target actors of conflict management, and divided them into three
categories:
1. The elite
2. The midlevel leadership
3. Grassroots level
Each level has a role to play, particularly the midlevel leadership, which serves as the link
between the elite and the grassroots communities. The unit also outlined the various actors that
provide conflict management services, including external actors, such as foreign governments,
international organizations, foreign NGOs and internal actors, such as political parties, religious
groups, economic associations and local NGOs.

TrackOne Diplomacy
The TrackOne approach is generally understood to involve governmenttogovernment efforts to
address issues of conflict and conflict resolution. TrackOne Diplomacy is by far the most dominant
form of international relations because states, or state organs, are in most cases the only entities
legally authorized to conduct formal negotiations, enter into agreements, sign treaties, commit
economic and/or military assets, and speak on behalf of a nation.
Legal authority and the monopoly of coercive power form the foundations of the TrackOne
approach. The traditional instruments of TrackOne include:

Diplomacy

Military force

Intelligence gathering

Economic and commercial relations

International law

Public diplomacy

Diplomacy
The principal objective of diplomacy is to advance the interests of a state. This involves, as a first
order of business, protecting the states independence, security and territorial, political and
economic integrity. Diplomacy is considered most effective when it secures maximum national
advantage without resort to military force while preserving positive external relations.
President Bush exercises diplomacy in the international
arena.

Diplomacy is a wellestablished method for managing

international relations, chiefly through negotiation. In the
20thcentury, diplomatic practice has expanded to include:

Summit meetings and other international conferences

Public and parliamentary diplomacy

Activities of supranational entities

More recently, there has been an increasing emphasis in bilateral and multilateral negotiations on:

Commercial matters

Economic and military aid

Trade and investment

Arms control and disarmament

Human rights

Terrorism

Organized crime

Cultural and environmental affairs

Health

Modern diplomacy thus reflects the complex array of global concerns that major powers in
particular must address.
Diplomacy does not in all cases strive to preserve peace and may employ threats of taking coercive
measures to advance state interests. The effectiveness of such threats depends in large part on the
range of powercoercive assets a state or group of states have at their disposal. The repertoire of
assets increases with the power of the state. Larger, more affluent states have more tools with
which to advance their interests. Powercoercive diplomacy may take several forms, including
sanctions, deterrence, coercive diplomacy and preventive diplomacy, among others.
Former U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell meeting with
NATO Secretary General Lord Robertson.

Sanctions
Sanctions are viewed as a middle ground between diplomatic
protest and military violence. They offer states and multilateral organizations, such as the United
Nations, a means of addressing threats to the peace, with military force playing a role short of war
fighting.
Sanctions are generally imposed to:

Reinforce international norms

Signal disapproval of objectionable behavior

Deter further abuses

Sanctions are most effective when combined with incentives to encourage a negotiated solution
and when applied collectively with other states. Thus, the imposing authority must establish clear
and consistent standards for the lifting of sanctions. Sanctions are generally only one component of
a wider diplomatic strategy.1
French Prime Minister de Villepin debating sanctions against
Iran at the UN Security Council, 2005.

Sanctions may take a number of forms, depending on the issue, the target country, the sanction
imposing entity and the overall objective of the policy 2:
Diplomacy
Reduction or closure of diplomatic missions, exclusion from international organizations, ban
on entry for officials.
Military
Termination of military cooperation, arms embargo.
Trade
Boycotts, embargos.
Finance
Freezing of foreign assets, ban on financial transfers.
Development cooperation
Termination of financial and technical assistance.
Criminal Justice
International tribunals.
Transport
Ban on air and sea traffic, suspension of rail and road transport.
Communications
Suspension of post and telecommunications.
Culture and Sports
Suspension of exchange.
Sanctions in Iran?

Deterrence and Collective Security

According to experts in deterrence theory, the fundamental tenet of classical deterrence is that
credible and capable threats can prevent the initiation and contain the escalation of conflict. In
practice, deterrence does not necessarily need to rely on threats or the capacity to punish to be
effective. It can succeed through a demonstrated capacity to deny another party a desired gain.
When nonmilitary means are used, deterrence may take a positive form (inducements) as well as
a negative one (deprivations), the latter often associated with sanctions.
The concept of deterrence has gone through various permutations since the advent of nuclear
weapons. The paradox of deterrence in the nuclear age was perhaps best captured by the words of
an American political scientist:

As the picture of the horror of a modern thermonuclear war grows, we tend to consider
weapons less and less usable, and we emphasize more and more their role in deterring an
enemy rather than their objective capability to punish or defend. That is, we emphasize
the impact of our capabilities on the enemys mind rather than on his body.3

This essentially psychological nature of modern deterrence has lead to much criticism of its utility
as an instrument for conflict prevention and conflict containment.

India and Pakistan Deterrence at Work?4

The most prominent institutional expression of collective

security is, of course, the United Nations.

Collective security is based on four precepts5:

1.

Rules of behavior among nations should be

encouraged.
2. Rules should be enforced.
3. Enforcement actions should be legitimized through broad international agreement.
4. Enforcement actions should generally be undertaken by multinational coalitions.
NATO
The North Atlantic Treaty Organization

Coercive Diplomacy
Coercive diplomacy is the extension of the threat of deterrence. The general objective of coercive
diplomacy is to back a demand to an adversary with the threat of punishment for noncompliance, a
threat that the adversary will consider credible and potent enough to persuade him to comply with
the demand. While threats and incentives play a large roles in coercive diplomacy, communication,
signaling, bargaining and negotiating also have significant functions. The advantage of coercive
diplomacy over force is its relatively low psychological, economic and political costs.
Coercive diplomacy involves four basic variables6:
1. Demand.
2. Means used for creating a sense of urgency.
3. Threatened punishment for noncompliance.
4. Possible use of incentives.
Differences in these variables lead to varying types of coercive diplomacy. States may employ
ultimatums, time limits, or mild to increasing coercive force, as required, to achieve the desired
result.
The Use of Coercive Diplomacy in Bosnia

Preventive Diplomacy
According to the UN: Preventive diplomacy is action to prevent disputes from arising between
parties, to prevent existing disputes from escalating into conflicts and to limit the spread of the
latter when they occur.8
Policymakers and scholars alike have been struggling with the need to develop new knowledge and
to find ways of dealing with disputes before they erupt into largescale violent conflicts. It is a
given that once largescale violence erupts, it becomes much more difficult for members of the
international community the United Nations, regional organizations, major and regional powers,
and nongovernmental organizations to muster the political will and the resources needed for
effective conflict resolution and peacemaking.

The most desirable and efficient employment of diplomacy is to ease tensions before they result in
conflict or, if conflict breaks out, to act swiftly to contain it and resolve its underlying causes.
Preventive diplomacy requires measures to create confidence; it needs early warning based on
information gathering, informal and formal factfinding; it may also involve preventive deployment,
and in some situations, the establishment of demilitarized zones.

David Cortright and George A. Lopez, Sanctions and Contending Views of Justice: The Problematic Case of Iraq, as
quoted in Peace Action. (http://www.webcom.com/peaceact/sanctions_perspectives.html#create.)
2
Manford Kulsessa and Dorethee Starck, Peace through Sanctions? Recommendations for German UN Policy,
Development and Peace Foundation, Bonn Dec 97, as quoted in Peace Action,
(http://www.webcom.com/peaceact/sanctions_content.html.)
3
Herman Kahn, On Thermonuclear War, Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1960.
4
Devin T. Hagerty, Nuclear Deterrence in South Asia: the 1990 IndoPakistani Crisis, International Security. Vol.
20(3). Winter 1995. See (http://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/sasianuk.htm)
5
James Goodby (1996). Can Collective Security Work?, Managing Global Chaos: Sources of and Responses to
International Conflict. Washington, DC, United States Institute of Peace Press. p. 237253.
6
Alexander L. George (1991). The General Theory and Logic of Coercive Diplomacy in Forceful Persuasion: Coercive
Diplomacy as an Alternative to War. Washington, D.C.: United States Institute of Peace Press, pp. 314.
(http://www.colorado.edu/conflict/peace/example/geor7394.htm.)
7
Alexander L. George (2000). Strategies for Preventive Diplomacy and Conflict Resolution: Scholarship for
Policymaking The American Political Science Association Online, March 2000.
(http://www.apsanet.org/PS/march00/george.cfm)
8
United Nations (1992). Report of the SecretaryGeneral: An Agenda for Peace: Preventive diplomacy, peacemaking
and peacekeeping. United Nations publication A/47/277 S/24111, June 17, 1992.
(http://www.un.org/Docs/SG/agpeace.html.)

Economic Tools of Statecraft

In the modern global system, states increasingly utilize economic instruments, such as trade, aid
and investment to advance various interests, including conflict prevention and peace building. For a
superpower such as the United States, economic statecraft has become one of the principal means
for advancing core foreign policy objectives.
These objectives were well captured not long ago by the U.S. State Departments Senior
Coordinator for Business Affairs, who noted:

The U.S. government has recognized that a primary mission of our foreign policy must be
to use our leverage and diplomacy to promote continued economic liberalization, market
oriented growth and freer international trade. It is here that the objectives of American
foreign policy and the interests of American business have truly converged. Not only will
our economic diplomacy create valuable new overseas opportunities for American firms,
but it will also enhance our pursuit of our more traditional foreign policy objectives. Freer
markets and increased prosperity provide the foundations for lasting peace and continued
progress toward democracy around the world. 9

This approach is taken in the hopes of furthering stability and preventing potential conflict within
and between states. Economic growth in developing countries may lead to reduced poverty,
increased food security and higher standards of living including better health and education. In
transitional countries, broadbased economic growth may offer the best chance to enhance political
stability and social welfare. There are, however, too many variables in a conflict situation to declare
a direct causal link between economic welfare and peace. The election results in the Palestinian
Territories highlight the difficulties in economic statecraft and support for development, as Hamas is
associated with terrorist activities.

World Bank Group

The World Bank Group has recognized that conflict is one of the main obstacles to economic and
social development. As a result, the World Bank created the Conflict Prevention and
Reconstruction Unit in implementing the 1997 Framework for World Bank Involvement in Post
Conflict Reconstruction and the 2001 Operational Policy on Development and Conflict. The banks
role in Conflict prevention and postconflict reconstruction is 10:
In all member countries
Promote economic growth and poverty reduction through development assistance that
promotes cohesion, institutions capacity building and good governance and minimizes
potential conflict.
In areas affected by conflict
1. Continue efforts at poverty reduction and maintenance of socioeconomic assets where
possible.
2. Provide where requested by member states, the UN, or other partners advice on the
socioeconomic impacts of emergency assistance.
3. Analyze the impact of conflict on economic development and prepare for renewed
lending assistance as opportunities arise.
In areas emerging from conflict
1. Facilitate the transition to sustainable peace.
2. Support economic and social recovery through investment and macroeconomic policy
advice.
3. Provide advice and guidance on the socioeconomic impacts of post conflict reconstruction
policies on sustainable development.
World Bank sponsored water supply project.

A central element of the World Banks determination of

whether a country will get assistance is the Conflict Analysis
Framework (CAF). The CAF is designed to enhance conflict
sensitivity and conflict prevention of World Bank development
assistance programs.
Example: Burundi11
1999, the World Bank a new tool for assistance to lowincome countries, many of which are
affected by conflict. Governments applying for external assistance prepare a Poverty
Reduction Strategy Paper with the help of the World Bank or the IMF. The PRSPs in return
form the foundation for external assistance and debt relief by the World Bank and the IMF.

Economic Statecraft: U.S. Government Agencies

The Federal Reserve
The Federal Reserve is the central bank of the United States. Established by Act of Congress
in 1913, its role is to provide the nation with a safer, more flexible and stable monetary and
financial system. The Feds duties fall into four general areas:
1. Managing the nations monetary policy.
2. Supervising and regulating banking institutions and protecting the credit rights of
consumers.

3. Maintaining the stability of the financial system.

4. Providing uniquely specialized financial services to the U.S. government, the public,
financial institutions and foreign official institutions.
The U.S. Trade and Development Agency
The U.S. Trade and Development Agency helps U.S. companies pursue overseas business
opportunities. Through the funding of feasibility studies, orientation visits, specialized
training grants, business workshops and various forms of technical assistance, TDA enables
American businesses to compete for infrastructure and industrial projects in middleincome
and developing countries.
ExportImport Bank of the United States
The ExportImport Bank (ExIm) is an independent U.S. Government agency that helps
finance the overseas sales of U.S. goods and services. ExIm provides guarantees of working
capital loans for U.S. exporters, guarantees the repayment of loans and makes loans to
foreign purchasers of U.S. goods and services. In addition, ExIm furnishes credit insurance
that protects U.S. orders against the risks of nonpayment by foreign buyers for political or
commercial reasons. ExIm assumes the risks that commercial lenders cannot accept. It
must always conclude that there is reasonable assurance of repayment on every transaction
financed.
Overseas Private Investment Corporation (OPIC)
The Overseas Private Investment Corporation is a financially selfsustained, independent
U.S. Government agency that sells services to assist U.S. companies investing in developing
economies around the world. OPIC accomplishes this by aiding U.S. investors through three
principal activities designed to promote overseas investment and reduce the associated
risks:
1. Insuring investment against a broad range of political risks.
2. Financing businesses through loans and loan guaranties.
3. Financing private investment funds that provide equity to businesses.
Office of the U.S. Trade Representative (USTR)
The Office of the U.S. Trade Representative (USTR) is responsible for developing and
coordinating U.S. international trade, commodity and direct investment policy, leading or
directing negotiations with other countries and organizations (e.g. WTO, GATT) on such
matters. The U.S. Trade Representative is a Cabinet member who acts as the principal trade
advisor, negotiator and spokesperson for the President on trade and related investment
matters. Through an interagency structure, the USTR coordinates trade policy, resolves
agency disagreements and frames issues for presidential decision.
Office of Foreign Assets Control, U.S. Department of the Treasury (OFAC)
The Office of Foreign Assets Control of the U.S. Department of the Treasury administers and
enforces economic, and trade sanctions against targeted foreign countries, organizations
sponsoring terrorism and international narcotics based on U.S. foreign policy and national
security goals. OFAC acts under presidential wartime and national emergency powers, as well
as authority granted by specific legislation.
Office of Defense Trade Controls, U.S. Department of State
The Office of Defense Trade Controls manages the export of defense and related articles and
services. It achieves this through its approval authority on license applications and other
requests for defense trade exports. It also oversees matters related to defense trade
compliance, enforcement and reporting.
United States Agency for International Development (USAID)
USAID is the independent government agency that provides bilateral economic development
and humanitarian assistance to advance U.S. economic and political interests overseas. The
primary objective of the U.S. foreign assistance program is to promote sustainable economic
development in poor countries in order to:
1. Improve poor peoples lives.
2. Prevent political crisis and promote stability.
3. Advance democracy.
Aid is provided largely through specific grantfunded projects supporting technical
assistance, training and commodities.
Humanitarian relief organized by USAID in Aceh, Indonesia.

Economic Statecraft: Key International Agencies12

The World Trade Organization
The World Trade Organization is the only international organization dealing with the global
rules of trade between nations. The WTOs overriding objective is to help trade flow
smoothly, freely, fairly and predictably. It does this by:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.

Administering trade agreements.

Acting as a forum for trade negotiations.
Settling trade disputes.
Reviewing national trade policies.
Assisting developing countries in trade policy issues.
Training programs.

The policies advanced by WTO are not welcomed by all.

Many see free trade as the legalized exploitation of
developing countries and theirworkforce.

Asian Development Bank

The Asian Development Bank, a multilateral development finance institution, was founded in 1966
to promote the social and economic progress of the Asian and Pacific region. The Banks principal
functions are:
1. The extension of loans and equity investments for the economic and social development of its
developing member countries.
2. The promotion and facilitation of investment of public and private capital for development
purposes.
International Monetary Fund (IMF)
The International Monetary Fund (IMF) was established in 1945 as the result of a conference
held in Bretton Woods, New Hampshire. It was created to:
1. Promote international monetary cooperation.
2. Facilitate the expansion and balanced growth of international trade.
3. Promote foreign exchange stability. Make resources temporarily available to members
experiencing balance of payments difficulties.
4. Shorten the duration and lessen the degree of disequilibrium in the international balances
of payments of members.
The Fund not only lends resources, but also provides technical assistance and advice to
requesting members.
Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD)
The 30 member countries of the OECD are provided with a setting that enables them to
discuss, develop and perfect economic and social policy. Such exchanges may lead to
agreements to act in a formal way for example, by establishing legally binding codes for
the free flow of capital and services or agreements to crack down on bribery. Importantly,
discussions within the OECD make for betterinformed work within member governments on
a broad spectrum of public policy and clarify the impact of national policies on the
international community.
United Nations Development Program (UNDP)
UNDPs mission is to help countries achieve sustainable human development. It seeks to

accomplish this by assisting them to build a capacity to design and carry out development
programs in areas such as poverty eradication, employment creation, the empowerment of
women and the protection and regeneration of the environment. UNDP also acts to help
coordinate the development efforts of other components of the United Nations family (e.g.
UNICEF, UNHCR, the World Food Program), as well as those of other international
development entities (e.g. bilateral donors such as USAID).

David A. Ruth (1996). Economic Diplomacy. Remarks before the Denver Chamber of Commerce, Denver, Colorado,
August 6, 1996. Published by the US Department of State. (www.state.gov/www/issues/economic/ruthsp2.html)
10
World Bank. Conflict Prevention and Reconstruction. The World Bank in Conflict and Development. February 10,
2006. (http://web.worldbank.org/WBSITE/EXTERNAL/TOPICS/EXTSOCIALDEVELOPMENT/EXTCPR/0,,contentMDK:
20486307~menuPK:1260728~pagePK:148956~piPK:216618~theSitePK:407740,00.html)
11
Brachet, J. and H. Wolpe (2005). ConflictSensitive Development Assistance: The Case of Burundi. Solcial
Development Papers. Conflict Prevention and Reconstruction. Paper No. 27. Washington, DC, World Bank.
12
See http://www.ndu.edu/ndu/nwc/5611SYL/EconGlossary.htm.

International Public Diplomacy

Public diplomacy is a U.S.coined term that describes efforts to promote and increase mutual
understanding. One commentator has described American public diplomacy as:

Official government efforts to shape the communications environment overseas in which

American foreign policy is played out, in order to reduce the degree to which
misperceptions and misunderstandings complicate relations between the U.S. andother
nations. 13

U.S. public diplomacy is the primary responsibility of the Department of States Bureau of
Educational and Cultural Affairs (ECA), which supports a wide range of personal, professional and
institutional exchange programs between citizens and organizations in the U.S. and abroad. With
its posts in over 142 countries, the Bureau is able to reach populations in every continent, creating
a sense of collective outreach to the world. This outreach serves as a transmitter of American
values and introduces many Americans to foreign cultures.
The Global War on Terrorism has increased the significance of public diplomacy. The U.S.
government not only seeks the support of other nations, but also tries to win the hearts and
minds of the people abroad, particularly in the Muslim World.
Karen Hughes, Under Secretary of State for Public Diplomacy
and Pubic Affairs visits with King Abdullah bin Abdul Aziz Al
Saud of Saudi Arabia.

Stereotypes abroad about Americans and the U.S. government

range form arrogant, selfindulgent to hypocritical and unable
to engage in crosscultural dialogue. Some argue that the
inability or unwillingness of the U.S. government to work changing these stereotypes is at the root
of antiAmerican terrorism. In addition, the experiences in Afghanistan and Iraq have shown how
negative perceptions of U.S. policies can be detrimental to policy implementation.
AsiaPacific Economic Cooperation (APEC)
APEC was established in 1989 in response to the growing interdependence among Asia
Pacific economies. Its goal is to advance AsiaPacific economic dynamism but also a sense of
community in the region. Starting with only twelve founding members in 1991, the
organization has now grown to include twentyone members from around the world. Among

other functions, APEC serves as a forum for members to considers various approaches to
preventing and resolving conflict. Consensusbuilding is a critical objective, as is
collaborative problemsolving.

Since 2003, as a consequence of the September 11 terrorist attacks, APEC has a Special Counter
terrorism Task Force with the goal to identify and assess counterterrorism needs, coordinate
capacity building and technical assistance programs, cooperate with international and regional
organizations and facilitate cooperation between APEC fora on counterterrorism issues. One of the
key elements of APEC counterterrorism strategy is the Secure Trade in the APEC Region program,
which aims to secure the flow of goods and persons through measures that protect cargo, ships,
international aviation and people in transit.
Voice of America (VOA)
This U.S. Government sponsored international radio service provides information in forty
four languages and reaches 100 million people via radio, satellite television and the Internet.
Relying on its affiliate stations around the world, VOA is mandated by law to provide
objective and accurate information about global events. In addition, special events are
planned through VOA headquarters in Washington, D.C. that provide virtual forums for
people from around the world to discuss current events with various radio hosts, politicians,
academics and local citizens.

Voice of America Chinese Branch.

Exchange Programs
The Fulbright Program was established in the United States in 1946 under legislation
introduced by former Senator J. William Fulbright of Arkansas, who described its aim as: ...
to bring a little more knowledge, a little more reason, and a little more compassion into
world affairs and thereby to increase the chance that nations will learn at last to live in peace
and friendship. The Fulbright Program provides grants for graduate students, scholars and
professionals, teachers and administrators from the U.S. and other countries to observe each
others political, economic and cultural institutions, and to exchange ideas and embark on
joint ventures of importance to the general welfare of people around the world. 14

Many other programs, both public and private, exist in the United States and throughout the world
that promote the exchange of business professionals, athletes, students and everyday people.
Some of these programs are specifically designed to create awareness between citizens in conflict
situations, such as the PeopletoPeople initiatives that bring Israelis into contact with other
Arabs in the Middle East. Other organizations conduct exchange programs between states not in
conflict, but their goal is the same: increased cultural awareness and lasting interpersonal
relationships.
Some critics believe that public diplomacy is just a polite form of propaganda that pushes American
values and interests abroad and serves as a cover for other, more nefarious, activities. Others
argue that America should concentrate more on solving its internal domestic problems and that the
need to reach foreign peoples with American ideals should be a much lower priority.
Defenders of public diplomacy note that:

The United States can and should help foster the growth of indigenous democratic
institutions wherever conditions are favorable, based on the traditional principle that
America is the friend of freedom everywhere ... A modest investment of effort and
resources to shape a freer and more democratic world will pay enormous dividends over

the years, and perhaps prevent future conflicts that would demand greater expenditure of
American blood and resources. 15

13
14
15

Hans N. Tuch (1990). Communicating With the World. New York: St. Martins Press.
See (http://exchanges.state.gov/education/fulbright/).
See (http://www.heritage.org/issues/98/chap20.html).

Multilateral Organizations
With increasing globalization and interdependence, states continue to banded together regionally
and internationally to advance common interests. As discussed in this unit, some organizations are
economic in nature, others political and still others security oriented. There is only one
organization, the United Nations, which seeks to perform all three functions on a global scale. This
section will introduce and briefly explain the primary regional and international organizations active
diplomatically in the world today, including the megaorganization, the United Nations.
Regional Organizations
Organization of American States (OAS)
The Organization of American States was formed in April 1948 and currently
includes 35 member states from North and South America.

The Organization of American States was formed in April 1948 and currently
includes 35 member states from North and South America. The organization brings together the
countries of the Western Hemisphere to strengthen cooperation and advance common interests. It
is the regions forum for multilateral dialogue and concerted action.
At the core of its mission is the commitment to democracy as is stated by the OAS Charter:

The peoples of the Americas have a right to democracy and their government have an
obligation to promote and defend it.

The organizations areas of focus are:

Defending Democracy
The InterAmerican Democratic Charter, adopted on September 11, 2001, defines the
essential elements of democracy and establishes guidelines for collective action when
democracy is at risk and faces serious challenges.
Protecting Human Rights
Police abuse, due process violations and corruption in the administration of justice are
important problems in the region. The human rights system of the OAS provides recourse
to people in the Americas who have suffered human rights violations by the state. The
principal instruments are the InterAmerican Commission on Human Rights and the Inter
American Court of Human Rights. These institutions apply regional law on human rights.
Strengthening Security
The InterAmerican Committee against Terrorism seeks to prevent the financing of
terrorism, strengthen border controls and increase cooperation among law enforcement
agencies in different countries. The OAS continues to lead international efforts to remove
landmines in previous zones of conflict. In 2003, the OAS pronounced the Declaration on

Security in the Americas, reaffirming the member states commitment to preserve peace
through cooperation.
Fostering Free Trade
In 2004, at the Special Summit of the American in Monterrey, Mexico, the leaders of the
hemisphere reaffirmed the role of free trade in promoting sustained growth and economic
development.
Combating Illegal Drugs
The InterAmerican Drug Abuse Control Commission is the organizations tool to
strengthen antidrug laws and prevention programs of member states. The commission
also works on taking measures to stem drug and firearm trafficking.
Fighting Corruption
The 1996 InterAmerican Convention against Corruption sets forth provisions to eliminate
corruption and established an evaluation process, which monitors each countrys
compliance with the convention.
Organization of American States (OAS)
Through the Summit of the Americas process leaders of the hemisphere discuss common
issues and seek solutions to shared problems.

African Union (AU)

African Union

The African Union emerged out of the Organization of African Unity (OAU), which was established
in 1963. In September 1999 the Heads of Governments of the OAU issued a declaration calling for
the establishment of an African Union to accelerate the process of integration in the African
continent in order to play a prominent role in the global economy. It also recognized the necessity
to address the social, economic and political problems facing African nations.
Three additional summits were held on the way to formally establishing the African Union: The
2000 Lome Summit adopting the Constitutive Act of the Union, the 2001 Lusaka Summit drawing
the road map for implementing the AU, and the 2002 Durban Summit formally launching the AU by
convening the first Assembly of the Heads of States of the African Union.
The vision of the organization is to promote increased socioeconomic integration of the continent
that will lead to greater solidarity and unity among African countries and peoples. This includes the
promotion of peace, security and stability, as well as strengthening the partnerships between the
government and civil society, in particular women, youth and the private sector.
League of Arab States

The League of Arab States, or the Arab League, was formed in March
1945 as a result of the desire of the Arab states for unity and
independence. The Arab League consists of 22 member states, including

the state of Palestine. Its major institutions include a Summit of Heads of States, a Council of
Ministers, the Standing Committees and a Secretariat General, headquartered in Cairo, Egypt.

The Arab League is primarily a forum for discussion and for consensus seeking on the major issues
faced by its member states. It has been a major supporter of the Palestinian resistance movement
since the creation of Israel in 1948. The Arab League has cooperated with the European Union
through the EuroArab Dialogue since 1973.
The Association of Southeast Asian Nations was founded in August 1967 for the
purpose of securing peace, stability and development in the region. ASEAN consists
of ten member states, encompassing all of Southeast Asia. Its institutions include
multiple committees, a national secretariat in each member state, and a General
Secretariat headquartered in Jakarta, Indonesia.

ASEAN member states cooperate in the following fields:

Politics and security

Economy, including the reduction of trade barriers between member states

Social development

Science and technology

Culture and information

Transnational crime

European Union

The European Union started as a 6 member organization focused on trade

and the economy. Today the EU embraces 25 countries and covers a wide
range of issues beyond trade, including defense and security policy. Four
more countries are currently in the process of applying to the Union.

The main institutions of the EU are:

1. The European Parliament elected every 5 years and containing 732 representatives.
Elected officials represent the people of Europe rather than their home state.
2. The Council of the European Union consisting of the ministers form the national
governments. Meetings are attended by the minister in charge of the issues discussed.
While it shares the responsibility of passing laws and making policy decisions with the
Parliament, the Council is responsible for the common foreign and security policy as well
as EU action in the area of justice. Decisions are taken in most areas by majority vote and
each country has a number of votes according to its population. Unanimity is required with
regard to taxation, asylum and immigration, foreign and security policy.
3. The European Commission represents the interests of the EU as a whole and is
independent of national governments. It manages the day to day business of the EU and
drafts European laws. The Commission consists of 25 members, one from each country,
who are appointed for a period of 5 years.
4. The Court of Justice ensures that European law is applied by all members of the Union.
Located in Luxembourg it is made up from 25 judges representing all member states.

5. The Court of Auditors checks that the revenues from taxpayers are spent legally,
economically and for their intended purposes.
6. The European Central Bank based in Frankfurt the bank is responsible for monetary
policy regarding the Euro in order to ensure price stability (rather than employment).
In December 2003, as part of the Common Foreign and Security Policy (CFSP), EU leaders adopted
a European Security Strategy and have since agreed on its basic mission and priority areas for
action:

the fight against terror;

a Middle East strategy;

a comprehensive policy on BosniaHerzegovina.

In line with the CFSP, the Union created a rapid reaction force, whose military strength will be built
up gradually over several years and could contain up to 50,000 troops. The intervention capabilities
of the EU include humanitarian and rescue missions, peacekeeping, crisis management and even
peacemaking.
The European Security and Defense Policy (ESDP) in Action

The Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe

(OSCE)

The Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe is the largest regional security
organization in the world, with 55 participating states from Europe, Central Asia and North
America. All OSCE participating states have equal status, and decisions are based on consensus.
OSCE maintains various offices and institutions and is headquartered in Vienna, Austria. It is active
in early warning, conflict prevention, crisis management and postconflict rehabilitation.
The OSCE approach to security encompasses the following areas:

Arms control

Preventive diplomacy

Confidence and security building measures

Human rights

Democratization

Election monitoring

Economic and environmental security

North Atlantic Treaty Organization

(NATO)

The North Atlantic Treaty was signed in April 1949, creating an alliance of states
committed to mutual defense. Today, following the end of the Cold War and the
division of Europe, the Alliance of 26 member states has been restructured, and
NATOs political and military structures transformed to undertake in particular
peacekeeping and crisis management tasks in cooperation with countries which are not members of
the Alliance and with other international organizations.

NATOs essential purpose is to ensure the freedom and security of its members by political and
military means, in accordance with the principles of the United Nations Charter. It is dedicated to
protecting democracy, human rights and the rule of law. The best means of safeguarding these
shared values is to bring about a just and lasting peaceful order in Europe as a whole. NATO has
worked since its inception to achieve this goal.
NATOs transformation from a defense alliance to a security alliance has taken place throughout the
1990s. The debate about whether or not this transformation was necessary for the alliance to
remain relevant was resolved by the crises in the former Yugoslavia and subsequent interventions
by NATO. Today, NATO has important conflict management capabilities. A new debate has since
emerged concerning the geographic area of intervention appropriate for the alliance. Even though
this question has been answered temporarily by the deployment of NATO troops in Iraq and Darfur,
there are still concerns about NATOs role in outofarea conflicts, meaning conflicts outside the
broader European region.
United Nations

Established in 1945, the United Nations is a multilateral organization with a

broad mandate that includes political, legal, cultural, social, health, education,
economic, security and other functions. Onehundred ninetyone member states
currently participate in the UN system which is organized into more than 30
affiliated organizations.

The UN and its family of organizations work to promote respect for human rights, protect the
environment, fight disease, foster development and reduce poverty. UN agencies define the
standards for safe and efficient transport by air and sea, help improve telecommunications and
enhance consumer protection, work to ensure respect for intellectual property rights and
coordinate allocation of radio frequencies. The United Nations plays a leading role in the
international campaigns against drug trafficking and terrorism. Throughout the world, the UN and
its agencies assist refugees and set up programs to clear landmines, help improve the quality of
drinking water and expand food production, make loans to developing countries and help stabilize
financial markets.
UN Members are sovereign countries. The United Nations is not a world government, but it does,
however, provide the means to help resolve international conflict and formulate policies on matters
of global importance. At the UN, all the member states large and small, rich and poor, with
differing political views and social systems have a voice and vote in this process.

Summary

Trackone is generally understood to involve governmenttogovernment efforts to

address issues of conflict and conflict resolution. Legal authority and a monopoly of
coercive power form the foundations of the trackone approach.

Diplomacy is the main instrument of trackone. The principal objective of diplomacy is to

advance the interests of the state. This involves protecting the states independence,
security and territorial, political and economic integrity. Diplomacy is considered most
effective when it secures maximum national advantage without resort to military force and
while preserving positive external relations.

Sanctions offer states and multilateral organizations, such as the United Nations, a means
of addressing threats to the peace, with militaries playing enforcement roles short of war
fighting. Sanctions are most effective when combined with incentives to encourage a
negotiated solution.

Classical deterrence theory argues that credible and capable threats can prevent the
initiation and contain the escalation of conflict. When nonmilitary means are used,
deterrence may take a positive form (inducements) as well as a negative one
(deprivations), the latter often associated with sanctions.

Collective security assumes that rules of behavior among nations should be encouraged,
that rules should be enforced, that enforcement actions should be legitimized through
broad international agreement, and that enforcement actions should generally be
undertaken by multinational coalitions.

The general objective of coercive diplomacy is to back a demand to an adversary with

the threat of punishment for noncompliance, a threat that the adversary will consider
credible and potent enough to persuade him to comply with the demand.

Preventive diplomacy is action to prevent disputes from arising between parties, to

prevent existing disputes from escalating into conflicts and to limit the spread of the latter
when they occur.

In the modern global system, states increasingly utilize economic instruments, such as
trade, aid and investment to advance various interests, including conflict prevention and
peace building. The World Bank Group is the most prominent of the international
organizations that explicitly address peace and stability as among the objectives of their
lending and related financial practices.

Public diplomacy is a U.S. coined term that describes efforts to promote peopleto
people contacts to increase mutual understanding.

Multilateral organizations play various conflict prevention and peacemaking/peace

building functions, from election monitoring to demining to economic development to
mutual security.

TrackTwo Approaches to Conflict Resolution

Introduction
Cooperation between people and organizations outside the realm of formal statetostate relations
is by no means a new phenomenon. In fact, it was the common form of human discourse until the
advent of the modern nation state. Multinational corporations, international financial institutions,
religious organizations and scientific societies, to name a few, regularly engage in transnational
activities of one kind or another. Modern technology, especially highspeed electronic
communication, has dramatically increased the volume and speed of such contacts. Some
commentators have gone so far as to wonder about the future of state sovereignty, given the
exponential growth in relations between nonstate actors.
Globalization notwithstanding, diplomacy remains essentially the special preserve of duly
authorized representatives of the state. There has been, however, a noticeable change in the
international system over the past few decades as growing numbers of international non
governmental organizations (INGOs) have become active in issue areas once the exclusive domain
of states. Some governments, in fact, view the work of many of these INGOs as an important
adjunct to formal diplomacy in addressing issues of violence prevention, conflict resolution and
peace building.
Dubbed TrackTwo Diplomacy, such activity has been described as:

Unofficial, informal interaction among members of adversarial groups or nations with the
goals of developing strategies, influencing public opinion, organizing human and material
resources in ways that might help resolve conflict.
Palestinian and Israeli academics discuss the role of TrackTwo
Diplomacy.

A former US State Department official adds:

TrackTwo activity is designed to assist official leaders by compensating for the constraints
imposed on them by the psychologically understandable need for leaders to be, or at least
be seen to be, strong, wary and indomitable in the face of the enemy. 1
Establishing channels of communication: St. Egidio community
spokesman Mario Marazziti, right, shakes hands with Ismael
Omer, a representative of the Darfur rebel groups, at a press
conference in 2005.

Activities conducted under TrackTwo are geared to:

Change attitudes about the other
The impact of TrackTwo activities on conflict transformation is hard to measure. However,
practitioners have observed that they are particularly effective in breaking down
stereotypes about the other side. The deconstruction of negative enemy images and
increased understanding of the needs, rationale, and intentions of the other increase trust
and preempt the leaderships capacity to mobilize society for violence. The United States
government has realized in its analysis of the September 11 attacks, that the negative U.S.
image in the Muslim world plays a significant role in the support for terrorism. As a result,
the U.S. government has launched a public campaign to change the publics perception of
the United States and its actions. Many aspects of the campaign are carried out through
TrackTwo actors.
Open channels of communication
TrackTwo actors have also been effective in opening channels of communication, which
would otherwise find it difficult to meet or acknowledge any contact. It is difficult for the
United States, for example, to maintain contact with certain groups, such as Hamas or
insurgent groups in Iraq or oven terrorist organizations. When governments want to limit
such contacts due to political and legal ramifications, TrackTwo actors provide an inroad to
open and maintain channels of communication.
Improve the quality of communication
In addition to establishing channels for communicating, second track activities also have
proven to improve the quality of communication and the information exchanged. They learn
how to use neutral language to convey personal stories that go beyond the parties
position, needs and interests. As a result of improved communication, the parties involved
develop language and other skills that allow them to approach the conflict from other
angles, use problemsolving techniques and joint analysis for conflict resolution.
Relationship and trust building
The relationships created in workshops, meetings and discussions are increasingly built on
trust, and participants realize that they face many of the same fears, problems and issues.
While those deepened relationships often do not extend beyond the unofficial TrackTwo
process, the acquaintance with the other side makes later interactions at the more official
level easier.
Change perceptions of the conflict
As participants develop a joint understanding of the conflict and learn about each others
underlying needs, values and interests, they gain a new perception of the conflict and the
ways to resolve it. They also find common ground and even in areas where nonnegotiable
differences persist, are able to approach them together.

Develop options for negotiations

TrackTwo efforts are often successful in creating new options to resolve issues through
creative problemsolving workshops and assisted brainstorming sessions. These new
options rarely concern the bigger issues but allow the parties to move forward on smaller
obstacles and create momentum for the process as a whole.
Strengthen the voices of moderation
One of the strengths of TrackTwo Diplomacy is the mobilization and strengthening of
moderate groups that have been marginalized and silenced as part of the process of
polarization. They provide the basis for coalitions across enemy lines and play an important
role in the reconciliation process. In conducting its Global War Against Terrorism, the United
States government and its allies, have increasingly supported moderate Islamic movements
across the globe. If not directly, governments fund TrackTwo programs that help moderate
groups to organize themselves and enter the public sphere.
Develop infrastructure for peace
In addition to creating social networks that reach out to the other side, TrackTwo
Diplomacy also plays an important role in providing and reconstructing the physical
elements of a peace infrastructure. This includes creating economic opportunities through
training and microcredits, supporting a free press and education, rebuilding schools,
hospitals and other critical infrastructure, and fostering the development of civic groups
and political parties.
TrackTwo Approaches to conflict management require third party facilitators to be ever aware of
their role as a neutral, lest they slip into an advocates role, a not uncommon phenomenon,
particularly when dealing with deep rooted, emotionally charged intercommunal conflict. Great
care must be taken to separate issues from emotions, which are often interlocked. TrackTwo
Approaches require taking great pains to identify and eliminate, to the extent possible, political
sloganeering persuasion using catchphrases that have no deeper meaning by the parties so as
to prepare the ground for meaningful inquiry into the deeper emotional aspects of their
relationship. Building these relations often includes dealing with deeprooted issues connected with
personal suffering and trauma sustained in conflict. For these reasons, there is often a need for
facilitators to have some familiarity with psychological practices, particularly as they relate to
forgiveness and reconciliation.

Joseph Montville, Transnationalism and the Role of TrackTwo Diplomacy, in W. Scott Thompson and Kenneth M.
Jensen, (eds)., Approaches to Peace: An Intellectual Map (Washington, DC: United States Institute of Peace Press,
1992), p. 262. See also by the same author, The Arrow and the Olive Branch: A Case for TrackTwo Diplomacy, in
Volkan, Julius, & Montville (eds.), The Psychodynamics of International Relationships Vol. II, (Lexington, MA: Lexington
Books, 1991), pp. 161175.

TrackTwo Methods
ProblemSolving Workshops
Description
This method brings together unofficial representatives of conflicting communities to discuss
various perspectives and to develop collaborative strategies to address specific issues. It is
typically sponsored by a local or international NGO who provides a team of third party
facilitators to structure the process and help guide the discussion.
Objectives

The goal of problemsolving workshops is to produce changes in the way participants view
the conflict in hopes of creating more options for resolution. Through careful analysis of
various perspectives, participants arrive at new realizations about the source of the conflict
and working in a secure, nonthreatening environment, brainstorm about alternative
futures. Participants are often younger leaders or socalled proximate policy players (i.e.,
staff or advisors to decision makers) who will either become political leaders in the near
future or already have access to decisionmaking circles. These individuals serve as
transmission belts to higher levels of power for the ideas generated in the workshops.
The specific objectives of a problemsolving workshop can vary and change depending on
the flow of the discussion.
Brainstorming or making lists of ideas that need to be discussed often constitutes a
workshop in itself and may be the only objective for the first phase of a planned series of
meetings. Prioritizing these ideas and placing them into specific categories may be a
second stage, and a third would be to generate options for dealing with these ideas. A final
phase involves planning implementation strategies and delegating responsibility for
oversight and reporting of outcomes and scheduling future meetings if and when necessary.
Implementation
Workshops generally include up to twenty participants and a facilitation team of up to four.
Participants are usually sector leaders in their community. For example, one might be
selected because of his or her contribution to a human rights movement or role in youth
leadership groups. The workshop tends to last anywhere from three days to two weeks and
may have three to four phases that run throughout a year.
Traditionally, workshops are composed of five elements:
1. Analysis of the conflict situation.
2. Preparation of workshop materials.
3. Organization of the workshop.
4. Planning for implementation of the action plans generated.
5. Preparation of participants to reenter their communities.
Example: Inside the Greater Horn

Dialogue Groups
Description
Small group discussion between two or more people that is often used as an informal forum
to discuss various perspectives and experiences. Dialogues create or build trust among an
intimate group of people and in some cases assist the group or individuals in coming up
with joint solutions to shared problems. This approach often incorporates an outsider or
third party who helps to facilitate communication. There are three types of dialogues that
are employed by conflict resolution practitioners:

Positional Dialogue: Parties come together to talk, realizing that they represent
two very different, sometimes opposing, positions. Parties often speak in a we
versus them tone, as representatives of some larger group rather than speaking
for themselves as individuals.

Human Relations Dialogue: Parties speak more from the heart, sharing feelings,
values or beliefs about issues that are of deep concern; story telling is frequently
used as a means of building trust and friendships.

Activist Dialogue: Two or more parties work together in the spirit of realizing a
common goal. One example would be intergenerational projects where teenagers
and senior citizens work together, the younger people donating time and physical
energy and the elderly donating material support.

Objectives
The primary objective is to bring people together from different communities to discuss
complex issues, however there are also specific goals to attain. Some anticipated results
include:

Development of communication skills.

Reduction of stereotyping and negative enemy images.

Increasing the number or kind of activities connecting the two parties.

Expansion of other dialogues that attract specific interestbased groups.

Implementation
Dialogue groups require the least amount of organization and funding to put into action. If
organized by a third party, issues of trust, respect and ethics become of even higher
importance. In order to hold a dialogue group there must first be a safe place where both
parties feel comfortable discussing what might be very personal stories and concerns that
have not been shared before. This requires deep understanding of the historical
background of the conflict and familiarity with the languages, culture and religions of the
disputants as well as familiarity with the geographical area in question.
Once the participants and a venue have been selected, the next step is to create a positive
forum where the parties feel comfortable revealing their often painful feelings about the
conflict. The dialogue is intended to assist the parties to better understand one anothers
perspective and to eventually work towards developing common ideas for their future.
Example: Lebanon Dialogue Project

Exchange Programs
Description
Involves academic, cultural, business and other meetings where parties from different
countries come together for several days or over a more extended period to conduct
research, exchange ideas, view exhibits or performances, attend conferences and
participate in training programs. Many other exchanges take place that are more narrowly
focused on specific professional interests.
Objectives
Such meetings provide an opportunity for people from otherwise hostile regimes to
increase mutual awareness and understanding and to forge professional and cultural ties
that can transcend political differences. They provide alternative forums for the discussion
of ideas and the consideration of creative proposals that may be of benefit to national
leaders but that are difficult for such leaders to address, given political constraints. A larger
purpose may be to provide revelatory information that many times is not known to one
another and that can be valuable in broadening mutual understanding, in correcting
misperceptions, and in increasing trust.
Implementation
The execution of such programs can be difficult due to the high level of communication
needed prior to the exchange. Constructive conversations are needed to build an
understanding of what a colleague will do during their visit, who they will reside with, what
kind of safety guarantees are in place, how the home office can communicate with
colleagues participating in the exchange program.

Pending the outcome of initial planning, substantial funding may be necessary to

underwrite a program. Where the exchange involves citizens from states with hostile
regimes, a host of other challenges must be overcome involving such matters as the
issuance of visas, official permission of a local delegation to participate in a meeting, and
authorization for local travel by a visiting delegation.
Example: Training of Trainers Exchange Program

Peace Commissions
Description
Commissions are groups of notable people that can be gathered at the national, regional or
local levels. They employ joint action through which the weight of the community is
brought to bear on a particular problem and they help advance dialogue between sectors
political, military, religious, human rights affected by the problem. The core mission of a
peace commission is to prevent or counter political violence and conflict. 2
Objectives
To date, the goal of local Peace Commissions has been three fold:
1.

The abolition or limitation of the use of weapons and other instruments of

violence.

2.

The acknowledgement of human rights violations.

3.

Maintaining a peaceful, cordial relationship between the official and nonofficial

levels of society.

Implementation
At the grassroots level, peace commissions are simply gatherings of community members
dedicated to addressing local issues that can or have lead to violence. They often grow out
of previous dialogue sessions among members of the community. In the aftermath of
conflict, such commissions may be established to find the truth about what happened, in
which case they are referred to as Truth Commissions. These commissions are often set
up in response to local demands for peace and justice; however, they may also be a result
of international pressure to address past incidents in a systematic way.
Example: Nueva Guinea Peace Commissions in Nicaragua

Indigenous Practices
Description
Mediation conducted by local, indigenous parties to establish peaceful relations. Frequently
involves local elders, religious leaders or highly respected members in a given community
who have established credibility.
Objective
Indigenous approaches assist in resolving, managing and preventing conflict through
communitybased decisionmaking processes. This process limits the dependence on
external institutions, placing much of the responsibility on local members of the
community.

Implementation
Generally, respected community members (elders, chiefs, religious leaders) serve as
mediators and try to find common ground between parties. Of great concern to the
mediators is preserving the pride and dignity of each party as well as their own moral
status. Traditional or indigenous mediators often function as a court with exceptionally
broad and flexible powers to interpret evidence, impose judgments and manage the
process of reconciliation.3
Example: Musalaha ~ A Middle Eastern Approach to Resolving Conflict

2
3

Ibid., Creative Associates International, Inc., p. 4:35.

Ibid., Creative Associates International, Inc., p. 4:48.

Advantages and Disadvantages of TrackTwo

Diplomacy
Positive Potential of TrackTwo
TrackTwo Approaches assist in building networks of people who are active in conflict resolution and
peacebuilding processes in their region. Participants do not operate under the intense political and
time constraints that are often a feature of TrackOne Approaches. They take place in a relaxed
environment where participants can explore issues and options in a structured but openended
format. They very often concentrate on deeper structural problems and human needs in an effort
to transform relations between parties.
TrackTwo encourages productive dialogue often in the presence of an expert third party who
assists in facilitating communication. Deeper understanding of fundamental problems and
attitudinal change are common objectives. These in turn help to create conditions for future peace
building initiatives. Alternative means for dealing with conflict are discussed at length and in a final
stage participants focus on ways to implementation the ideas that have been generated.
Finally, TrackTwo Approaches liberate governments from the political and legal ramifications that
come with official and direct TrackOne contacts. The unofficial nature of TrackTwo Diplomacy
helps preserve, to some extent, the integrity and legitimacy of government policies.
TrackTwo Diplomacy Characteristics

Potential Shortcomings of TrackTwo

Participants often face the dilemma of lacking the means to
expand their ideas beyond the general workshop setting and to
mobilize outside resources for further impact. TrackTwo meetings
are typically held in closed settings to ensure the physical safety of the participants and to
encourage candid discussion. Minimal public exposure, when combined with low or no political
access, reduces the impact on social systems as a whole of many TrackTwo efforts.
A final shortcoming derives from the predominantly western roots of TrackTwo Approaches.
Although becoming increasingly sensitive to local customs and indigenous practices, many in the
field still exhibit a remarkable degree of cultural ignorance or insensitivity. This leads to programs
that are inappropriate or irrelevant to the needs of the target population and can lead to general
skepticism about the role and impact of TrackTwo practitioners.

Shortcomings of TrackTwo Diplomacy

TrackOne and TrackTwo

Collaboration
Under circumstances where official diplomatic communications
between warring parties break down, unofficial channels can be an
effective strategy to resume dialogue and interaction needed for
the resolution of a conflict. TrackTwo can assist in deescalating
conflict and reducing violence, even before official channels are prepared to enter into dialogue.
TrackTwo can also help to advance dialogue between parties in situations that are politically
sensitive, where one or both parties are facing political constraints that render direct contacts
highly problematic. TrackTwo can serve as a laboratory to test new ideas in a safe, often
confidential, environment and should things go awry, offer a cover for officials who may have
been involved, however indirectly, in communications with the other side. It can provide a face
saving option for officials who might otherwise be loath to enter into dialogue with a foe that is
highly unpopular at home.
South Africa Commission
A form of DualTrack Diplomacy was pursued in South Africa by the government and the Truth and
Reconciliation Commission, which together shaped attitudes and behaviors into an overarching
nonviolent vision.
South Africa succeeded in making a generally peaceful transition from a system of racial apartheid
to democratic majorityrule. The influence of the Peace Commissions is of high relevance in the
demise of the apartheid system. One of the ways peace committees proved effective was in
identifying when political violence was likely to flare up, and in working to preempt or contain such
violence. The peace commissions had unusual and extensive subpoena and searchandseizure
powers. To ensure that the inquiries were unbiased, senior police officers from the European Union
were included on the commissions, and the UN was invited to observe. Foreign legal experts were
also called in for special investigations. The government respected the authority of the peace
commissions and did not conduct any independent political investigations.
The work of the Peace Commissions led to the establishment of a Truth and Reconciliation
Commission when the new, postapartheid, parliament came into office in South Africa. Under the
leadership of Nobel Laureate, Archbishop Desmond Tutu, the Commission investigated human
rights violations and made reparations to victims.
The public attends a hearing of the Truth and Reconciliation
Commission in Port Elizabeth.

Oslo Accords
The Middle East peace process also benefited from a DualTrack Approach. Oslo was a unique
process in which TrackTwo did not precede TrackOne, but rather worked simultaneously with it.
Former US Secretary of State, Warren Christopher, was one of the first officials to acknowledge the
significant effect of TrackTwo Diplomacy in this process in his reference to the conceptual
breakthrough of the Oslo peace talks in September 1993. This breakthrough was the result of
hundreds of academic meetings, in Israel, the U.S. and in Europe wherein second and third tier
representatives from both sides articulated hopes, fears, motivations, values and needs of the
Israeli and Palestinian people.
Sri Lanka
Sri Lankas National Peace Council (NPC) took a multitrack approach when it initiated a fiveday
gathering on the Greek island of Crete to discuss parallels between the South African experience

and that of their own country. Twenty Members of Parliament (MP) learned concepts of peace
building and conflict resolution, while forging relationships across political and ethnic divides. 4
Meetings continued in Northern Ireland, then the Philippines and Bangladesh. The group learned
about the various issues and concerns of other regional conflicts and compared it to that of their
own. Such comparative analysis of conflicts has proven to be a very useful outcome of multitrack
approaches to conflict resolution.
Northeast Asia Cooperation Dialogue (NEACD)
A collaborative effort between the University of California Institute on Global Conflict and
Cooperation and the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory Center for Global Security Research,
Wired for Peace: Virtual Diplomacy in Northeast Asia is designed to help reduce mistrust and to
avert conflicts in the North Pacific region through confidence and security building measures. Its
aim is to enhance mutual understanding and cooperation through meaningful but unofficial
dialogue involving China, Japan, Russia, the United States, South Korea and North Korea.
Participating countries have attended a total of ten meetings around the world and continue to use
the Internet to discuss issues of mutual concern and to create a virtual library of articles relating to
security, globalization and the military.
Plenary session at the 2003 NEACD meeting in Qingdao,
China.

IGCC received $325,000 in funding from the Carnegie

Corporation of New York to conduct a study project to assess
the contributions and limitations of Asian TrackTwo
Diplomacy after a decade of experiments. The assessment will
look at the interaction of NEACD with the official sixparty talks over the proposed twoyear
period. It will also examine the ten years of NEACD experience with TrackTwo Diplomacy and that
of other TrackTwo dialogues in Asia. The project runs until May 31, 2006.
Although each of the approaches to Conflict Resolution discussed in this unit (e.g., problemsolving
workshops, mediation, internal processes, peace commissions and exchange programs) has
strengths and weaknesses, it is imperative for researchers and practitioners to understand the
potential uses of TrackTwo as a whole in peacemaking efforts.
Recently, the term Track 1.5 Diplomacy has emerged. If official interactions between
representatives of states and organizations are first tier efforts, and unofficial interactions between
unofficial people defines TrackTwo Diplomacy, Track 1.5 refers to unofficial interactions between
official representatives. In most cases, officials meet away from the public eye and TrackTwo
actors are used as intermediaries. Interactions are structured around problemsolving workshops,
mediated talks and trustbuilding exercises. Track 1.5 Diplomacy combines the authority and
resources of the first track with the creativity and offtherecord nature of the second track.
MultiTrack Approaches
John W. McDonald and Louise Diamond have expanded the concept of Track Diplomacy beyond
TrackOne and TrackTwo, and have advanced the idea of MultiTrack Diplomacy. They have
identified nine tracks:5
1. Official governmenttogovernment diplomatic interaction.
2. Unofficial but professional conflict resolution focused on analytical, policy oriented,
problemsolving efforts between private citizens.
3. Businesstobusiness interactions in the private sector, business negotiations.
4. Private citizen exchange programs, such as scientific, cultural, academic, educational,
student, film, music, arts, sports and other exchanges.

5. Research, training and education.

6. Activism, mobilizing citizens for peace, democracy and the respect for human rights.
7. Religious efforts that connect people based on the principles of peace, justice, love,
humanity and cooperation inherent in all religions.
8. Funding of projects that enable individuals or groups from different racial, religious and
ethnic groups to participate in shared projects.
9. Public opinion and communication efforts designed to expose and educate large segments
of the population to the philosophy, ideas, culture and needs of the nation, community or
ethnic group with which they are in conflict.
Rather than thinking of diplomacy as a hierarchical structure, MultiTrack Diplomacy values each
track equally because each brings to the table its own resources, approaches and values. They
correlate to produce a systems approach to peace no single track can by itself build a peace
process that is sustainable.

European Centre for Conflict Resolution, People Building Peace: 35 Inspiring Stories from Around the World, (Utrecht,
Netherlands: European Centre for Conflict Resolution, 1999) p. 171.
5
Diamond, Louise and John McDonald. MultiTrack Diplomacy: A Systems Approach to Peace. Washington, D.C.:
Institute for MultiTrack Diplomacy, 1993.

Summary

TrackTwo Diplomacy is defined as unofficial, informal interaction among members of

adversarial groups or nations with the goals of developing strategies, influencing public
opinion and organizing human, and material resources in ways that might help resolve
conflict.

Over the past few decades, a growing number of international nongovernmental

organizations (INGOs) have become active in the practice of TrackTwo Diplomacy. Some
governments view the work of select INGOs as an important adjunct to formal diplomacy
in addressing issues of violence prevention, conflict resolution and peace building.

TrackTwo Approaches include: peacemaking/peacebuilding; conflict analysis; conflict

transformation; communication and healing.

TrackTwo Approaches to conflict management require third party facilitators to be ever

aware of their role as a neutral, lest they slip into an advocates role. Great care must be
taken to separate issues from emotions, which are often interlocked.

TrackTwo Approaches require taking great pains to identify and eliminate, to the extent
possible, political sloganeering by the parties so as to prepare the ground for meaningful
inquiry into the deeper emotional aspects of their relationship. Building these relations
often includes dealing with deep rooted issues connected with personal suffering and
trauma sustained in conflict. For these reasons, there is often a need for facilitators to
have some familiarity with psychological practices, particularly as they relate to
forgiveness and reconciliation.

Problemsolving workshops; dialogue groups; exchange programs; peace commissions and

indigenous practices all represent TrackTwo methods.

TrackTwo Diplomacy takes place in a relaxed environment where participants can explore
issues and options in a structured but openended format. Practitioners very often
concentrate on deeper structural problems and human needs in an effort to transform
relations between parties.

Among the shortcomings of the approach are difficulty gaining outside support or political
power that is necessary to expand on ideas and plans. Unofficial groups in many societies
have minimal influence on formal policy. Financial support is very limited and there is the
challenge of the approachs predominantly western orientation.

Under circumstances where official diplomatic communications between parties break

down, unofficial channels can be an effective strategy to resume dialogue and interaction
needed for the resolution of a conflict.

TrackTwo can assist in deescalating conflict and reducing violence, even before official
channels are prepared to enter into dialogue. TrackTwo can also help to advance dialogue
between parties in situations that are politically sensitive, where one or both parties are
facing political constraints that render direct contacts highly problematic.

TrackTwo can serve as a laboratory to test new ideas in a safe, often confidential,
environment and should things go awry, offer a cover for officials who may have been
involved, however indirectly, in communications with the other side.

Preparing for Negotiations

Negotiation, at its most fundamental level, can be defined as a process in which two or more
parties share ideas, information and options in order to achieve a mutually acceptable agreement.
It is a process that involves the exchange of promises and assurances, often in written form.
For our purposes negotiation is defined as direct dialogue between two or more parties. Mediation,
in contrast, is when third parties intervene between two or more conflicting parties, playing an
active role in negotiations. While both negotiation and mediation share many objectives, we are
mainly focused on direct negotiations.
Negotiation figures prominently in the toolbox of conflict management and international relations. A
number of countries, including the United States, Germany, Britain, France and Russia are involved
in negotiating with Iran in an effort to halt the countrys nuclear programs and uranium enrichment
project. At the same time, negotiations are taking place with North Korea over its nuclear and
energy programs. In Iraq, Afghanistan and other countries that have initiated transitions to
democracy, negotiations take place among social groups about power sharing and the ultimate
form of government. In Sri Lanka, Colombia, Indonesia and in many African countries negotiations
are held to organize a sustained peace process, or ceasefire. Humanitarian organizations,
sometimes with the help of states, negotiate access to vulnerable populations. International
financial institutions negotiate the terms of loans and economic reforms. For all actors involved in
conflict management, negotiation represents one of the most important tools to achieve their
goals.

Bilateral Negotiations involve only two primary parties. In todays increasingly

interconnected world, negotiations between two states occur within a wider geopolitical
context that impacts negotiations. The prenegotiation phase is often critical for these
types of negotiations, as each party identifies its strengths, assesses its interests and
works to understand the wider context of the negotiations.

U.S. and Saudi Arabia Bilateral Trade Agreement

Multilateral Negotiations involve three or more parties. These negotiations tend to be

especially complex. Each time a new negotiation partner comes to the table, a new set of
issues, interests, positions and priorities is added. This dynamic must be carefully
managed along a number of different axes to ensure an agreement is reached that
satisfies the basic needs of all parties. The multiple issues involved must be fully
understood, all relevant parties must be identified, potential alliances assessed and
negotiation strategies carefully developed. Management of the entire process is of the
utmost concern.
The Congress of Vienna is one of the first documented cases of a
multilateral negotiation during which, under the auspices of its
chair, Austrian statesmen von Metternich, the major powers of
Europe agreed on the political landscape and borders of Europe in

the aftermath of the Napoleon Wars. The Congress of Vienna formed the bases for the modern
nationstates and their borders in Europe.

Bilaterals.org. US and Saudi Arabia conclude bilateral WTO accession agreement. September 12, 2005.
http://www.bilaterals.org/article.php3?id_article=2698

Preparing for Negotiations

This section identifies basic principles and outlines issues you should consider when preparing your
team for negotiations.
Know Your Interests
Negotiators need to understand what their party really wants. Knowledge of how these interests
meet underlying values and needs is essential to achieving satisfying results from negotiations,
because then negotiators can develop clear priorities upon which to fashion flexible positions and
strategies.

Interests are often based on shortterm, mediumterm and longterm objectives. Because
negotiators rely on instructions from the governments, agency or organization they
represent, it is important for them to know how these negotiations fit into the over
arching goals of the organization or government. If it appears that shortterm objectives
contradict longterm interests, clarifications are often necessary to prioritize.

Develop succinct preparation materials so that you can clearly articulate key points and are
thoroughly briefed on the other partys situation. If all members of the delegation team
are similarly briefed, coordination will be enhanced and you will be able to work effectively
together.

Avoid Taking Inflexible Positions

In many cases, negotiators become trapped by their own uncompromising demands for specific
outcomes. These can include demands over select concessions such as territory or political
representation as well as general political and ideological stances that prohibit open
communication. When entering into negotiations, it is important for each side to remember that its
positions do not necessarily reflect its true interests. An inflexible position, such as Hamas call for
the destruction of Israel, is impossible to negotiate and encourages the other party to take
inflexible positions in return. Irans insistence on enriching uranium on its soil has proven a key
impediment to a negotiated solution regarding the countrys nuclear ambitions.
The large popular support of the nationalist position taken by the
Iranian president makes it difficult for the government to change its
position without loosing credibility visvis the people.

Negotiators should ask themselves why certain positions

were taken in the past, and what basic needs those positions
attempted to address. Often demands for territory or political autonomy or the denial
thereof are actually driven by fundamental needs for security, group identity, or
reputation. In the conflict between Israel and Palestine, this underlying dynamic is
illustrated by the Land for Peace formula proposed in the Oslo Accords of 1993.

Positions become entrenched over time and may no longer accurately reflect current
conditions. Hamas call for the destruction of Israel does not reflect political realities, if it
ever has. Hamas has removed the debate around this demand from the recent elections, a

decision that may indicate the groups realization that a secure Palestinian state cannot be
achieved by destroying Israel. At the same time, the call for Israels destruction has been
such an intrical part of Hamas platform that the sincerity of its abandonment is
questioned.

While firm demands may be easy to make often with the encouragement and backing of
home constituencies they become increasingly problematic over time. Negotiators may
be unable to explore more promising solutions at a later date if they have committed
themselves to hard positions earlier in negotiations. Successful negotiations often require
a great deal of flexibility.

Even valid positions often represent only one set of possible solutions to a problem, and
may inhibit creative thinking about other ways to address the issues.
At the same time, the call for Israels destruction has been such an
intrical part of Hamas platform that the sincerity of its abandonment is
questioned.

Understand your Best Alternative to a Negotiated Agreement (BATNA) 2

The BATNA is a way to rethink the bottom line that has traditionally guided positional
negotiations. It involves assessing the relative strengths and weaknesses you and the other party
bring to the negotiation table. Often people assume that negotiating power is determined by access
to resources and military strength. Yet relative strength in negotiations is often determined by each
partys perceptions about viable alternatives to reaching agreement. It is therefore important to
remember the reason why you are negotiating and what would be the alternative to a negotiated
settlement. If there are many good alternatives that involve little cost, a party is in a strong
position and may better satisfy its interests through a nonnegotiated approach. If the alternatives
are limited and costly, a position is weak.

Consider the importance of your relationship with the other party when developing your
BATNA. Sometimes developing a mutually satisfying solution through a negotiated process
will greatly enhance the longterm working relationship, even if other interests could be
realized more easily through a nonnegotiated approach. In addition, the importance of
the relationship has an impact on how good the alternatives are.
Some alternatives ma be perfectly good BATNAs in a normal
relationship, but may not be considered as valid alternatives in a
special relationship, for example between the United States and
Great Britain.

Awareness of your BATNA will keep the negotiations from developing into an independent
process, thus avoiding the problem of negotiating for negotiations sake. This awareness
will also keep a party from settling on an agreement for agreements sake if it does not
satisfy interests. It is important to know that other avenues can be explored.

Develop and Improve your BATNA. The first step in improving the BATNA is creating a list
of actions a party could conceivably take if no satisfactory agreement is reached. Once
these fallback strategies have been identified, steps can be taken to improve some of the
more promising plans and preparing a plan for what actions would be needed to
implement them. Once the BATNA is clearly defined, it can serve as a benchmark and all
other negotiated agreements can be judged against it.

While fewer alternatives indicate a weaker negotiation position, having no alternatives may
increase a partys negotiation power. A party that can only pursue one strategy or option
to realize its goals and interests is not really in a position to negotiate. In general, the

more a party needs the cooperation of another party for the achievement of its objectives,
the weaker its negotiation position is. This is especially true, if the other party doesnt
have alternatives. In these cases, a party can offset its dependence by creating
alternatives for the other party, or by making the other partys options more expensive
through positive of negative incentives.

Negotiating with Terrorists

Understand the Other Party

A very important step in preparing for negotiations is learning everything possible about the other
party. It is important to understand how the issues you are negotiating fit into their larger political
framework and to understand the basic interests and needs that underlie their positions and goals.
Developing analytical empathyfor the other partys position enhances the understanding of the
other party. This means understanding how the conflict situation looks from their point of view. A
negotiator should be familiar with the history of the relationship between parties and how
negotiation encounters have proceeded in the past. This sense of history provides important
contextual information that may be vital for understanding the other side.

Understand the context and perceptions that give meaning to the situation. This can be
crucial to avoid misunderstandings and to enhance the negotiation relationship. When
there has been a history of protracted conflict between parties in conflict, relations are
often scarred by the lasting effects of the conflict attitudes discussed in the first section
of this course. It is critical to try to understand how these dynamics may affect
negotiations and what steps may need to be taken to ameliorate these effects. The need
for recognition, dignity and satisfaction of perceptions of justice can at times be
a stronger motivating force than distribution of material resources. In preparing,
one needs to consider how these more subjective issues will impact the outcome of the
negotiations.
In 2000, Ariel Sharon (Prime Minister of Israel, March 2001
until April 2006) visited the Temple Mount in Jerusalem, a
religious sight of equal importance to Jews and Muslims. In
the context of the IsraeliPalestinian Conflict and the election
campaign in Israel, in which Sharon ran as a hardliner with
regard to the peace talks, the visit was seen by Palestinians
as an attempt by Israel to stake its claims on the Temple
Mount. Some observers have argued that the action was the
trigger even for the second Intifada.

The domestic politics/foreign policy nexus. When analyzing potential negotiation strategies,
it is essential to consider the other sides internal conditions and politics. Often it is very
difficult for a government to conduct its foreign policy without consideration of domestic
public opinion. Sometimes governments pursue domestic political ends through foreign
policy means. They set their positions to reflect possible domestic political challenges and
demand maximum objectives because it is popular with the home constituency, as may be
illustrated in the case of Irans stance on its nuclear programs outlined above. In fact, it is
important to have domestic support for foreign policy objectives and most governments
will be eager to build such support.
When domestic concerns are particularly salient and yet both parties are eager to engage
in successful negotiations, it may be necessary for one party to assist the process by
taking actions to create a favorable domestic climate for negotiations. Examples of this
range from the variety of approaches Gorbachev used in creating a shift in Western public
opinion and President Sadats dramatic visit to Israel in 1977. Sometimes governments

work through friends in the other country who can lobby on their behalf to raise support in
other (often legislative) sectors of their opponents government.

Understanding motivations for engaging in negotiations. Is the other side participating in

good faith because it believes negotiations are the best means to achieve its objectives.
Or, conversely, is the participation a tactic for achieving another goal or hidden agenda.
Such motives can include:
Gathering information by testing your party, a thirdparty, or home constituency
reactions to proposals.
Enhancing their reputation for flexibility.
Appeasing parties who are pressuring them to end the conflict.
Buying time to delay possible adversarial actions during the course of the negotiations.

Based on insight gained from the previous two processes, negotiators need to assess the
other partys BATNA. What other options and alternatives do they have? Through an
understanding of the other sides implicit BATNA, one can gauge what is to be expected
from the negotiation process.

Understand the Wider Context of the Negotiations

In todays increasingly interconnected world, negotiations between two states on one set of issues
occur within a wider geopolitical context that impacts on the negotiations. Negotiations between
the United States and China, for example, on trade issues such as tariffs and quotas, are intimately
linked with the issue of human rights abuses by the Chinese government. In some cases, to
achieve one objective it is necessary to put aside, at least temporarily, another objective. Over
time, the pursuit of a competing interest may be taken up again.
The United States faces this dilemma in its Global War Against Terrorism. The need for allies and
partners in the region is critical in curbing the threat of terrorism. However, many of the partners,
such as Pakistan or Saudi Arabia or Uzbekistan, have poor human rights records, have previously
been linked to terrorism and are not exactly democratic role models. An analysis of the context is
often critical to developing a negotiation strategy, as it impacts on the BATNAs of both parties and
can particularly influence the timing, or the ripeness for engaging in negotiations or entering into
an agreement. In analyzing the impact of this wider context on negotiations, the following
questions may offer insight:

Who else has an interest in this issue? What are their interests and history with this issue
and with the primary parties?

Should they be brought in the process? Will they intrude into the process? What impact will
they have if they are brought in or left out?

What are their alternatives? What resources do they bring to the situation? What strategies
are they likely to use?

Formulate a Game Plan

It is useful to prepare a negotiation strategy. It is critically important to prioritize interests and
gauge their relative value. U.S. alliances with certain regimes in the GWOT are judged by the U.S.
government to be more important, at the moment, than the pursuit of a foreign policy that would
seek to make those regimes more democratic and more respectful of human rights. At the same
time, a plan should be flexible enough to avoid positional bargaining. The following steps help in
the development of a negotiation game plan:

Think about how you will communicate what you want and how other parties to the
negotiations will respond to this articulation of your position. The coherence of the
communication also applies to conveying coherence in the overall policy, because a
country has many relationships. Some observers have argued that the United States has
poorly communicated its stance on Irans nuclear ambitions, especially in light of the
United States recent deal with India on the shipment of nuclear reactors. They point out
that India has not signed the Nuclear NonProliferation Treaty (NPT) and is a rising power
engaged in a regional conflict with another nuclear power. At the same time, Iran has
signed the NPT and has in the past cooperated, albeit in limited ways, with the IAEA.
Negotiations with India may impact negotiations with Iran as a result.

Before official negotiations begin, it is often useful to work out frameworks for possible
agreements. Once your team has brain stormed proposals, try testing them by asking:
are they realistic? Would we like them if the other parties accepted them? What options
are preferable? Would they find it acceptable, given their situation? Thinking through
realistic options can both enhance a partys awareness of its BATNA and stimulate creative
problemsolving that will increase the likelihood of a satisfying outcome.
Before official negotiations begin, it is often useful to work out
frameworks for possible agreements.

The Negotiation Team: Composition of the Delegation

It is often helpful if a negotiation team is comprised of people who can contribute a variety of
background knowledge and skills. In addition to people experienced in negotiations, it is valuable to
have people who are experts on the issues, who are familiar with the other party and understand
their culture and language. It is also useful to have someone who can negotiate within ones own
government or organization in order to minimize the danger of having agreements that are vetoed
by ones own constituency. Steps that help a negotiation team in its capacity to negotiate include:

Clarify instructions as to the authority vested in the negotiating team. Negotiators will not
be able to make binding commitment on behalf of the government without clearance. It
should be determined whether the negotiator will be able to freely explore options if it is
made clear to both sides that the team has no authority to make substantive
commitments, but only procedural commitments. Should the negotiation team have full
authority to discuss any issue relevant to the negotiations, or is the subject matter limited
and how are those limits defined? Should the team inform the other side of the extent of
its authority? Clarity on these strategies at the outset is important, but flexibility may be
needed as negotiations move forward.

The twotable problem. While negotiators are officially engaged in talks with the other
party, they must also negotiate intrateam dynamics and roles (the talks behind the
table). Good communication and information sharing among members of the negotiation
team is often critical to the overall success.

The relevance of twotable problem as well as the importance of communication are demonstrated
by pointing out the size of negotiation teams. In the first round of bilateral trade negotiations
between the United States and Australia in 2003, the American negotiation team was comprised of
40 members and included representatives from the Department of State, Treasury, Agriculture,
Justice and Labor, Customs Administration, Patents and Trademarks Office, Federal Trade
Commission and the Environmental Protection Authority. The U.S. negotiation team for the Free
Trade Area of the Americas has almost 20 senior officials leading the various subnegotiation
groups, each of which is made up of a negotiation team with representatives of government
departments and agencies.

Fisher, R., W. Ury, et al. (1991). Getting to yes: negotiating agreement without giving in. New York, N.Y., Penguin
Books.
3
Koran, sura 56 verses 1239, cited by Ibn Warraq. Virgins? What Virgins? Guardian Unlimited. Saturday January 12,
2002. March 10, 2006.

PreNegotiation Phase
Before actual negotiations between the parties can take place, negotiations concerning the
negotiation process must occur. This phase is sometimes referred to as getting to the table and
unless the parties are successful in getting there, little can be done to reach a negotiated solution.
An effective prenegotiation period often covers three tracks:

1. Developing a joint understanding of the problem to be negotiated.

2. Reaching agreement on a negotiation process.
3. Enhancing the relationship between the parties through trustbuilding.
If these prenegotiation tasks are left unaddressed, negotiations may be impeded. By addressing
these tasks informally before commencing official negotiations, parties can tackle tough issues in a
context that reduces the risk of public scrutiny at a time when parties can still back out of the
process if conditions are not favorable. A good prenegotiation phase can lay the groundwork for
trust between the parties because they have an opportunity to work together on building
agreements on the negotiation process without directly addressing substantive proposals.
Developing a joint understanding of the problem
In conflict situations, parties often understand the problems very differently. Sometimes one party
does not even recognize that there is a conflict, or does not acknowledge some issues as
legitimate sources of conflict within a broader conflict relationship. For example, in the conflict
between China and Tibet, many Chinese believe that they liberated Tibet while Tibetans view the
Chinese to be hegemonic aggressors. Before official negotiations can occur, both parties
have to recognize that there is a conflict and that the issues involved are subject to
negotiations.
In addition, successful negotiations often require that parties have a mutual understanding of the
sources of the conflict and the barriers to its resolutions, particularly if trying to establish a lasting,
integrative solution. The prenegotiation phase can be a time when the conflict is jointly recognized
as a legitimate problem that can be settled through a negotiated solution. This is more easily said
than accomplished. Often a range of processes must be utilized before this stage is reached. They
include:

Conciliation is important when one or more parties has incurred heavy costs as a result of
a protracted conflict and the relationship between the parties is extremely polarized
because the most basic channels of communication are weak and misperceptions are high.

Unofficial consultation processes can be beneficial for opening communication channels,

increasing understanding of opposing perceptions of the problem, generating options and
floating proposals in a lowrisk, private forum.

The parameters of negotiations are often agreed upon prior to officially sitting down at the
negotiation table. At some point, direct or indirect communication will need to occur
between officials to set the boundaries of the negotiation. This involves reaching
agreement on what problems or issues are on the table and under what terms they will
be discussed. Through this process, the broad and diffuse nature of a conflict is made
more concrete by narrowing the focus on what will be discussed. Unless the parties share
a basic understanding of the nature of the problem, it is often difficult to set boundaries
for the negotiation that are capable of providing a framework for a successful negotiation.

Reaching Agreement on a Negotiation Process

Before formal negotiations can commence, basic agreements must be reached on the format and
processes that will guide negotiations. This usually includes:
1. Agreements on participants
2. Negotiating principles
3. Agenda
Gaining agreement on these criteria tends to decrease the perceived risk of engaging in
negotiations because uncertainty is reduced and the stakes are clarified. With this knowledge,
governmental leaders can often take advance steps to gain domestic political support and
cooperation from international allies.
1. Participants. Most often, the issue of who participates in bilateral negotiations is fairly
straightforward and noncontroversial. In contrast the list of participants if often a
problematic issue in multilateral negotiations and can actually be the primary stumbling

block when one of the parties does not recognize the legitimacy of the other. Sometimes
the main task of the prenegotiation phase is defining the status of the parties. For
example, parties often try to frame status by defining the other party as the aggressor
and themselves as the defender. This is important because perceptions of status affect the
relative advantages and disadvantages held by each party when entering negotiations.
Who participates and at what level can become more complicated with multitrack
negotiations, as will be discussed later.
2. Negotiating Principles. Developing agreement on principles to guide the negotiation can
be an important step in clarifying the aims of the negotiation process. Sometimes these
principles can set forth a comprehensive framework for addressing a range of issues.
Other times parties agree to tackle only one issue at a time. Discussions about principles
are closely linked to defining the boundaries of negotiations, and thus clearly address
substantive issues. This process is sometimes called setting the terms of the
negotiations. Parties try to define issues or limit the range of issues to be discussed in a
way that will give them an advantage. Often parties will condition their participation in
negotiations by demanding that the other party make a particular concession prior to
engaging in talks.
3. Agenda. Defining the issues that will be on the negotiation agenda is often the most
difficult and important tasks in the prenegotiation phase. What is put on and kept off the
table is highly significant and disagreement on the agenda often impedes formal
negotiations. Yet if an acceptable agenda is reached, it can lower the risk and the
uncertainty parties often feel when entering official negotiations.
o Creating an agenda serves the function of organizing a complex conflict into a
series of definable issues that are then subject to negotiation. How these issues
are formulated and how they are clustered impacts on future negotiating
processes. Adept formulation can assist in managing complex issues.
o The politics of formulating an agenda are often highly charged. By agreeing to have
an issue on the agenda, parties are giving tacit acceptance to its legitimacy as a
problem. Placing an issue on the table makes the status quo condition subject to
change. Yet unless parties are willing to take this risk, it will be difficult to have
the sort of comprehensive discussion that is often necessary to reach a longterm
solution.
o Logistics. Parties must agree to the basic setting for the negotiations, a decision
that is often loaded with symbolic meaning that can influence the relative comfort
or discomfort of the negotiating parties. Once the setting has been agreed upon,
someone must coordinate arrangements for a meeting site, oversee the available
facilities and support services, plan for contingencies (such as emergency medical
care) and arrange for appropriate meals and travel arrangements.
Enhancing Relationships through TrustBuilding
As has been mentioned previously, prolonged conflicts engender attitudes and perceptions that
create barriers to building a good working relationship that will allow parties to negotiate on the
merits of issues. One important task of the prenegotiation phase is to establish a
preliminary trust, a perception that the parties are coming to the table in good
faith. While TrustBuilding should continue to occur throughout the negotiation process, the
groundwork can be laid prior to commencing official negotiations. Often this needs to occur on two
levels:
1. Between the populations or governments that are the parties to the negotiation.
2. Between their representatives who serve as the negotiators.
Trust between negotiators can be enhanced by spending time developing a warm and personal
relationship. Through informal encounters, negotiators can begin to get a sense of each other and
to develop patterns of communicating and working together. Effective negotiators tend to
demonstrate a capacity to understand the problems faced by their counterpart and work to help
solve them.
Consequently, the negotiator can share his or her own problems as well. This process is facilitated
when negotiators demonstrate a genuine interest in trying to help the other side reach its
objectives while pursuing their own objectives and making the two appear compatible.

In general, trust in negotiations is enhanced when the negotiators:

1. Demonstrate empathy for the other sides position.
2. Can identify what is to be gained by working together.
3. Do not jeopardize their own credibility by overreacting.
4. Open themselves up to risk in order to show the other party that they trust them.
5. Follow through on their agreements.

Summary
This lesson is meant to help you prepare for negotiations, from getting your own team ready to
working through the prenegotiation phase with the other party. It starts with a definition of
negotiation and then describes the two basic types:

Bilateral Negotiations between two parties.

Multilateral Negotiations between 3 or more parties.

When preparing your party for negotiation, it is important to:

Know your interests.

Understand your Best Alternative To a Negotiated Agreement (BATNA).

Understand the other party: Why are they coming to the negotiating table?

Look at the larger context of negotiations: How are these negotiations affecting and
affected by the rest of the international community?

Formulate a negotiation strategy.

Build a negotiating team.

Once you have agreed to negotiations, assembled your team and feel comfortable with your
strategy, you move into the prenegotiation phase with the other party. Both parties should be
taking steps designed to make the negotiation process as effective as possible. These steps
include:

Developing a joint understanding of the problem to be negotiated.

Reaching agreement on a negotiation process.

Enhancing the relationship between the parties through trustbuilding.

Trust between parties is especially important for effective negotiations and longlasting solutions.

Basic Skills and Processes for Negotiators

Negotiators can have very different assumptions about the negotiation process itself and these
assumptions underlie how they will approach and operate within the negotiation encounter. It can
be useful to make these orientations explicit so that a negotiator can make a conscious decision
about whether his or her approach is most likely to foster the kind of outcome that is desired.
There are three broad categories of negotiating styles1:

Hard Negotiators make use of coercive strategies to force the other side to make
concessions. Parties tend to take an extreme position and push for it without considering
the other partys interests. The opposing party often counters with equally hard
strategies, with the result that both parties become exhausted and risk getting locked into
an intractable conflict. This negotiation style tends to create adversarial relationships and
the negotiation outcome is likely to be a distributive, i.e. one partys loss is the other

partys gain, rather than an integrative solution, i.e. all parties advance their positions.
Hard negotiators often threaten with negative incentives, i.e. sanctions or military action.
How hard are negotiators?

Soft Negotiators tend to strive for an agreement without generating tension or conflict,
often by giving concessions easily. The implicit goal is to not jeopardize the relationship.
Yet the risk is that the partys basic interests and needs are not addressed, thus creating
problems for the future. Additionally, these negotiators can be perceived, especially by
hard negotiators, to be weak and thus subject to future coercion. This approach is
generally more common in close, interpersonal relationships than in international
negotiations.

Principled Negotiators try to decide issues on their merits and look for mutual gains,
also called integrative solutions, wherever possible. This approach relies on understanding
the interests that underlie positions and then inventing options that lead to a mutually
agreeable and satisfying solution. Often this collaborative problemsolving approach
strengthens long term working relationships.

The strategies outlined below are commonly used in traditional positional bargaining negotiations.
After the traditional strategies, the section explores strategies that create mutual gains through
joint problemsolving. Discussion then turns to strategies that can be used when faced with
blocked or deadlocked negotiations.
Traditional Strategies
These strategies are essential tools in the hand of the hard negotiator. They are commonly used
in the worlds of interstate and business negotiations. While sometimes effective in expediting an
agreement that meets one partys interests, these competitive approaches tend to have a negative
impact on the relationship between the parties, thus impairing longrange conflict resolution. They
include:

Put your partys priorities on top of the agenda. Some negotiators employ the tactic of
insisting that issues important to their party be discussed first. Their hope is to get
favorable outcomes on these issues, using concessions on less important issues as a
bargaining chip.
India and the WTO

Selfinterested conciliatory concessions. Some negotiators make concessions easily on

issues that are important to the other party but are only peripheral to their goals. The aim
is to acquire more leverage for pressing hard on other issues that are more important.
President Aristide, Haiti

Persuasion. Sometimes negotiators try to influence how the other party perceives the
desirability of a particular outcome. This involves techniques of persuasion such as
providing information, arguments and interpretations that influence the opposing partys
assessment of the situation and the benefits and costs of an outcome. Sometimes this can
be accomplished by pointing out the longterm as opposed to the shortterm benefits, or
by showing that the cost of the other sides desired outcome will be higher than estimated.
Persuasion was the key tactic of Secretary of State Collin Powells address
to the United Nations calling for military action in Iraq (picture). By
providing intelligence from U.S. agencies, by arguing for the link between
terrorism and Saddam Hussein and by pointing out the longterm benefits
of a democratic Iraq in the Middle East, the United States used its
persuasive powers to solicit the support of the international community in
confronting Iraqs threat.

Influencing the maximum level of concession. Many negotiation strategies are based on
trying to change the other partys position. In any negotiation, parties will have assessed
their own maximum level of concession and also estimated that of the opposing party. This
becomes the basis of positional bargaining strategies.
Sometimes negotiators will try to undermine the credibility of their opponents
positions. This can be achieved by either letting them know that you are aware that they
have a pattern of putting forth overly high maximums as a bargaining strategy, or by
convincing them that you are aware that given their strong position they can sell a far
less favorable deal to their constituency than they say they can.
In negotiations with parties that have an armed or militant
wing, negotiators often use the argument that the more
militant elements will not accept an agreement and will
disrupt negotiations, if it is accepted. Examples include the
conflict in Northern Ireland, the IsraelPalestine conflict, as
well as the conflict in Sri Lanka, where militant groups have
repeatedly tried to spoil agreements.
It is not always apparent how independent political parties
are: Gerry Adams, the leader of the Sinn Fein Party, looking
back over his shoulder at an armed member of the Irish
Republican Army.

Some negotiators deliberately set their maximum level at an

artificially high point so as to tilt the end agreement in their
favor. By asking high the negotiator tries to force the
opposing party to make concessions and tests their
maximum position by seeing how flexible they are when
faced with an extreme offer. The danger in this tactic is that
the opposing party may believe that negotiations are
hopeless and they walk out because the status quo is
preferable. Furthermore, if the negotiator finds that at a later point it would be advantageous to
lower the bar substantially, he or she risks jeopardizing his or her credibility both in the current
and future negotiations.

Stonewalling. This tactic involves refusing to budge on a position so as to force the other
side to make a concession. Sometimes this tactic involves endless delays, sometimes it
involves issuing ultimatums and sometimes it reflects a lack of authority to agree to any
proposal that is put forth.
Saddam Husseins strategy prior to the second war in Iraq was
one of stonewalling: not giving in to pressures and demands by
the United Nations and the United States to disarm and allow
weapons inspectors into the country. When inspectors were
allowed in, Saddam delayed visits to sites, cancelled
inspections and repeatedly slowed the process down. Even
though inspectors were granted unrestricted access, inspectors
often had to negotiate access to facilities.

Threats. Negotiators sometimes employ threats to influence the range of outcomes.

Threats can, however, be counterproductive because they undermine trust. Because
yielding to threats is considered especially undesirable at the international level, their use
increases the chance that the other party will find the status quo more desirable.
In response to Irans continued refusal to abandon its nuclear ambitions and uranium
enrichment program, President Bush implicitly threatened Iran by reiterating the United
States firststrike war doctrine in a report that mentioned terrorism and enemy nations.

The President specifically said that Iran may pose the biggest challenge to the United
States in the national security report issued in March 2006.

Attacks. These tactics are designed to pressure the other negotiators into feeling so
uncomfortable and intimidated that they ultimately give into one sides demands. The
negotiator attacks his or her opponents proposals, their credibility, status and authority,
all to undermine their ability to negotiate effectively.

Creating a fait accompli. Sometimes parties maneuver a favorable situation that the other
party is forced to accept. This tactic can backfire in the longterm because the opposing
party is so antagonized that their goal becomes punishing the opponent rather than
satisfying their original interests through a negotiated solution.
The Palestinian Authority has regarded Israels policy of
unilateral disengagement in the Westbank and Gaza as the
creation of a fait accompli and has denied to accept or deal
with the outcome of the policy. (Photo: Israeli settlers leave
Gaza by bus.)

Manipulating the other party. Negotiators are often aware that the other party is not a
monolith, operating with one mind. Instead, all parties and often members of the same
negotiation team reach points of internal disagreement. A negotiators task is to
understand these influences, how they lead to intraparty factionalism and the resulting
impact on the positions taken by that party. This awareness can allow the mediator to
develop tactics that play factions off each other or tactics that make the negotiator
invaluable to members of the other party by offering proposals that create options for the
other party.

Tricks. Negotiators have been known to use a range of tricks in order to get their way in
negotiations. These tactics can range from manipulating the data, to adding on an
additional lastminute demand after you have already made all the arrangements for an
agreement. Tricks may come in subtler forms, such as delaying dinners until some
agreement has been struck, or holding negotiation sessions late at night when negotiators
are tired.

Strategies for Mutual Gains

The section below describes additional strategies that can be especially effective in creating an
integrative, positivesum solution.

Managing imperfect information. One of the biggest stumbling blocks in developing a

positivesum solution is not understanding all of the factors that motivate all the parties.
This problem can be partially addressed through mutual education capable of serving
multiple goals. You need to begin sharing information about what each party wants so as
to find openings for building agreements. Information sharing is also important as a
reality check in that each negotiation team can share its understanding of the costs the
other party will incur if it pursues a certain course of action. The difficulty in information
sharing is knowing how far one can go without giving away so much that ones party is left
exposed and vulnerable.

Increasing the number of possible outcomes. Often substantive discussions are limited to
negotiators trading positions and proposals they have developed within their team and are
aimed at getting the other party to agree to a favorable outcome. This can, however, limit
the ability of the negotiators to jointly develop proposals that will meet the underlying
interests of both parties. By doing this, they are increasing the number of possible
outcomes.

Redefine the problem. Are the issues framed as integrative, distributive, or redistributive?
Integrative issues are those that can be resolved by meeting everyones needs, and are
therefore easiest to negotiate and lend themselves to cooperative approaches. Distributive
issues, such as how to allocate a limited resource like water, often produce competitive

orientations. Redistributive issues, such as land reallocation, can create adversarial

relationships. Reframing issues or increasing the resources available can help promote
cooperative approaches. Mutual gains can be realized because parties in negotiation often
have different concerns and can usually find something to offer that is relatively less
valuable to them than it is to the other party.
Land redistribution in Zimbabwe has been a contentious policy. White
farmers are arrested in this picture for refusing to leave their farm.

Generate options without committing to them. Sometimes

negotiators, often in a more informal context, can discuss
possible options that have not been officially presented as
proposals. By engaging in joint discussions of potential options,
new solutions might be generated that would not have been
considered if only one party had considered them. Parties are
more likely to engage in this process if they are assured that it does not lock them into
agreements before they are ready. Facilitating this process is often one of the functions of
a mediator, as will be discussed later, but it is possible for negotiators to do it on their own
without a thirdparty intermediary.

Tensions between the creating and claiming aspects of negotiations. Once again, the
key to creating mutual gains is to look for the underlying interests of each party and to
identify issues that the parties value differently. This can allow negotiators to see where
they have common interests that can be satisfied through cooperation and allow them to
trade across issues that they value differently. There is an inherent tension in this process
between creating and claiming. Tactics that make creating mutual gains possible, such
as disclosing information about the extent of ones interest in an issue, can put the
negotiator at a disadvantage when trying to claim benefits. Similarly, tactics useful for
claiming benefits, such as threats or pushing for the maximum, inhibit trust and impede
the ability to create valuable options. Good negotiators skillfully balance the tension
between creating and claiming techniques to maximize their gain and still get an
agreement.

Issue Format
The issue format describes the way in which the issues underlying the conflict are dealt with during
the negotiation process. There are two dimensions that determine the issue format:
1. How the issues are sequence.
2. How the issues are packaged.
Sequencing Models
1. Incremental Sequencing Method. The incremental method
is characterized by a purposeful strategy whereby the parties
move from simpler to more complex issues. This approach is
illustrated by U.S. Secretary of State Henry Kissingers shuttle
diplomacy in the Middle East. The logic behind the approach is to
gradually build up trust by taking small steps. The momentum
created should then carry over to the more complex issues.

2. Boulder in the Road Method. The boulder in the road

approach is the opposite of the incremental approach. It
addresses the more complex issues first, thereby moving the
boulder or greatest obstacle, which enables an easier resolution

of the remaining issues. The presence of a mutually hurting stalemate and military attrition can
make this more ambitions method more effective.

3. Committee Method. In this approach, the parties form joint

committees and divide the issues up. These committees then work
simultaneously on specific issues in smaller groups. The
resolutions and agreements reached on the committee level are
presented to the larger group. A final agreement is then struck in
a plenary discussion, and partial resolutions remain subject to
revision until the end.

4. Formula Method. This approach involves reaching a general

agreement on principles early in the process with the intention of
working out the details at a later stage. This general agreement is
vague in order to keep the parties at the table, set a positive tone
for the rest of the process and build momentum.

Packaging Tactics
Within the different strategies are tactics, or specific actions negotiators or mediators may take to
advance their overall strategy. While a specific tactic is by no means bound to a particular strategy,
certain tactics tend to be employed when a certain strategy is used. For example, fractionation
(breaking big issues down into smaller pieces or fractions) is most closely associated with the
gradualism strategy. Below are some of the more commonly used tactics:

Fractionalization divides the most complex issues into smaller parts to make them more
manageable.

In the holistic approach parties address issues in their entirety without breaking them
into smaller elements. This is done particularly with issues that do not lend themselves to
being broken down easily.

Linking is the process of conjoining one issue with another for the purposes of settling
both issues at once.

Packaging involves linking multiple issues together for the purposes of reaching a
comprehensive agreement.

Fisher, R., W. Ury, et al. (1991). Getting to yes: negotiating agreement without giving in. New York, N.Y., Penguin
Books.

Breaking Deadlocks
Many of the coercive tactics described above can lead the negotiators to a point in the talks where
it seems they can go no further. In such circumstances, there are a number of approaches that can
help break deadlocks. Underlying these approaches is the need to keep focused on obtaining
the goal of satisfying your partys interests and needs and helping the other party
achieve a satisfactory outcome. The way to work with the other party is to go around their
resistance and to make it easier to say yes to an agreement than to say no. 2

Sometimes it can be tempting to try to use coercive power to break through deadlocks by
imposing a solution on the other side. However by trying to make parties do what you
want, it is possible that you will substantially increase the cost of enforcement and may
end up with a loselose situation.

Recognize the tactic they are using. By naming what is going on, it can help you avoid
feeling angry and defensive and allow you to maintain the clarity needed to avoid falling
into a trap created by unfair tactics. By naming the tactic, you can be empowered not to
react to it.

Gain time to think. Instead of giving in or overreacting to pressure, pause and say
nothing, take a break to do something else, or say that you need to caucus with your
team.

Slow the conversation by reviewing the discussion up to that point. Ask clarifying questions
and get the other side to go over the details of their position. You can clarify by saying let
me make sure I understand what you are saying ... and describe to them your
comprehension of their situation. This buys time, shows you are taking them seriously,
and can help identify any misunderstandings.

Disarm their defensiveness by listening to what they say, allowing them to air their
grievances or talk about why they place such a high value on an issue. Everyone needs to
feel recognized and it can be very powerful to acknowledge the other partys point of view
and their feelings. Consider if circumstances may require an apology for past wrongs, and
think about how that might be accomplished.

Sometimes it can be useful to change the issue you are discussing, to put it on hold and
discuss something else potentially less contentious.

When you are stuck on positional bargaining, try to reframe the discussion into problem
solving. Sometimes it helps to affirm points of agreement or to build broad statements of
common purpose that give you a base from which to operate and negotiate
disagreements. Solicit open discussions as to why something is a problem and ask your
negotiating partners why they have problems with your teams proposal. Try to initiate
brainstorming on possible outcomes by putting forth what if ... proposals as a way to
meet their objections. Try asking them (in an informal setting) for their advice on what
they would do if they were in your position, this can help them to better understand your
position and to become more empathetic with your situation. If they are insisting that
their proposal is fair to you both, ask them why they think it is fair.

Try helping them costout the alternatives by reality testing. Try pointing out the likely
consequences of not reaching an agreement as opposed to the relative benefits and costs
of a negotiated solution.

Sometimes negotiators get deadlocked because they want agreement or assurances on a

particular point before a comprehensive solution has been formulated. The other party is
reluctant to become committed to concessions on a specific issue until it is assured that its
overall needs will be met. One strategy for approaching this problem is do not ask for a
final commitment until a comprehensive package has been put together that satisfies all
parties. In this strategy, working agreements on specific issues can be reached throughout
the process with the understanding that they are conditional on reaching a comprehensive
agreement.

Sometimes negotiators resort to brinkmanship to move negotiations forward, pushing the

other party until they give in. Needless to say, this can be very risky. This is a tactic that
should not be overused or the other team will either realize that it is a bluff, or they will
become frustrated with a lack of good faith.

Sometimes the other party is extremely resistant to moving forward in negotiations. At

such times it may be necessary to show your negotiating strength by demonstrating your
BATNA, or providing an indication of what you would do if negotiations fail. Sometimes it is
helpful to display your strength so as to provide incentive to continue with talks, but such
displays tend to be most effective if you use the minimum force necessary and work
through legitimate means. Any time you rely on force, you risk escalating the conflict, so it
is important to demonstrate your BATNA without provoking a destructive counter
response. Even if you could achieve your shortterm interests through coercive means,
you may jeopardize your longterm needs, lose general credibility and support from third
parties, and begin or continue a costly conflict.

The other party may also try to influence negotiations through a display of strength. Your
party may want to try to neutralize their ability to coerce you. One way is to strengthen
your position by joining in coalition with other groups or states with similar interests and
similar relationships to your opponent. You can also try to mobilize the attention of third
parties who can serve as a witness to the actions of the other party and potentially come
to your support or condemn the other party.

Ury, W. (1991). Getting Past No: Negotiating with Difficult People. New York, Bantam Books.

General Principles of Negotiation

The following are some important principles that can contribute to parties engaging in successful
negotiations:

Keep a flexible and comprehensive mindset, open to slightly or greatly different ways of
encompassing the same things, or alternatively to including most items in the same
package while isolating the one that doesnt belong for separate treatment or
postponement.

Avoid framing the problem as an issue of principle. For instance, if negotiators state the
problem as a matter of selfdetermination it impedes discussions about the tangible,
negotiable interests that could satisfy the need for selfdetermination. Reframing issues
does not deny the importance of the principle, it just breaks it down into manageable
chunks that can be negotiated.

Remain sensitive to what your counterparts are trying to communicate, as they may be
using indirect gestures or formulations to indicate important information.

Keep talking. Take recesses if necessary, but continued contact is of great importance.
Breakingoff talks altogether can put an end to the potential opportunities that are
presented through negotiating, because it is often very difficult and time consuming to
reestablish negotiations.

Be patient. Trying to speed up a process may lead to unnecessary concessions or the

breakdown in carefully cultivated relationships. Resist the temptation to labor under
artificial time constraints and allow your counterparts to decide in their own time. Often
delays are the result of bureaucratic requirements that cannot be shortcircuited.

Negotiating in Good Faith

Summary
This lesson should give you an idea of the different types of negotiation strategies and what
strategies may be most productive given the issues, parties and circumstances of a particular
negotiation episode.
Negotiation tactics can be split into three types. Each type involves potential risks and benefits.

Hard Negotiations

Soft Negotiations

Principled Negotiations

There are several strategies used during negotiations:

Hard negotiators use more traditional techniques, usually designed to manipulate and
intimidate the other party into conceding to ones demands. These techniques are used
frequently, but can have a negative effect on negotiations.

Principled negotiators are more likely to use techniques for mutual gains. This strategy is
more likely to end in a sustainable agreement by ensuring that each party walks away
satisfied with both the process and the outcome of negotiations. Unit 10: Negotiation
Dynamics explores this issue in greater detail.

The lesson then covered aspects of issue format, specifically how issues can be sequenced and
packed during negotiations. The lesson pointed out the pros and cons of the incremental method,
the boulder on the road method, the committee approach and the formula method for sequencing
issues.
Even under the best circumstances, a breakdown in talks can occur. To help you deal with this
common problem, this lesson includes techniques for breaking deadlocks.
Finally, this lesson outlines the general principles of negotiation, particularly the importance of
continued communication, flexibility and openmindedness, respect and sensitivity, as well as good
faith.

Negotiation Dynamics
The approaches used to open the negotiations once the teams have been convened at the table will
often impact on the tone of the rest of the negotiations. Theories have been developed as to the
relative benefits of initiating with high demands versus conciliatory concessions, whether to make
the initial offer or to try to make the other party go first. These strategies correspond to the hard
versus soft orientations to negotiations. The trap with these approaches is often that they lead
into the kind of positional bargaining that eventually impedes development of an integrative
solution.
Setting the tone
When trying to set a tone conducive to principled negotiations, it is often valuable to start with
nonthreatening, constructive suggestions or questions focused on the process or the relationship,
rather than substantive proposals. The questions and initial exchange of information represent one
dimension of setting the tone. Another dimension is the physical location of the negotiation. It is
sometimes useful to hold negotiation away from public scrutiny in a relaxed environment.
In an effort to advance the peace initiatives between Israel and
Palestine, the United States invited both parties to negotiate in
a secluded resort at the Wye River Plantation in Maryland.

Examples for setting the tone with opening questions and

remarks include: How should we proceed today? or I hope
we can work together to find a solution that satisfies both of
our interests. These approaches can help avoid the problem of warring solutions before basic
agreement has been reached about definitions of the issues or problems.
Developing a common ground
You may want to suggest that you begin negotiations by making sure you both understand how you
perceive the problem that is being negotiated. This can enhance trust by demonstrating your
analytical empathy for the other sides position, all the while not compromising your own position.
While the basic ground rules and negotiating principles may have been developed during the pre
negotiation phase, you may want to reiterate them so as to avoid misunderstandings. In addition,
you may want to develop joint definitions of key terms so as to facilitate communication.
Reaching agreements is usually the primary goal of negotiations. Yet sometimes, given the urgency
of reaching an agreement, negotiators lose their focus on forging solutions that can be
implemented and will last over time. In general, the most sustainable agreements tend to be those
that have satisfied the following three elements:

1. The substantive interests (each party basically got what it wanted).

2. A sense of procedural fairness (that the outcome was reached in a just manner).
3. Relationship needs (the parties feel respected, understood and are willing to continue
working together).
Several methods of controlling the negotiation process can help to achieve lasting agreements.
Iraqi officials negotiate the form and content of the constitution.
After initial agreement on principles, the details on powersharing
the implementation process remain major obstacles in the
negotiation process.

Slow Down
As the possibility of an agreement approaches, there is a tendency to rush to closure before
working out all the details. Before negotiations have concluded, be sure you share a common
understanding on the implementation of the agreement. Sometimes negotiators reach agreements
on basic principles while at the table and leave the details to be worked out at a later date. Yet
misunderstandings over details can become a wedge that breaks apart the overall agreement.
Develop an Implementation Plan
The elements of a successful implementation plan must include the answers to the following
questions:
1. Who is responsible for carrying out the provisions of the agreement?
2. How they will be monitored?
3. What to do if conditions change?
It is difficult to anticipate the future and impact of the agreement. Sometimes agreements specify
a review period. You should clearly decide what will happen if problems arise and build in a dispute
resolution mechanism, such as mediation or arbitration.
Protecting Face
Ensure the ability of each party to save face before their home constituency and the international
community. Agreements are more easily reached and followed when they allow each party a
graceful way out of the conflict or into an agreement. Often this involves each party walking away
from the table with at least some of its major objectives met. It can also mean that each party is
affirming the negotiation process and refrains from declaring victory over the other party.
Sometimes it helps to allow more flexibility at the end to close the deal and display a generosity
that will contribute to a lasting relationship.
Reaffirm the Relationship
After the long period of stress that typifies the negotiation period, it is important to affirm the
renewed importance of your relationship. Good relations tend to enhance implementation in
the spirit of the agreement, and can head off the problems of each party begrudgingly
implementing as little as possible. Sometimes parties affirm the relationship through a symbolic
celebration of the agreement, such as a ceremonial handshake that makes public acknowledgment
of the mutual commitment to the agreement.

Special Dynamics of Multilateral Negotiations

Multilateral negotiations use many of the negotiation basics described in the previous sections, yet
multilateral processes differ in some fundamental ways. Multilateral negotiations need to be

managed along a number of different fronts to ensure reaching an agreement that satisfies
multiple needs. The issues of all parties involved must be fully understood, each party with its
particular interests should be included and potential alliances assessed, and potential agreements
developed and grouped.
The United Nations General Assembly illustrates the difficult of
multilateral negotiations. Every country has its representatives on
the floor, and a support team near by. Organizing who will speak
at which point is by itself a challenge. Strategies are needed to
reduce the organizational complexity as well as the complexity of
the issues dealt with.

Issues
Single issue negotiations rarely occur and even a general negotiation topic can usually benefit
from being broken down into subissues. In multilateral negotiations, some issues will be of more
importance to some parties than others. There tend to be two primary ways of managing multi
issue negotiations. They determine the issue format:
1. In situations of extreme complexity, it is possible to lay down a separate negotiating track
for each topic and then converge the tracks when reaching a final, comprehensive
agreement.1
2. Another means is to package issues together. This involves putting together proposals
comprised of solutions for sets of problems. Packaging helps negotiators to see the inter
relatedness of issues and how different parties value them differently. Instead of settling
each issue separately, negotiators investigate potential tradeoffs across issues within a
package.2
Coalitions: The Convergence of Parties and Interests
As in every negotiation setting, each party enters with differing sets of interests and priorities. In
multilateral negotiations, each party will also find other parties who share similar interests and
subsequently form a coalition with them so as to better position themselves in relation to other
parties and coalitions with opposing interests. Sometimes coalitions are used to generate
agreements and trading, at other times they are used to block agreements.

Coalition Strategies. Analysis of potential coalitions is critical for developing effective

negotiation strategies, both before and during the negotiation process. This analysis
depends on really understanding the interests of each party and identifying the elements
in common.
Try to anticipate the relative strength of these coalitions:
o Could they block agreements?
o Are they stable?
o Or do coalition members have so many divergent interests that members may be
tempted into alliances with other groups?
Successful management of coalitions often involves binding members together by insuring
that everyones interests continue to be satisfied. If agreement is deadlocked by a
blocking coalition, provide a disincentive for key coalition members by fashioning
an agreement that better satisfies their interests.

The twotable problem, revisited. In multilateral talks, negotiators must continue to

manage intrateam relations and communication, but they also need to manage behind
the table negotiations with other actual and potential coalition members. The success of
these unofficial negotiations will critically impact on the official talks.
A list of current coalitions at the World Trade Organization.

Agreements
Agreements can be reached through the coercive force of powerful coalitions imposing settlements
on weaker parties. Yet lasting agreements tend to emerge when parties try to build a
consensus on how to satisfy the multiple interests at stake. This is often difficult in the
complexity of a multilateral negotiation, BATNAs may not be as easy to assess and integrative
bargaining may be more difficult due to the increased difficulties of establishing trusting
relationships across the board. Once again, it is critical to focus on interests and to explore the
possibilities for tradeoffs and joint gains. To do this, each party must search for a way to
communicate their true interests in a way that is believable, yet does not leave them vulnerable.
In a nonadversarial environment, it is possible to reach consensus agreements when parties
dedicate themselves to respond to each others concerns. Often the success of a consensus
oriented process depends on someone serving as a facilitator or processmanager, even if they are
also an interested party.
Trade negotiation delegation during the WTO Ministerial
meeting in Hong Kong (2005) reading a draft proposal to
be discussed in working groups at a later stage.

See Krishnan, Natarajan. Coalition Building in Group Negotiations

in Coleman and Rikhye, eds. Negotiators Handbook, From the
International Peace Academy, 1990.
An approach developed by the Program on Negotiation, Harvard University.

Mediation
Definition
Mediation, where it is employed is, as one expert points out, an integral part of the bargaining
process and must be understood within the context of negotiations. Another expert adds that
mediation is best viewed as a communication arrangement where the third party has a payoff
structure of its own.
Mediation is a complex and dynamic process where issues may change, perceptions are altered and
mediators may take on different roles. As a result, this course defines mediation as:

a process of conflict management, related to but distinct from the parties own
negotiations, where those in conflict seek the assistance, or accept the offer of help, from
an utsider (who may be an individual, an organization, a group, or a state), to change
their perceptions of behavior, and to do so without resorting to physical force or invoking
the authority of the law.

Mediation, as an activity, has the following characteristics:

1. It is an extension and continuation of the parties own conflict management efforts.
2. It involves the intervention of an individual, group or organization into a dispute between
two or more actors.
3. It is noncoercive, nonviolent and ultimately nonbinding;.
4. It changes a dyadic relationship into a triadic interaction, changing the structural context
and creating a new focal point for agreements.

5. A mediator enters a dispute in order to affect, change, resolve, modify or influence it in

some way.
6. Mediators bring with them, consciously or not, ideas, knowledge, resources, interests and
assumptions of their own.
7. It is voluntary and the parties in conflict retain control over the outcome, if not always the
process, and remain free to accept or reject mediation proposals or mediation itself.
8. It operates on an ad hoc basis only.
Reflecting on the conflict cycle presented in Unit 1, mediation is an appropriate form of intervention
with an outlook for success when the following conditions are present:

The conflict is long, complex and intractable.

The parties own efforts of resolving the conflict are at an impasse.

Neither party is prepared to sustain further costs or loss of life.

Both parties are willing to cooperate to end the cycle of violence.

Hamid Awaluddin, left, and Malik Mahmud flank
lead mediator Martti Ahtisaari from Finland after
signing the agreement ending 30 years of
violence in Aceh, Indonensia (2005).

Who mediates and what are the

motivations?
Each party to the conflict has its own motivations
for involving a mediator and the mediator has its own interests in being involved. It is necessary to
distinguish between individuals, states and organizations/institutions as mediators. Their respective
motivations for accepting or offering to intervene are different.
1. Individuals
Individual mediation refers to mediation that is carried out by individuals who are not government
officials, representatives of organizations, or political incumbents acting on instructions from their
states/organizations. Mediation at the individual level can be categorized as informal and formal.
Informal mediation efforts are undertaken by either professionals with a longstanding experience
of and a deep commitment to conflict resolution, or scholars with extensive knowledge and
experience. Often Individual mediators are supported by nongovernmental organizations.
Former U.S. President Carter mediated the conflict in Northern
Uganda in 1999 through the Carter Center.

Informal mediation is normally initiated by a potential mediator.

The competence, credibility, knowledge and experience to create
an environment in which communication can be facilitated and the
understanding of the conflict can be enhanced are key elements that lead the parties in conflict to
accept an offer of informal mediation.
Formal mediation uses highprofile officials and representatives who act as private citizens and not
on behalf of a state or organization. While informal mediation may take place at any level of
society, formal mediation takes place between the mediator and official representatives of the
conflicting parties. As a result, the process occurs within a more formal structure, such as

conferences and political fora, and exhibits less flexibility than the informal process. However, the
participation of officials and the prestige of the mediator open up access to resources and policy
processes that an informal mediator may not have.
Individual mediators have one or more of the following motivations to become involved:

Desire to end conflict and promote peace.

Gain access to the political elite and open channels of communication.

Opportunity put to work their own ideas about conflict management.

Desire to enhance their personal standing and professional status.

2. States and Organizations

While individual mediation has increased in importance over the last decade, most mediation
efforts are undertaken by states and their representatives, as well as international and regional
institutions.
When states mediate, it is in most cases done by one of their highlevel decisionmakers. In
contrast to individual mediation, where knowledge, competence and experience are important, the
acceptability of a state lies in its ability to appear impartial and inspire trust.
Small states like Norway, Sweden, Switzerland and Algeria have been involved in a disproportionate
number of conflict mediations. This may be attributed to their:
1. Size.
2. Unthreatening posture.
3. Presumed lack of political clout in the international arena.
4. Organizational capacity to mediate make them acceptable to conflict parties.
Small states are normally invited to mediate and use lowprofile mediation strategies focusing on
communication and dialogue.
Larger and more powerful states often seek and create the opportunity to mediate, and use
mediation to advance their own agenda. They can bring to bear more resources and can use a
wider range of strategies, including carrots and stick approaches that can change the payoff
structures for the disputants. Larger states can take a more aggressive stance in pressing for
concessions and agreements.
South Africas President Thabo Mbeki is the African Unions
mediator in the Ivory Coast (2005).

important in this regard:

International institutions and organizations are increasingly

active in the field of conflict management and mediation.
This may be due to the increasing demand for their services
that is not being met by the states, and to the increase in
conflict situations that necessitate mediation or other forms
of conflict management. Two forms of organizations are

1. Regional and international institutions such as the United Nations and the Organizations of
American States.
2. Transnational organizations, such as the International Red Cross.
The United Nations has been the most active international organization in the area of mediation. Its
resources, forum, monitoring ability, and capacity to mobilize an international consensus are key

elements of its increased activity. Regional institutions are active in conflicts on their territory and
engage in collective mediation efforts that engage a group of states, normally neighbors of the
parties in conflict. Their strength lays in common cultural background and regional knowledge.
Transnational organizations are mostly involved in mediations that concern humanitarian assistance
to bring relief to victims of war and refugees, or exchange prisoners. While transnational
organizations may often lack resources, their impartiality, discretion and strictly humanitarian
cause are their biggest assets.
In November 2002, Ethiopia released almost
300 prisoners of war after mediation by the
International Committee of the Red Cross.

Organizations, institutions and states are

motivated to get involved because they:

Have a clear mandate given to them by

their charters.

Want to do something about a conflict that might have negative effects on their political
interests.

Are approached by all parties in conflict.

Wish to preserve a structure to which they are a part.

Want to extend their influence and gain something.

3. Parties in conflict
Mediation is a voluntary process in which conflicting parties engage by mutual agreement and it is
therefore important to ask what reasons they have to opt for mediation. Conflicting parties often
seek mediation for the following reasons:

They need help because they cant resolve the conflict by themselves.

They believe that mediation reduces conflict escalation.

Mediation is a public expression of their commitment to a peace process.

The mediator can be blamed should the peace process break down.

The mediator can be used to verify, monitor and guarantee an eventual agreement or parts
thereof.

They believe that the integrative potential of their conflict can be advanced.

Few parties will accept a mediator that they believe will work against their interests; however, in
the international arena, mediators are rarely chosen because they are perceived as neutral
meaning without inherent interests or values that could affect the process. Mediators are often
chosen specifically because it is perceived that their position enables them to bring resources to the
table that contribute to the effectiveness of the process and successful implementation of
agreements. These issues will be discussed in more detail when describing mediation leverage
mechanisms.
The motivations for all actors illustrate that mediation is rarely driven by altruism or the
commitment to peace and is almost never void of political interest. A successful mediator is aware
of the underlying motivations of all parties.
Mediator Tasks
The previously mentioned thirdparty intervention roles outlined in the Unit on Conflict
Management are derived from the specific tasks that a mediator faces and implicitly refer to some

of the techniques used. In order to look at the mediator roles more systematically, they can be
grouped into the following broader role categories:
1. Factfinding
Before a mediation process begins, it is often helpful to have an outside team research the conflict
and, if appropriate, conduct on sight observations and interviews. As technical information and
accusations about the other parties activities in a conflict are often the source of extensive
disagreement in the mediation forum, information gathered through an impartial factfinding
mission can help the facilitator also serve as a data mediator an important function when
seeking to define the problem and develop proposals that will meet the challenge of the real
problems generated under the conditions of the conflict. Often a separate thirdparty is charged
with the factfinding mission, so as to maintain the ability of the actual mediator to remain above
the fray when interpreting the data.
2. Forum
One of the responsibilities of the mediator is to construct, and often control, the forum of the
meditations. While the mediator is charged with these tasks, one of the first tests is to gain the
acceptance of the parties for the arrangements made. Therefore it is important to consult parties in
the planning stages and use ingenuity to develop options that meet oftencontradictory positional
objectives. Various issues arise when designing the forum, including:

Location. The actual site of negotiations can take on both symbolic and logistical
importance. Parties usually prefer to locate meditations either in their home base or at the
capital of an ally but will settle for more neutral ground. Occasionally, however, they will
make an early concession to hold talks at a site of their opponents choosing so as to win
later concessions on issues that hold more value.

Open or closed site. Often it is beneficial to conduct the proceedings in private without
outside observers. Negotiators often respond implicitly to audiences by toughening their
stance, or posturing. In the initial stages, a closed site can contribute to more candid and
flexible discussions. Some mediators design the forum to allow observers in the last stages
of sealing an agreement. In this context, the audience bears witness to the
commitments made at the negotiation table, thus facilitating implementation.

Logistical arrangements. It is usually the mediators responsibility to make all the

logistical and support services arrangements. As a general note on this issue, it is
important to remember that the ambiance of location and the amenities available can
often impact on the tone of the meeting, often contributing to a more expansive and
relaxed atmosphere or a more serious and formal environment. Further, it is important
that all the necessary translation, telecommunication, and other technical support logistics
are available or else risk impediments to the process and general annoyance.
Switzerland provided a location and logistical
support for the 2002 ceasefire agreement between
the Sudanese Government and the SPLA.

3. Process management
One of the principle functions of the mediator is to
facilitate the process of the talks so that the disputants can concentrate on the issues.

Facilitate communication and the flow of information. In the initial stages of the
process, the mediator can perform a conciliation function. By serving as a discreet
communication channel, preliminary terms can be discussed and issues defined. Once
facetoface talks have begun, the mediator can facilitate communication and keep it from
breaking down in the face of hostility. The mediator reframing statements can enhance
communication so that the other party can understand them without engaging their
defenses and by pointing out commonalities or divergences in their respective statements.

If hostilities threaten the talks, the mediator can suggest a change in the issue, call for a
break, or otherwise redirect discussions.

Design confidencebuilding measures. By the time disputants come to mediation, they

have usually reached a high point of distrust. Through ingenuity and persuasion, the
mediator can encourage them to take steps that demonstrate their good faith to the other
parties. By arranging confidencebuilding measures early, good will can be generated for
the difficult process ahead.

Arrange the agenda. While the topics on the table are usually set during the pre
negotiation phase, the mediator often designs the actual process of the talks and how
those issues will be discussed. The mediator can structure the flow of dialogue, in part by
controlling the agenda. For instance, the mediator can initiate with a session to reach a
joint definition of the problem and then facilitate a problemsolving process of generating
alternatives.

Structure discussions. All of the packaging and sequencing issues described under
bilateral negotiation processes (see Unit 9) also apply to mediation. The mediator plays a
valuable role by designing and monitoring these strategies, thus allowing the parties to
concentrate on their internal tasks. Unfacilitated negotiations, especially those with high
levels of hostility, often fail because there no one is performing this process management
role.

Call for separate meetings. When talks are stuck, the mediator can call for a private
meetings with each party to get information about how they perceive the problem and to
try to work through it. The mediator can then reconvene the session with strategies to
meet these obstacles.

Coordinate the involvement of secondary stakeholders and other third

parties. Wise mediators know that they are taking a risk if actors capable of sabotaging
either the process or the agreement are left out of the process completely. Yet it is both
difficult and inappropriate to include every stakeholder at the table. The mediator can
therefore play an important consultation role so as to maintain information, in confidence,
about the interests of these oftenpowerful stakeholders so that ideally, an agreement can
be reached that everyone can tolerate.

4. Building agreements
Some of the greatest benefits of mediated negotiations can be seen in the process of overcoming
obstacles and moving toward agreements. Through direct, private discussions with each of the
disputants, a trusted mediator will know the basic interests and goals of each party. A skilled
mediator will hold this information in confidence, yet use it to identify points of overlapping
interests and values on which to develop agreements. Building on this principle, mediators can use
a variety of approaches to move parties toward settlement.
1. Facilitate sessions in which parties generate alternatives and, once a list has been
compiled, identify impediments and evaluate them based either on objective criteria (e.g.,
international law) or mutual acceptability.
2. Help expand the available options for an agreement by generating more resources. This is
often termed expanding the pie because it increases the total sum available to be
allocated and can at times better satisfy the parties underlying interests. Mediators can
often appeal to the international community for such resources as increased development
aid or assistance with security enforcement.
3. Formulate proposals based on identified interests. The best proposals will often provide
opportunities for joint gains, or lower the cost of settling by trading across issues.
Once presented, the mediator can work with the parties together and separately to demonstrate
why this proposal is suitable.

Weighing the consequences. With increased information, the mediator is often in a good
position to work with parties in a process of thinking through the consequences and costs
of various options.

Applying leverage. Sometimes mediators are chosen specifically because they have the
ability to exert pressure on the parties to come to agreement. Some mediators are

representatives of governments or institutions that are so influential that the parties do

not want to jeopardize their relationship by not cooperating. Sometimes they have the
ability to apply or recommend sanctions on parties that would otherwise continue to
engage in their conflict behavior rather than face a less optimal settlement. Such sanctions
can take the form of positive enticements (carrots) or negative inducements (sticks) to
encourage agreements. Using this leverage can be very delicate for a number of reasons.
First, predicting outcomes is difficult and the bestintended ultimatums can backfire.
Second, if the mediator uses too much coercive force, the disputants can begin to resent
the mediator who then loses legitimacy with the process and can even risk becoming a
secondary party to the dispute.
5. Agreement implementation
Once an agreement has been reached, it is important to develop an implementation plan before
concluding the mediation.
Monitoring and enforcement must be a part of any implementation plan. A thirdparty can offer to
monitor implementation and/or reconvene talks if additional problems arise and sections need to
be renegotiated. If the mediation has occurred under the auspices of a powerful institution or
government, this body can serve as effective guarantors of the agreement and parties risk
sanctions if they violate its terms. If appropriate, the mediator can petition regional organizations
or the U.N. to deploy peacekeepers to monitor and maintain ceasefires or other agreements.
Third party roles
To accomplish the tasks outlined above, the mediator uses different tactics or roles. Following is a
list of mediator roles3:
1. The Catalyst actively tries to convince the warring parties to come to the negotiation table
to resolve their conflict or certain issues.
2. The Facilitator provides a site and/or administrative support for a discussion or workshop
attended by the parties in conflict.
3. The Educator explains to the parties the issues involved, the positions of the other side,
the process and other relevant matters.
4. The Trainer teaches and transfers practical skills and knowledge.
5. A third party may be used as a Sounding Board to evaluate proposals or actions.
6. Third parties can serve as Summarizers of proceedings and discussions between the two
parties by providing objective records.
7. The Translator or interpreter explains what one party actually means in a proposal or
discussion, the content of which may otherwise appear unclear or negative.
8. The Bridgebuilder provides a basis for the parties to achieve contact when neither side is
able or prepared to go the necessary distance, physically and psychologically.
9. The Resource Expander provides assistance (military, economic or other) to provide
incentives, verification and monitoring capabilities as part of a negotiated settlement.
10. The FaceSaver frames concessions by one party as a concession to the third party
rather than to the other party in conflict.
11. The Reality Agent that tells a party truths and perceptions that it is unlikely to hear from
another source.
12. The Bearer of Bad News tells the parties what they are unlikely to hear but should know
as part of the peace process.
13. The Scapegoat where third party that takes the blame for a negative event during the
peace process.
14. An Inventor assists the parties to the conflict in finding and creating new options and
alternatives.
15. The Change Agent helps the parties involved to change their attitudes, perceptions or
behavior.

16. The Repository of Trust and Commitment accepts and holds commitments that one or
more parties are not prepared to give each other until specific actions have been taken.
In many mediation as well as negotiation situations many third parties are involved and tracking
the roles they play may be difficult because a party may play various roles at the same time or
change its role during the process. Mediation and negotiation efforts may go on at different track
levels simultaneously. As a result of multitrack diplomacy and/or multilateral mediation,
coordination among third parties is critical if the process is to be coherent and sustainable. A non
concerted effort will not only lead to the squandering of much needed resources but also will allow
the parties in conflict to leverage third parties against each other for personal gains or better
bargaining positions.

Adapted from: United States Institute for Peace. U.S. Online Training Course for OSCE, including REACT Module 3:
Conflict Management. March 21, 2006. http://react.usip.org/downloads/Module3.pdf.

Summary
This lesson covered the dynamics of negotiation, including the opening phase, reaching a
sustainable agreement and the special dynamics of multilateral negotiations. It also covers the
topic of mediation, which may be necessary or helpful when negotiations are not going well. In the
opening phase, it is important to:

Set a nonthreatening tone conducive to productive negotiations.

Develop a common ground by making sure parties understand how they perceive the
problem being negotiated and by reiterating the ground rules of the negotiations before
beginning.

Use the negotiating strategies during talks. When all sides are about to reach an agreement:

Slow down and take the time to ensure your solution will be sustainable.

Develop an implementation plan.

Give each party a way to leave the conflict gracefully.

Publicly reaffirm the relationship.

When dealing with multilateral negotiations the problems of multiple interests and issues, as well
as the building of coalitions between parties against another negotiating party, can make
agreement more difficult. Dealing with these problems can be complicated and sometimes, a
mediator is asked to help with negotiations.

Building Peace
The end of armed conflict presents an array of complex challenges for those working to develop a
lasting peace. It can be relatively simple to conceptualize the importance of negotiations, troop
deployments, and peace accords when seeking to end violence and achieve cold peace. Much more
difficult both to achieve and to conceptualize is the process of working toward longterm peace,
or warm peace. It involves the complex task of rebuilding society, healing the wounds of war and
creating the conditions necessary for a sustainable peace.
The changes in the international system and the nature of contemporary conflict, including global
terrorism, have fragmented the traditional boundaries that defined the postWorld War II system.
As a result, peace is not just the process of restoring relationships between states. Peace must also
address physical infrastructures, political systems, economic markets, social tissues and
psychological wounds at the subnational, even individual level.

Peace building in action: reconstructing houses in Afghanistan.

In addition, peace must address the global and regional

dynamics that have an impact on the conflict: global terrorism
is often founded in the perceived antagonism or
incompatibility between religious and/or cultural values that
span across borders. Some have argued that the inequities of
the global economic system pushes the disenfranchised to
terrorism and violence. The focus on democratic reforms,
human rights and free trade, key elements of U.S. foreign
policy, is one way of addressing peace at the subnational
level while recognizing the global dimensions of the sources of conflict. Recognizing the link
between peace at the national and regional level, the United States has argued that the removal of
Saddam Hussein will initiate a process of democratization in Iraq that will spill over to other
countries in the Middle East. At the same time, failure or disruption of the process can have a
negative impact on the regional stability of the region.
Syrias border to Iraq is suspected to be an entry
point for insurgents. Syria has accused the U.S. of
conducting military operations into Syria to stop
the influx of insurgents.

Most conflicts of the past two decades have not

been between regular state armies, but between
armed civilian or paramilitary groups organized
along ethnic, religious, or ideological lines. This
creates zones of conflict that are not bound by formal front lines and in which no targets are
exempt. Destruction is widespread, severely impacts both urban and rural communities, openly
targets civilians and leaves local economies in ruin. Damage that in traditional military theaters is
considered peripheral or collateral becomes widespread and central to the tactics of all sides.
Peace efforts cannot allow these concerns to be treated as minor details to be addressed at a more
convenient time.
Definition
First introduced as a comprehensive framework by the Agenda for Peace issued by United Nations
Secretary Boutros BoutrosGhali in 1992, peacebuilding can be understood as:

... initiatives which foster and support sustainable structures and processes which
strengthen the prospects for peaceful coexistence and decrease the likelihood of the
outbreak, reoccurrence or continuation of violent conflict.

However diverse armed conflicts are, countries emerging from war exhibit many of the same
characteristics and face many of the same challenges, including damage to infrastructure, collapsed
economies, environmental damage and social breakdown.
Infrastructure Damage
Modern conflicts often have a devastating impact on the physical infrastructure that goes far
beyond military losses. The line between civilian and military targets has, over the last several
decades, become increasingly blurred. On the one hand, many states use civilian infrastructures for
military purposes, and as a result they become legitimate military targets. On the other hand, in
many intrastate conflicts, entire societies become militarized, and civilian institutions become
targets. Iraqi insurgents deliberately attack places of worship, local markets and civil society

leaders. Wars, even if fought with surgical precision and according to the laws of armed conflict,
are always a destructive undertaking.
Most of Iraqs power and communication grid, central to
Saddams military operations, has been destroyed.

This may include:

Transportation networks (bridges, roadways, airports).

The terrorist attacks on the train stations in Madrid and
on the subway in London are recent examples of this trend.

Communication systems (telephone lines, radio and television stations).

Industrial centers (manufacturing facilities, oil refineries). In Nigeria, rebels have

deliberately targeted the southern oil fields, and the oil refineries in Iraq face almost daily
threats.

Commercial interests (banks, financial centers). In the case of the terrorist attacks on
September 11, 2001, the targets were exclusively civilian structures.
Workers repairing an oil pipeline while oil fields are
burning in the background. Between August and
October 2004, Iraq has lost an estimated US $7
billion in potential revenues as a result of attacks on
its oil infrastructure.1

Conflict also inflicts heavy secondary damage on:

Education systems (universities, primary and secondary schools).

Health care facilities (hospitals, ambulance services, medical supplies).

Agricultural facilities (granaries, livestock, planting cycles, harvesting equipment).

Increased urban warfare and raids by rebel groups in rural areas destroy houses, offices,
markets and other buildings vital to daytoday activities.
The collapsed Jamhuriat Hospital in Kabul,
Afghanistan, is an example of collateral damage in
warfare.

It is important to point out that civilian

infrastructure, under the laws of armed conflict,
can become a legitimate target for military
operations if it is used for military purposes, such
as cover areas, weapon storage facilities,
headquarters and communications. In addition, civilian infrastructure is often damaged in the
pursuit of legitimate military objectives or as a result of errors. Advances in military technology and
training have reduced, but not eliminated, such collateral damage.
Economic Damage

Local and national economies are equally devastated by prolonged violent conflict. The following
industries are the most likely to be heavily damaged:

Manufacturing

Construction

Transport & Shipping

Commerce

In addition, economies may experience:

An increase in subsistence agriculture.

A decrease in foreign investment.

The burden of a large military budget.

Crippling foreign debt.

Both urban and rural areas are subject to severe economic disruption. Unemployment in major
cities may grow rapidly, while collapsed rural economies create large numbers of economic
refugees.
Rural destruction in Darfur, Sudan.

High levels of unemployment make it very difficult for former combatants to return to civilian life.
Unemployment and economic hardship also make individuals more likely to resume fighting. If left
unchecked, organized crime may take the place of legitimate commerce, as is well documented in
the case of Somalia. Problems with resource distribution may lead to food shortages and even
famine.
Environmental Damage
Violent conflict is as damaging to natural environments.

Violent conflict is as damaging to natural environments as it

is to manmade institutions. The land that combatants and
refugees return to often has been greatly altered and often
cannot be immediately used or even inhabited, due to one or
more of the following reasons:

Landmines and unexploded ordnance remaining

from the conflict make roads and fields highly
dangerous or unusable, as the picture on the right
from Sri Lanka shows. Mines cost only $3 $30 to
purchase but cost as much as $1000 to be safely
removed. It is estimated that there are currently
60100 million landmines in the ground worldwide, with few accurate records of their
deployment. Other dangers, such as unexploded cluster bombs, continue to claim lives
long after fighting has ceased. These dangers hinder refugee return and local farming.

Pollution and environmental destruction may result from large population movements,
overexploitation of natural resources to finance war efforts, and deliberate destruction by
military forces for tactical advantage. Deforestation (in Vietnam through napalm), nuclear

fallout and radioactivity, oil spills, toxic waste and other forms of pollution are all
preventing the use of land and natural resources, and threaten human health.

Multiple ownership claims may plague usable land. After years of living as refugees,
displaced families may return to their homes to find others living there. The destruction of
housing, need for shelter, administrative chaos, and lack of reliable documentation create
legally and morally ambiguous situations that must be equitably dealt with during
peacetime. The lack of any clear and enforceable property law in many postconflict zones
creates a sense of economic instability and discourages foreign investment.
In January 1991, the Iraqi army sabotaged Kuwaits oil fields and
caused the largest know oil spill to date. Between 700,000 and
900,000 tons of oil spilled into the sea, polluting the water and
coastline of the gulf for decades.

Social Damage
Perhaps the most extensive and hardest to measure damage caused by protracted conflict is to
the society itself. While landmines can be cleared and bridges rebuilt, the task of healing the
emotional and psychological scars of war can take decades. It is very important that this social
healing be addressed so that hatred and resentment do not simmer underground, only to erupt at
a later time. Practitioners in conflict zones with a long history of violence and trauma, such as
Northern Ireland and the Middle East, are realizing the importance of this work in creating
sustainable peace. While there are no easy answers or quick solutions to these problems,
practitioners need to be aware of the following basic challenges:

Destroyed communities need extensive assistance to rebuild social and physical

infrastructure. This can include everything from rebuilding public facilities to resuming
garbage collection. Local communities provide an essential support network and allow
ordinary people to deal with lowlevel conflict on a regular basis. This is often referred to
as a communitys capacity for peace and must receive attention in postconflict
environments.

A culture of violence may be prominent in regions with a long history of conflict. This can
include: the glorification of military tactics and leaders; the general acceptance of violent
solutions to disputes; social obligations of vengeance for past wrongs (honor killings and
blood feuds). Such a culture is often fueled by the presence of and accessibility to light
weapons, and by large numbers of returning combatants who have difficulty adjusting to
civilian life in peacetime. Child soldiers often with no concept of life without violent
conflict, pose an especially serious and difficult challenge.

A sense of impermanence and mistrust towards future collaboration may be displayed in

communities that have suffered tragedy and loss during war. In the struggle for survival,
conflict can create a strong sense of alienation within and between communities.
Communities that once fought each other will be reluctant to work together.
Psychological trauma illustrated in childrens art.

Psychological trauma, requiring sustained professional

intervention, may be widespread. Such trauma may be
displayed as severe emotional detachment, an inability
to cope with stress, an inability to concentrate or sleep,
an inability to correctly identify and process emotions,
inhibited learning among youth, or a lack of concern for self or others. Children are most
susceptible to the psychological effects of long exposure to violent conflict.

Thriving criminal elements may develop a strong grip on society in the absence of official
institutions. In the recent past, continued fighting in Kosovo and Macedonia by armed
Albanian rebels was driven more by criminal enterprise than by ethnic selfdetermination.
The same may be said for the rebels forces in Colombia and Somalia. The chaos of war is
a natural invitation for organized crime, which can undermine any efforts at providing
longterm security or economic development.

Displaced populations must return home or permanently resettle. This includes refugees,
internally displaced persons (IDPs), and demobilized soldiers and mercenaries. Lasting
peace cannot be achieved without addressing the concerns of refugees and IDPs. Soldiers,
likewise, may know no home outside of the military. With the signing of a peace treaty,
they must find new homes and learn new skills.
A refugee camp on the border between Sudan and Chad. Over
200,000 refugees live in makeshift camps in Chad and wait to
return to their homeland.

A strong gender imbalance may exist in societies when large portions of the male
population have been killed in battle. This puts an additional burden on the women who
are forced to raise families, work fields and generate income without additional support.
The support network provided by family is weakened, and many widows fall into cycles of
poverty.

A lack of educated professionals may make it difficult to resume basic civic services. Post
conflict societies often face a shortage of doctors, lawyers, teachers and experienced
government officials. Many educated people choose to leave or have already left because
of better imminent conflict or because economic opportunities abroad are better. Those
who remain in the country are often killed, abducted or imprisoned. Young people who
would otherwise fill these roles are often drawn away from school to serve as soldiers;
many are killed or return much later with little desire to resume their studies. Training new
professionals can also be challenging because schools and universities are often closed or
damaged beyond repair.

Brain Drain in Iraq

Lancaster Online. Yayha Barazanhi. Iraq Oil Infrastructure Losing Billions. November. 30, 2004. March 14, 2006.
http://ap.lancasteronline.com/4/iraq_oil_under_attack.
2
Washington Post. Doug Struck. Professionals Fleeing as Violence, Threats Persist. January 23, 2006. March 16, 2006.
3
National Public Radio. Lourdes GarciaNavarro. Amid Violence and Shortages, Some Iraqis Leave Home. January 27,
2006. March 16, 2006.

Characteristics and Capabilities of PostConflict

Regimes
Often the governments that emerge from prolonged conflict to face these types of challenges are
also the governments least equipped to handle them. Internal conflicts, such as those in Mexico,
Colombia, Afghanistan and Indonesia, weaken both central governments and local institutions.
Crossborder conflicts create governments that are focused on military objectives but illprepared
to address peacetime reconstruction, as the instabilities in the Great Lake region of Africa
illustrates. Often, the international community whether in the form of financial assistance, expert
advice, or humanitarian aid plays a crucial role in assisting these transitional regimes. This
assistance may come from individual countries, international bodies such as the UN or OAS, or
from private donors. Understanding the weaknesses faced by governments in postconflict
situations is the first step towards recovery and longterm stability.

State Government
The state government in many cases emerges from conflict as the dominant actor. In Afghanistan
and Iraq, in contrast, the central government was dismantled and rebuilt from scratch under
international auspices, and it Somalia there has been no central government for some time. In all
cases, the political institutions are often illsuited to meet the needs of participatory governance.
The following characteristics generally typify postconflict governments:

Vigorous competition for power among different factions. Different branches of government
may be competing for power, impeding peace efforts. In Sri Lanka, the President and
Prime Minister have openly disagreed over how the peace process with the Tamil Tigers
should advance and under which conditions. In Iraq, the power vacuum left by the demise
of the Bath party has given way to a struggle for power among Shia, Sunni and Kurds.
Political maneuvering in those cases has eroded efforts to produce meaningful results.

Limited legitimacy of political leaders. Government officials may come from military
backgrounds and have little popular political support. Leaders may also be implicated in
crimes committed during the conflict. Officials may find that they have little support from
either the international community or from their own people. The Palestinian Authority
provides a good example of the lack of legitimacy. Arafat in the later stages of his
leadership lost in legitimacy as a peace partner after his failure to prevent and end the
second intifada. Hamas, whose recent success in the Palestinian elections surprised many,
also faces a problem of legitimacy, particularly with Israel and the United States.
Zimbabwes President Mugabe compensates his lack of international and domestic
legitimacy with repressive politics and authoritarianism.

Extreme polarization of political factions. Normal political and ideological differences may
be greatly exacerbated by conflict. Both sides will tend to become more extreme in their
positions and less flexible towards compromise. This may paralyze young governments
and make collaboration extremely difficult.

Lack of consensus on the future direction of the country. With the common goal of ending
the conflict having been achieved, there may be little agreement on what comes next.
Different ideologies will emerge that suggest different plans for development. Nowhere is
this more apparent today than in the disagreements between the Kurds, Sunnis and Shia
in Iraq. The differences in how the country should embark on its future have resulted in
increased polarization. This lack of agreement may lead to ineffective government, or even
to resumed conflict.

Civil Society
Civil society institutions in postconflict countries are also heavily impaired. These institutions,
which are vital to the smooth functioning of society, may be inexperienced, highly politicized, or
nonexistent. Government leaders must encourage the healthy growth of these organizations.
International agencies and foreign governments also provide considerable assistance in this work.
A teachers organization provides training for teachers in
Afghanistan.

The following sectors may require particular attention:

Independent news agencies, including radio, television

and the press, play a key role in providing citizen education and government transparency.
During conflict, the press is often taken over by government institutions or political
factions who then use it as a tool for propaganda. Journalists quickly learn that critical
reporting threatens their livelihood and in many cases their very safety.

Recent graduates from a journalism training course

organized by Internews in Kabul, Afghanistan. The
new corps of journalists fill a critical void left by
years of war and the Taliban regime.

longterm sustainability.

Humanitarian aid agencies provide relief for

those most in need. This can include efforts
such as food distribution, homeless shelters
and assistance to orphans and widows.
While government may address some of
these needs, the assistance of private
organizations and individuals is critical for

Political advisory groups and think tanks provide young, inexperienced government
leaders with analysis, popular feedback and a wide array of policy options to choose from.
At the beginning, the support and advice must often come from foreign experts, but over
time should be replaced by emerging domestic professionals.
Iraqi women attend a workshop on political activism.

popular frustrations.

Social advocacy groups work to increase awareness

and advance government policies that are designed to
benefit society. They draw attention to problems that
would otherwise be ignored, force governments to be
more responsive and provide a constructive outlet for

Government watchdog groups provide oversight of various official activities to insure that
policies are followed, power is not abused and corruption is minimized. While political
leaders may see these groups as enemies of the government, in practice they play a key
role in ensuring the legitimacy of government. Citizens, foreign governments and the
international donor community are more supportive and trusting of a regime that is open
to outside observers. This can apply to every level, from local police conduct to the
activities of the highest elected leaders.

Military and Police Forces

The security organizations that emerge from a conflict situation including both police and military
forces are often unprepared for their role in peacetime. Military structures find themselves
overextended and deeply involved in civilian affairs. Police organizations must undertake the
difficult task of transforming from a force based on control and coercion to a service based on the
idea of public service. The military may also find that it is illprepared to defend national borders,
while the police are ineffective at enforcing law and order. In many cases, there is no separation
between military and police roles as the armed forces attempt to address both internal and
external security. The establishment of a civilian police service and a separate military defense
force are critical to both internal and external security and stability. That is the reason why in
Kosovo and Iraq the reorganization and training of the police and military have received so much
attention. The rule of law and a healthy economy depend on reliable security arrangements. The
following conditions may pose particular problems for postconflict regimes:

Bloated security establishments may make effective work difficult. Security organizations
may feel compelled to offer positions to all individuals who have fought or suffered in the
conflict. This creates large, inefficient organizations that are expensive to maintain and
difficult to manage. Private security companies may develop in the absence of effective
police. While this is not a bad thing per se, legal perimeters must be in place to control
their activities and responsibilities.

Armed opposition groups pose a continuing problem. These groups need to be brought into
the peace process and disarmed. In some cases, they can become active partners for
peace, directing their resources towards a greater common goal. Disarmament, however,
is only the first step of a longer process that transforms soldiers into contributing citizens.
In Afghanistan, former militias register and surrender their
weapons. According to UNDP, over 63,000 militias have been
disarmed thus far.

Combatants need to be demobilized and reintegrated into society. This process, called DDR for
disarmament, demobilization and reintegration, may require vocational training programs that
provide former soldiers the skills and tools necessary to pursue careers outside the armed forces.
Until recently, most programs have focused on adult male combatants. However, the military and
rebel groups provide income and activities for men, women, and children alike: women and child
soldiers have often been neglected. Cooks, sex companions, messengers and others must also
receive the training and attention necessary to resume a live without the military.
The United Nations Mission in Liberia has disarmed and
demobilized more than 100,000 combatants, including 22,000
women, 8,500 boys and 2,500 girls.

An overabundance of small arms and light

weapons increases the potential for renewed violence.
Assault rifles, rocketpropelled grenade launchers (RPGs), improvised explosives and other
weapons are abundant in many postconflict situations. They are inexpensive to own and
maintain, and may be used by opposing political groups or by organized criminal gangs.
Programs must be in place to get the weapons off the street and out of the hands of
former combatants.

Polarized police and military forces must be diversified or recreated to insure equal
protection for all. Governments emerging from ethnic conflict must take special care that
security structures represent all groups in society. Law enforcement units organized
around ethnic, cultural, or religious identities pose serious challenges to postconflict
stability. By involving local citizens, police forces can avoid being viewed as the oppressive
tools of a distant central government.
Iraq Security Forces

Transparency and civilian oversight may be completely lacking, encouraging corruption,

abuse and citizen distrust.

Current forces and government leaders may be guilty of human rights abuses committed
during the conflict. This is a particularly difficult dilemma of transitional justice. Warfare,
by its very nature, creates violent and brutal situations. At the same time, gross violations
of accepted international humanitarian law cannot be ignored. Postconflict regimes must
find a balance between personal accountability and the realities of war.
Mohammad Qasim Fahim, a former vice president in Karzais government,
is allegedly linked to serious human rights abuses committed in the
1990s.

S. Biddle (2006). Seeing Baghdad, Thinking Saigon. Foreign Affairs. March/April 2006. March 15, 2006.

Operational Priorities in Peacebuilding

Building peace in postconflict societies is a daunting task. The number of problems faced and
the complexity of those problems make the job exceedingly difficult. Due to the longterm nature
of the peacebuilding effort, additional challenges related to the donor community must be
overcome, including:
1. Turning pledged money into spent money. Many donors, in the spur of the moment and/or
because it makes them appealing to the public, are quick to pledge money, only to donate
a fraction of the amount promised. The international donor conference organized in 2003
to help Iraq yielded US$ 3 billion in pledges. The World Bank reports that for 2004, only
US $685 million have been granted.5
2. The number of conflicts and humanitarian crisis and their persisting nature leads to donor
fatigue, meaning that donors over time will donate less.
3. The benefits of peacebuilding efforts are not always immediately visible, and donors as well
as investors may not continue to provide funding if results are missing.
4. Donors often earmark their funding for programs they like and projects that are popular
and raise a donors profile. Most donors like the same projects and as a result they are
overfunded, leading to inefficiencies in how the money is spent. Less popular projects, or
less visible projects receive a lot less funding and struggle.
5. Cooperation among donors and projects is often lacking.
These points illustrate the need for a comprehensive approach to peacebuilding. The experience of
researchers and practitioners over the last several decades has helped to develop useful models for
such an approach. Much work still needs to be done to refine and enhance these models.
General Framework for Peacebuilding Operations
1. Stop Open Warfare
This must come before all other attempts at peacebuilding, development, or community
reconciliation. Active combat makes all other efforts fruitless. If open warfare resumes later in the
peace process, it may be prudent to suspend all other efforts until fighting has once again stopped.
This stage is usually achieved through negotiated treaties and peace accords signed by the major
parties and maintained by monitoring provisions, international observers and/or peacekeeping
forces.
The amount of violence that erupted after the bombing of the Samarra Mosque in Iraq has raised
questions about whether the security situation in the country is stable. Some observers argue that
economic and political development are threatened due to persisting violence. Even before the
bombing, a number of foreign countries have suspended their contracts and left Iraq because of
the lasting violence.
Despite 130,000 U.S. troops, the security situation in Iraq
remains fragile.

2. Impose Law and Order

This stage focuses on the capacity of the police and
military forces to secure the physical safety of residents
and guarantee the rule of law. This involves:
1. Introducing the necessary reforms and training of the police and military forces to enable
them to carry out their respective mandates.

2. Establishing an equitable and fair judicial system and legal process.

External expertise and funding are critical in the effort to restore law and order in the beginning
stages, but over time it is a function of the state to impose the law and maintain order.
With the assistance of foreign donors and experts, the Kabul
Police Academy opened in 2002 and has since trained more than
3000 police officers.

3. Restore the Economy

The reestablishment of local markets and integrated economies is no small task and may take
decades before showing sign of success. Regardless, it is vital that basic economic systems be
rebuilt to provide employment, trade and the movement of capital. Yet until the rule of law can be
guaranteed, economic development will be greatly restricted. Commerce requires a safe, reliable
framework that guarantees property rights and safeguards investments.
Larger financial institutions, such as the World Bank, private investors and transnational
corporations play an important role in restoring economies, especially for larger projects, i.e.
infrastructure, large industries, such as oil, telecommunications, water and electricity. In recent
years, a bottomup approach for smaller projects and local economic network has developed with
the establishment of microfinance programs that provide small shortterm loans.
USAID has sent more than 7,000 metric tons of wheat seeds to
over 40,000 farmers in Afghanistan. The seeds should provide
a starting point for a revived agricultural sector and counter
the increasing poppy production for the opium trade.

4. Nurture Civil Society

Once economic vitality begins to return to postconflict
regions, the work of rebuilding civil society institutions can begin. Without at least some economic
recovery, societies cannot sustain these types of activities, no matter how important they may be
to the peace effort. Civil society includes those institutions which are not part of the government
but play a role in organizing society because they bring people from various backgrounds together
and provide an opportunity to participate in public life. International NonGovernmental
Organizations (NGOs) and foreign governments both play an extensive role in this phase of
peacebuilding.
Civil Society includes sports clubs, such as this soccer association
in Iraq.

Stages in Establishing Law and Order

Establishing law and order has proven particularly difficult in
many postconflict societies and failed attempts have drawn
much criticism from the international community. Despite
extensive efforts and heavy investment of financial resources, equipment and personnel, many
regions have failed to achieve lasting stability. All too often, efforts progress to other peacebuilding
work such as economic development and civil society building without first establishing a stable
base from which to operate. Efforts to restore the Bosnian economy, to take only one example,

have been greatly hampered by the lack of adequate property law.

Questions of law and order fall directly into the hands of state government officials. While outside
bodies such as the United Nations may provide assistance, in the end security is a domestic
concern. Other stages of peacebuilding negotiating peace settlements, economic development
and civil society growth have a wide range of international actors and organizations that play
central roles for extended but limited periods of time. Maintaining law and order is a continuing
exercise and responsibility of the government. It is therefore critical that government officials and
senior political and military staff have a clear understanding of the steps necessary to create a
secure and stable environment that facilitates peacebuilding.
When analyzing security needs and legal safeguards, it is useful to divide the task into three
successive categories:
1. Crimes Against the Person address issues of personal safety and security. This is vital in
the stages immediately following the end of violent conflict. Tensions may still run very
high within communities and the desire for revenge and retribution may be widespread.
Individuals need to feel that they are safe to go to the market, farm their lands and return
to work. Without these protections, peace will be seen as an illusion and violence will
almost certainly resume as individuals take steps to protect their own safety.
2. Crimes Against Property. Physical belongings (homes, automobiles, factories, orchards)
and financial assets (bank accounts, business holdings, foreign aid) must be protected
through property rights under the law. Without these protections, economic development
will be greatly inhibited. Great care should be taken to establish fair and equitable
mechanisms for settling contract and property disputes. Individuals who commit crimes of
vandalism or fraud must be held accountable.
3. Crimes Against Culture are broadly defined as activities that are detrimental to the fabric
of society by attempting to damage social, religious, ethnic or cultural institutions. This is
a broad category that can include everything from attacks on places of worship to public
expression of hate directed at ethnic minorities. Many of the more serious attacks on
culture will be dealt with as crimes against individuals and property. Other situations exist,
however, that do not directly threaten individuals or their belongings, but do threaten their
community identity. In postconflict societies, these actions may be a deliberate attempt
to anger or harm other groups. An example of such an act would be the destruction of
ancient cultural icons, such as the recent bombing of Mosques in Iraq, that are technically
within the dominion of one group but sacred to another group. Preventing these crimes is
important to longterm peace, although leaders must recognize that they can only be
effectively dealt with after crimes against individuals and against property have been
brought under control.

New York Times. Steven R. Weisman. Funds for Iraq Falling Short of Pledges, Figures Show. December 7, 2003.
March 13, 2006.

Summary
This lesson covered the many challenges and responsibilities faced by postconflict societies and
their governments, including:

Infrastructure damage.

Economic damage.

Environmental damage.

Social damage.

This lesson also addressed the conditions faced by postconflict governments, including:

Weakened central state institutions.

Lack of civil society institutions.

Police and military forces that are not geared for peacetime service.

Finally, this lesson addressed the operational priorities that must be taken into consideration by
national leaders. This includes four basic objectives:

Stop violent conflict.

Impose law and order.

Restore the economy.

Nurture civil society.

Building a lasting peace in postconflict countries is a difficult and complex task. While this unit
cannot address all aspects of this work, the basic framework provided here should help leaders and
government officials identify key problems, evaluate the capabilities of national structures, and set
priorities for peace building objectives.