Theoretical and Practical aspects of Conflict Prevention

Introduction

The idea of conflict prevention, with its supposedly straightforward appeal remains complex and contested.[1]

I suggest that prevention of conflict starts with identifying the origins of the conflict, then proceeding to reframing the perceptions of the parties to the conflict which includes identifying relevant institutions, risk assessment, and concluding with decision-making.?

This article briefly (althought not exhaustively) discusses theoretical and practical aspects of conflict prevention, particular as it applies to international law conflicts.

The concept of conflict prevention?

Conflict is defined as a situation in which actors use conflict behavior against each other to attain incompatible goals and/or to express their hostility.[2] Generally speaking, for an open conflict to emerge, two main conditions are needed: the formation of “conflict groups,” and a sequence of events that ignites conflict action.[3]

Conflict prevention is used to denote all conceivable forms of conflict management and disparate activities relating to the moderation of conflict.[4] Preventing conflict between states has been a central aim of the United Nations (‘UN’) since the end of World War II.[5] The idea of conflict prevention emerged in the context of a post-Cold War world, the trajectory of which was threatened by the multiplicity of conflicts.[6]

Boutros Boutros-Ghali, the former Secretary General of the UN, in his Agenda of Peace, used conflict prevention to mean 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. According to him, disputes represent that stage of the conflict when it is not violent. He has emphasized the role of the UN and regional organizations in preventive diplomacy through measures such as early warning, fact-finding, confidence-building, demilitarized zones and also preventive deployment or peace keeping[7].

Conflict prevention creates an all-encompassing organizational tool for formulating defence, foreign policy and aid for developed nations who are seen external to the causation of conflict, but key preventors of conflict and the guardians of global peace.

Identifying the origins of conflict and reframing the perceptions of the parties to the conflict

Bartos and Wehr argue that, for an open conflict to emerge, two main conditions are needed: the formation of conflict groups, and a sequence of events that ignites conflict action.[8] Hostility can ignite conflict. Two main factors contribute to lasting hostility, and they are specific grievances and a general feeling of frustration.[9]

A conflict might be between States (interstate conflict), between a State and one or more groups residing within the territory of the State (intrastate conflict also known as ‘civil conflict’), between a State and a transnational terrorist organisation, colony, or external non-state actor (extra-state conflict), or between non-state groups (non-state conflict).[10] The root causes of conflicts includes political differences, economic and social inequalities, ethnic and religious diversity, poverty.[11]

The root causes of conflicts can be termed as the basis of conflict—the deed or condition that led to the hostility between the parties to the conflict.[12] When a conflict arises, parties are likely to view each other’s interests very different. Reframing and reconstructing the perceptions of the parties is important in situations where parties misperceive see their respective goals as incompatible. Bartos and Wehr state:

“Getting conflict parties to question their perception of reality permits them to distinguish those aspects of reality that are in opposition from those that are not. Once the parties realize that they are not in total conflict with one another, they can begin to cooperate and turn the conflicting interests into a problem to be solved. If a conflict is a reality constructed by opponents, it can just as well be reconstructed by them into less costly, more cooperative forms.”[13]

Reframing participants’ perception of the conflict can lead them to consider a number of cooperative conflict resolution techniques which then can enable corporation.

Identifying relevant Institutions

The principle of the peaceful settlement of disputes occupies a pivotal position within a world order whose hallmark is the ban on force and coercion. Conflict can be limited and controlled by institutional forms, social roles, social norms rules for conducting negotiations, and specific procedures.[14] The establishment of the United Nations and its organs is an example of such institutionalization. Article 1 of the Charter of the United Nations 1945 (‘the UN Charter’) states that the UN’s principal objective is “to maintain international peace and security” and the ways in which that goal is to be attained collectively, peacefully, and preventively. As Kofi Annan puts it:

“The aim of conflict prevention must be to create a synergy with those civil society groups that are bridge-builders, truthfinders, watchdogs, human rights defenders, and agents of social protection and economic revitalisation.”[15]

Identifying relevant institutions, is therefore critical in shaping and determining the appropriate outcomes in any conflict resolution process.

Risk assessment and decision making

The element of risk is always present in almost all decision making and therefore the nature of risk must be taken into account s in dealing with conflict and dispute. In analyzing the concept of risk, Baldwin and Cave state:

“Thus, probabilistic and unpredictable risks have been differentiated. In the case of the former, assessments of probability can be based on available statistics concerning past incidents. With unpredictable risks, evidence of a causal connection between events may be weak and unquantifiable. Some events may be ‘one-off’, non-repeating risks where probabilities cannot be estimated and subjective assessments must be made.?A related distinction lies between ‘objective’ and ‘subjective’ risks.?The former are seen as scientifically assessable by experts and probabilistic, the latter as non-expert perceptions by the lay public.”[16]

A key element in understanding the context and situation in an escalating conflict is the ability to read warning signs of trouble and indicators of increasing tension or violence, which is the basis for “conflict early warning” analysis.[17] As observed by Daniel Dana, “In every relationship, the differences that make us unique individuals are also sources of potential conflict between us. We differ in our values, self-interests, priorities and in many other ways. The greater the differences, the heavier the burden on our ability to manage those differences. The less effectively we manage differences, the more conflict we experience as a result”[18]. No one formula will fit all circumstances, and to pretend otherwise is both presumptuous and risky. Because every emerging conflict situation differs, a great deal of latitude and flexibility must be given to those who devise and implement preventive strategies both on the ground and at headquarters[19].

An agreement or accord is a formal commitment between hostile parties to end a war. Peace agreements can vary considerably. The 1991 Paris Peace Accords that led to the end of the conflict in Cambodia were essentially an agreement to end international involvement in the war, and a ceasefire to transform a military conflict into a political one, with the United Nations (UN) present and in control.[20] The 1993 Oslo Accords-officially known as the Declaration of Principles that initiated the Israeli-Palestinian 1994–2000 peace process offered no concrete details and were not legally binding. However, without the risk taken, there would be no Oslo Accord.

Summary

Having discussed the above, it is important to note that there can never be a one way traffic in preventing conflict. Each situation presents its own unique circumstance and there must always be flexibility in the process. Ergo, identifying the origins of the conflict all the way to decision-making are equally critical.?Accommodating and reframing the perceptions of the parties may be a challenge and conflict prevention rests entirely on parties' willingness to give all or something up or risk igniting a dispute.

Disclaimer

The views presented are mine. This article does not constitute legal advice .?

Footnotes

[1] Moolakkattu Stephen John,?The Concept and Practice of Conflict Prevention: A Critical Reappraisal, [2005] International Studies 42, 1

[2] Bartos and Wehr, Using Conflict Theory, (Cambridge University Press, 2003) 13

[3] Ibid, 70

[4] Supra note at 1, 3

[5] Sanam Naraghi Anderlini and Victoria Stanski , Conflict Prevention, Resolution and Reconstruction: Inclusive Security, Sustainable Peace (Hunt Alternatives Fund and International Alert 2004). 1

[6] See supra note 1, 2

[7] Boutros-Ghali, Boutros, An Agenda for Peace. (New York: United Nations, 1995). 45. Cited in Moolakkattu Stephen John,?The Concept and Practice of Conflict Prevention: A Critical Reappraisal, International Studies 42, 1 (2005) 3

[8]?Supra note at 1, 12

[9] See supra note at 2, 70

[10] Ibid

[11] Charles H. Anderton & John. R. Carter, ‘Conflict Datasets: A primer for academics, policy makers and practitioners’, (2011) vol. 22 (1) Defence and Peace Economics, 21-42. See Ayokunle Fagbemi, Chukwuemeka B. Eze and Ifeanyi Okechukwu, Conflict Monitoring in Nigeria: Developing Civil Society Action for Early Warning and Early Response (West Africa Networks for Peacebuilding, WANEP Nigeria, 2004)180.

[12] F. Stewart, ‘Crisis Prevention: Tackling Horizontal Inequalities’ (2000) 28 Oxford Development Studies 245- 62.

[13] Vilhelm Aubert, ‘Competition and Dissensus: Two Types of Conflict and of Conflict Resolution’ (March 1963)

[14] See supra note at 2, p157

[15] Ibid, p158

[16] Bruno Simma, ed., The Charter of the United Nations: A Commentary, 2nd edn., vol. 1 (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2002), 103.

[17] See supra note at 2

[18] UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan, quoted in The Washington Times, 23 June 2004. Referred to in page 6 supra note at 8.

[19] Baldwin and Cave, Understanding Regulation: Theory, Strategy, and Practice), Oxford University Press, 1999, 138-139

[20] Daniel Dana, Managing Differences: How to Build Better Relationships at Work and Home (MTI Publications, Fourth Edition September 2005).

[21] Lund, Michael S, Preventing Violent Intrastate Conflicts: Learning Lessons from Experience., in Paul van Tongeren, Hansvan de Veen and Juliette Verhoeven (eds), Searching for Peace in Europe and Eurasia: An Overview of Conflict Prevention and Peace-building Activities. Boulder, (2002 CO: Lynne Rienner). Cited in supra note 1, 4