Samenvatting Core Module Conflict
Resolution
written by:
rterpstra42
The Marketplace to Buy and Sell your Study Material
Buy and sell all your summaries, notes, theses, essays, papers, cases, manuals, researches, and
many more..
www.stuvia.com
, Stuvia.com - The Marketplace to Buy and Sell your Study Material
1
Ramsbotham, Woodhouse, and Miall – Contemporary conflict resolution (3rd Ed)
Chapter 1 – Introduction to conflict resolution: concepts and definitions
The aims of the book are to “clarify the role of conflict resolution at the beginning of the second
decade of the century and to redefine its cosmopolitan values in this uncertain and complex
environment.”
Conflict resolution became a defined field of study in the 1950s and 1960s, when a group of North
American and European scholars started to apply methods from industrial relations and community
mediation to conflicts in general. These new ideas attracted attention and the field began to spread.
By the 1980s conflict resolution ideas started having real-world impact. After the dissolution of the
Soviet Union, the 1990s saw the spread of internal-, ethnic-, and secession conflicts. This caused
scholars to turn their attention toward conflict resolution.
Conflict resolution has received a broad range of criticism. Three of these will be engaged with in this
book. First, the realist critique that power and coercion are the sole effective means in international
politics and soft-power approaches are therefore ineffective. Second, there is the Marxist critique
that conflict resolution does not take into account irreconcilable differences, unequal and unjust
struggles, or a global perspective of oppression and exploitation. Third, the critique that conflict
resolution is vested in western assumptions which are not universally applicable.
Conflict resolution models
Conflict becomes overt through the formation of conflict parties that have mutually incompatible
goals. Conflicts are dynamic: they may (de-)escalate, and constitute a complex interplay of attitudes
and behaviors. Early theorists distinguished between constructive and destructive conflict, while the
former was a necessary aspect of human life the latter was to be avoided. Ramsbotham et al. use
the term conflict to “refer to the widest set of circumstances in which conflict parties perceive that
they have incompatible goals.” Concerning the debate over conflict resolution and conflict
transformation, they believe transformation to be the deepest level of the conflict resolution
tradition. They use conflict resolution as an umbrella term.
Framework models
Galtung’s model of conflict, violence and peace (p.10)
Galtung suggested that conflict could be viewed as a triangle consisting of attitude, behavior, and
contradiction. Attitude consists of the parties’ (mis)perceptions of each other and themselves. It
covers emotive, cognitive, and conative (desire) elements. Behavior can involve cooperation or
coercion. In a symmetric conflict, the contradiction is defined by the parties and the clash of
interests; in an asymmetric conflict it is defined by the parties and their inherently conflicting
relationship. Galtung argues that all three elements have to be present in a full conflict.
A related idea by Galtung is the differentiation between direct, structural, and cultural violence.
Direct violence can be ended by changing conflict behavior, structural violence by removing
structural injustices, and cultural violence by changing attitudes. Galtung differentiates between
negative peace (the ending of direct violence) and positive peace (overcoming structural and cultural
violence as well).
, Stuvia.com - The Marketplace to Buy and Sell your Study Material
2
A conflict escalation and de-escalation model (p.13)
The process of conflict escalation is complex and unpredictable. In this simple model, escalation
moves along a normal distribution curve. Escalation starts from the initial differences, moves
through contradiction, polarization, violence and peaks at war. De-escalation is achieved through a
ceasefire, agreement, normalization and eventually reconciliation.
The hourglass model: a spectrum of conflict resolution responses (p. 14)
This model combines Galtung’s ideas on conflict and violence with the (de-)escalation phases. The
hourglass shape stems from the narrowing and widening of political space that are associated with
escalation and de-escalation respectively. As this space narrows or widens, different conflict
resolution measures become more or less appropriate. Conflict transformation encompasses the
deepest level of structural and cultural peacebuilding. Conflict settlement corresponds to elite
peacemaking (agreement between the main protagonists of a conflict.) Conflict containment
includes attempts at preventive peacekeeping, war limitation and post-ceasefire peacekeeping.
The conflict tree (p. 15)
The conflict tree portrays a conflict with the metaphor of a tree. In the soil are underlying issues that
contribute to the core problem. The stem of the tree constitutes the core problem of the conflict. In
the branches of the tree are the effects or consequences of the conflict.
Classical ideas
Conflict approaches (p. 17)
A conflict party’s approach is dependent on that party’s concern for itself as well as its concern for
the other party. Different values of these two variables lead to one of the following possible
approaches to the conflict: withdrawal, contending, yielding, compromising, or problem-solving.
Win-lose, lose-lose, win-win outcomes (p. 18)
If neither party to a conflict is willing to give in, the conflict is headed toward a ‘lose-lose’ situation.
When the conflict parties realize this, there is a strong motivation to move toward a better outcome.
The traditional role of conflict resolution is to change the parties’ perception from zero-sum (win-
lose) to non-zero-sum (win-win or lose-lose).
Prisoners’ dilemma and the evolution of cooperation (p. 19)
Prisoners’ dilemma is a simple game theoretical model in which the structure of the game causes
both players to prefer non-cooperation, even though mutual cooperation is the most favorable
outcome for both. The key to solving a prisoners’ dilemma is to stage repeated encounters (or build
in trust). More practical solutions are: increasing contested scarce resources; issue linkage; creating
new outcomes; looking for superordinate goals; compensation; punishment of non-cooperation.
Positions, interests and needs (p. 22)
Often, conflict parties maintain diametrically opposed positions. However, these positions are based
on the parties’ interests, and these are often easier to reconcile than the parties’ initial positions. On
the bottom of the pyramid are the parties’ basic needs (identity, security, survival). Translating a
conflict into the language of these needs can often increase the possibility of resolving a conflict.
The entry of a third party in a conflict may change the conflict structure and allow for a change from
the spiral of hostility and escalation. The third party can filter or reflect back the messages attitudes
Resolution
written by:
rterpstra42
The Marketplace to Buy and Sell your Study Material
Buy and sell all your summaries, notes, theses, essays, papers, cases, manuals, researches, and
many more..
www.stuvia.com
, Stuvia.com - The Marketplace to Buy and Sell your Study Material
1
Ramsbotham, Woodhouse, and Miall – Contemporary conflict resolution (3rd Ed)
Chapter 1 – Introduction to conflict resolution: concepts and definitions
The aims of the book are to “clarify the role of conflict resolution at the beginning of the second
decade of the century and to redefine its cosmopolitan values in this uncertain and complex
environment.”
Conflict resolution became a defined field of study in the 1950s and 1960s, when a group of North
American and European scholars started to apply methods from industrial relations and community
mediation to conflicts in general. These new ideas attracted attention and the field began to spread.
By the 1980s conflict resolution ideas started having real-world impact. After the dissolution of the
Soviet Union, the 1990s saw the spread of internal-, ethnic-, and secession conflicts. This caused
scholars to turn their attention toward conflict resolution.
Conflict resolution has received a broad range of criticism. Three of these will be engaged with in this
book. First, the realist critique that power and coercion are the sole effective means in international
politics and soft-power approaches are therefore ineffective. Second, there is the Marxist critique
that conflict resolution does not take into account irreconcilable differences, unequal and unjust
struggles, or a global perspective of oppression and exploitation. Third, the critique that conflict
resolution is vested in western assumptions which are not universally applicable.
Conflict resolution models
Conflict becomes overt through the formation of conflict parties that have mutually incompatible
goals. Conflicts are dynamic: they may (de-)escalate, and constitute a complex interplay of attitudes
and behaviors. Early theorists distinguished between constructive and destructive conflict, while the
former was a necessary aspect of human life the latter was to be avoided. Ramsbotham et al. use
the term conflict to “refer to the widest set of circumstances in which conflict parties perceive that
they have incompatible goals.” Concerning the debate over conflict resolution and conflict
transformation, they believe transformation to be the deepest level of the conflict resolution
tradition. They use conflict resolution as an umbrella term.
Framework models
Galtung’s model of conflict, violence and peace (p.10)
Galtung suggested that conflict could be viewed as a triangle consisting of attitude, behavior, and
contradiction. Attitude consists of the parties’ (mis)perceptions of each other and themselves. It
covers emotive, cognitive, and conative (desire) elements. Behavior can involve cooperation or
coercion. In a symmetric conflict, the contradiction is defined by the parties and the clash of
interests; in an asymmetric conflict it is defined by the parties and their inherently conflicting
relationship. Galtung argues that all three elements have to be present in a full conflict.
A related idea by Galtung is the differentiation between direct, structural, and cultural violence.
Direct violence can be ended by changing conflict behavior, structural violence by removing
structural injustices, and cultural violence by changing attitudes. Galtung differentiates between
negative peace (the ending of direct violence) and positive peace (overcoming structural and cultural
violence as well).
, Stuvia.com - The Marketplace to Buy and Sell your Study Material
2
A conflict escalation and de-escalation model (p.13)
The process of conflict escalation is complex and unpredictable. In this simple model, escalation
moves along a normal distribution curve. Escalation starts from the initial differences, moves
through contradiction, polarization, violence and peaks at war. De-escalation is achieved through a
ceasefire, agreement, normalization and eventually reconciliation.
The hourglass model: a spectrum of conflict resolution responses (p. 14)
This model combines Galtung’s ideas on conflict and violence with the (de-)escalation phases. The
hourglass shape stems from the narrowing and widening of political space that are associated with
escalation and de-escalation respectively. As this space narrows or widens, different conflict
resolution measures become more or less appropriate. Conflict transformation encompasses the
deepest level of structural and cultural peacebuilding. Conflict settlement corresponds to elite
peacemaking (agreement between the main protagonists of a conflict.) Conflict containment
includes attempts at preventive peacekeeping, war limitation and post-ceasefire peacekeeping.
The conflict tree (p. 15)
The conflict tree portrays a conflict with the metaphor of a tree. In the soil are underlying issues that
contribute to the core problem. The stem of the tree constitutes the core problem of the conflict. In
the branches of the tree are the effects or consequences of the conflict.
Classical ideas
Conflict approaches (p. 17)
A conflict party’s approach is dependent on that party’s concern for itself as well as its concern for
the other party. Different values of these two variables lead to one of the following possible
approaches to the conflict: withdrawal, contending, yielding, compromising, or problem-solving.
Win-lose, lose-lose, win-win outcomes (p. 18)
If neither party to a conflict is willing to give in, the conflict is headed toward a ‘lose-lose’ situation.
When the conflict parties realize this, there is a strong motivation to move toward a better outcome.
The traditional role of conflict resolution is to change the parties’ perception from zero-sum (win-
lose) to non-zero-sum (win-win or lose-lose).
Prisoners’ dilemma and the evolution of cooperation (p. 19)
Prisoners’ dilemma is a simple game theoretical model in which the structure of the game causes
both players to prefer non-cooperation, even though mutual cooperation is the most favorable
outcome for both. The key to solving a prisoners’ dilemma is to stage repeated encounters (or build
in trust). More practical solutions are: increasing contested scarce resources; issue linkage; creating
new outcomes; looking for superordinate goals; compensation; punishment of non-cooperation.
Positions, interests and needs (p. 22)
Often, conflict parties maintain diametrically opposed positions. However, these positions are based
on the parties’ interests, and these are often easier to reconcile than the parties’ initial positions. On
the bottom of the pyramid are the parties’ basic needs (identity, security, survival). Translating a
conflict into the language of these needs can often increase the possibility of resolving a conflict.
The entry of a third party in a conflict may change the conflict structure and allow for a change from
the spiral of hostility and escalation. The third party can filter or reflect back the messages attitudes
