Conflict Resolution - Thesis Example

Running header: Conflict resolution Student’s name: Instructor’s name: Subject code: Date of submission: Conflict resolution Defining conflict resolution In arriving at the correct definition of conflict resolution, it is important to define the words conflict and resolution independently. Conflicts occur at various levels which range from clashes between countries to interpersonal levels and ranges from hostility between persons to international wars. The Oxford dictionary (1976) defines conflict as ‘struggle, fight or clash on principles’. However, the definition has been found inadequate since interpersonal disagreements rarely result from clashes on principles. In his writings on conflict resolution and peace, Gandhi sees conflict as disagreements through which the concerned parties perceive threats to their interests, concerns or needs. This arises from the fact that people/ parties are different and thus there might be differences in the positions taken by the two conflicting parties regarding the issue in question (Edmondson and Stanton 2011). Similarly Grossman, (2000) view conflict as struggle occurring between two individuals o r parties due to differences in values, competition for power and limited resources as well as competition for status. The writings of Martin Luther view conflict as resulting from real or perceived differences in interests such as needs, fears, concerns and wants which can not be simultaneously satisfied or when the needs or concerns between the conflicting parties are not compatible. From the above definitions, it is no doubt that conflict results from both subjective and objective causes including competition for resources such as land, riches, power or status as well as differences in principles and beliefs , interests or parties of the conflicting parties. According to Kyle and Nigel, (2013) conflicts occur at various levels. For instance, Latent conflict is characterized by underlying as well as acknowledged tensions between the parties, Emerging conflict is where the disagreement is acknowledged and parties identified though the resolution process has not been identified while manifest conflict is where the parties to the conflict have reached an impasse despite attempts to resolve and resolution can only be attained through legal means, negotiation, mediation as well as physical and verbal violence. Just like conflict, conflict resolution can be defined in a number of ways. Megan, (2009) regards conflict resolution as the process which resolves or ends the conflict using methods which could also entail violence and warfare at worst. On the other hand, both Martin Luther and Gandhi view conflict resolution as the process of resolving conflict through pursuing peace by use of non violent means to arise at compromise. In this case, a third party may be involved in facilitating or imposing settlement and hence resolution (Weinstein, 2004). According to them parties to the conflict should strive to attain peace at the end of conflict resolution by all means. There are many conflict resolution approaches which range from formal, informal, collaborative, participatory, legally biding and non binding approaches among others. While non - adversarial conflict resolution approaches such as mediation, conciliation or negotiation seek to facilitate communication between the conflicting parties and hence resolve the dispute in a cooperative way, adversarial approaches such as the court or tribunals seek to impose a settlement on the conflicting parties and hence they may not achieve cooperative dispute resolution. Whether conflict resolution is related to peace It is important to consider what peace making means in determining whether conflict resolution is related to peace making so that the relevance of conflict resolution in peace making can be considered in light of the meaning of peace making. Arya, (2013) states “peace making is the active process of peace, the behavior of parties and institutions that lead to more peaceful relations”. On the other hand, peace is the state of relations between persons or groups which entails lack of war, presence of economic wellbeing and social justice including respect for human rights. Coleman, (2010) on the other hand considers positive peace as denoting an overt free society which also lacks institutional or structural violence thus enabling the community members to achieve social and economic advancement, freedom from oppression as well as political equality. Is conflict resolution related to peace? To a great extent, conflict resolution is not related to peace as will be discussed below since it does not necessarily lead to peaceful coexistence between the conflicting parties although conflicts might have been resolved. Whether conflict resolution approaches such as mediation, negotiation, courts and tribunals facilitate peace among conflicting persons, communities or organizations and are hence peace making initiatives is debatable. It is true that the above conflict resolution initiatives could help the parties arrive at mutually agreed upon or imposed settlements thus leading to improved relations between the conflicting parties (Damundu, 2005). However, this does not necessarily lead to peace since despite the settlement, one of the parties may still consider the settlement to have been unfair thus widening the rift or intensifying hostilities. Karen, (2003) views peace as the presence of justice and equality in the society and absence of structural violence or war. Thus although such conflict resolution initiatives are intent on encouraging reconciliation between the conflicting parties, they can only be regarded as peace making initiatives if they address problems resulting from absence of peace such as injustice and war. For conflict resolution to result in peace making, the focus should be on interests as opposed to positions taken by the conflicting parties. Peace results from conflict resolution only when the relationships between the conflicting parties are reexamined and realigned. David, (2004) however claims that this may be ideal but not practicable at all times. For instance, does a conflict resolution in divorce where parties seek for settlement of outstanding property disagreement lead to realignment of the relationship and hence peace making among the parties? Realignment/transformation of relationships is not necessarily the aim of the conflicting parties but they may simply want a solution to their conflict and even after the conflict is solved, their hostilities may still continue. Based on this, conflict resolution can only lead to peace when the interest and needs of both the parties have been satisfied through mutual agreement without compromising the values of any of the parties (Keen, 2004). The solution must be and be seen to be fair and just, self supporting and enforcing to both the parties. In addition, the conflicting parties should not repudiate the settlement although they may have power to do so if the conflict resolution process is to result in peace making. However, this is only ideal and is rarely practical especially where the relationship between the parties is much strained by the conflict or where an ongoing relationship between the conflicting parties to be aligned no longer exists. In such a case, the parties may seek to maximize their gains from the conflict at the expense of each other. As such, conflict resolution is more of a problem solving process that offers the conflicting parties the chance to resolve the conflict cooperatively. According to Lomoro, (2000) this is not to mean that conflict resolution does not result in peace making. In fact, conflict resolution has always resulted to long lasting peaceful coexistence between the conflicting parties both at interpersonal and international levels. In addition, whether conflict resolution is related to peace making is dependent on the approach employed. If the parties decide to use peaceful means and pursue peace in resolving their conflict as suggested by Gandhi, then conflict resolution results to peace (Culbert, 2010). However, where violent and unjust means are used, it will be almost impossible to attain peace even as the conflict is resolved. As such, it can only be considered as being related to peace making to the existent it results to peace making. Can conflict resolution always be fair/just to all parties? There various approaches to conflict resolution widely used in solving conflicts both at interpersonal level , communal or even international level. Such methods include conciliation, mediation, arbitration, third party aided negotiations, legal proceedings among others. The conflict resolution method adopted however is not of great concern but rather whether the method adopted merely manages the conflict or actually solves it (Boehm, 2009). This in turn depends on whether the parties involved view the solution arrived at as having been fair or unfair. Both Gandhi and Luther are of the opinion that the conflict resolution method adopted should result in peace between the conflicting parties in the long run. However, having to forego what you believe is rightly yours in the name of pursuing peace in a conflict resolution situation might not always be fair or just. According to Fairman, (2011) the ideal conflict resolution strategy should have a number of features including the following; The strategy should arrive at a solution which jointly satisfies the interests or needs of the conflicting parties through mutual agreement, The solution arrived at should not compromise either of the parties’ values The conflicting parties should not find it necessary to repudiate the solution arrived at despite having such powers following the conflict resolution/settlement. The settlement should be and be seen to be fair, self supporting as well as self enforcing. A conflict resolution strategy that arrives at the solution described above will have actually solved the conflict as opposed to managing it. Such a solution will actually be fair and just to all parties involved in the conflict. However, can conflict resolution always be fair/ just to all the parties involved? The features described above give a conflict resolution in an ideal situation where conflict resolution is always fair to the parties involved. However, conflict resolution can not always be fair and just to all the parties involved since in most cases parties to a conflict are called upon to make compromises and forego some of their demands regardless of whether they are rightly theirs as the other party gains what it is actually not entitled to as the parties try to arrive at a solution acceptable to both sides of the conflict (Robert, 2002). Furthermore, power differences between the parties as well as biasness on the part of the third parties involved in solving the conflicts in may times affect the solution arrived at hence making conflict resolution not to always be fair and just to one of the parties. However, in few occasions especially in less complex conflicts, it is possible to arrive at a settlement that is fair and just to all the parties involved. Conflict resolution is not always fair and/ or just to all the parties involved. Gaultang, (2010) sees this as resulting from power disparities between the conflicting parties where the more powerful party may always have an undue advantage over the weaker party. These disparities exist on social economic, political and intellectual fronts of the conflicting parties. The negotiators and mediators in the conflicts on the other hand assume that both the parties are equally able to negotiate a satisfying settlement on their own behalves and hence fail to employ conflict resolution methods that would factor in the power disparities. This implies that where financial power or intellectual capacity of one of the parties is significantly challenged, there will be power imbalance and the more powerful party will use this to its advantage thereby disadvantaging the less powerful party throughout the entire conflict resolution process. In addition, where one party has poor persuasion skills, low self esteem and is highly ignorant of its rights, the party may not successfully negotiate thereby limiting the ability of the resolution process to result in a fair and just settlement. The issue of power disparities also come into play in international conflict resolution where super powers/the world’s economic power houses have always had their way in international conflicts either by blackmailing the less economically endowed countries with financial aid or threatening to withdraw and cut economic ties (Roberts, 2010). Where the conflict is presented to the United Nations decisions making organ, countries with veto power have always had their way at the expense of the less powerful countries not because the settlement is fair but because its veto vote has decided. In other words, conflict resolution can not always result in fair/just settlements since in most cases, the methods employed ignore the reality of power differences hence rendering conflict resolution to be a tool of social control and perpetuation of status quo. Conflict resolution can not always fair/ just to all the parties involved given that majority of settlements arising from conflict resolution are not subjected to public scrutiny according to Aukermann, 2012). The parties to the conflict are never required to give documents that relate to their interest in the conflict while there are no public records kept regarding the settlement and in most cases such settlements are not legally enforceable. Aukermann, 2012) adds that most conflict resolution methods do not call for taking of oaths and do not impose penalties for perjury. Parties therefore may have potential to mislead others to their advantage. For instance, in marital conflicts, women may be mislead to negotiate for what they can get as opposed to what is equitable and hence just and fair. As such, family conflicts resolved through negotiations or mediation tend to favor men at the expense of women and hence can not be termed as fair/just when compared to those solved in the courts of law. According to Gandhi, conflict resolution should aim at pursing peace at all cost. Since the aim of attaining peace in a conflict overrides any other, parties in a conflict may be forced to compromise or forego what is rightfully theirs and hence fair and just in a bid to arrive at peaceful settlements (Fisher, 2005). This is why at times conflict resolution only results in temporary peace where one of the parties feel shortchanged as observed in most political and international conflicts. For instance, some African nations such as Kenya have been forced to establish coalition governments after disputed elections. Such settlements though having resulted in peace can not be termed as just/ fair to all parties since the parties to the conflict agree to such settlements just for the sake of peace but the true winner of such an election will obviously have been shortchanged. Similarly, Boundary conflicts between nations have always been solved through mediation and negotiations but countries have gone back to war after a while if they felt shortchanged by the negotiated settlement. A good example of such a conflict is the one between India and Pakistan and the one between Ethiopia and Eritria (Grossman, 2000). If such settlements were to be fair and just to both parties, there would be no need of going back to war. Conflict resolution results in fair and just settlement when the parties concerned are honest and willing to compromise get only what is rightfully theirs from the resolution process. In addition, the settlement will always be fair and just when the power differences between the conflicting parties are overcame while the mediators decide to be independent and impartial. For conflict resolution to result in fair and just settlement for the parties to a conflict, the methods used should be able to overcome any power differences between the conflicting parties. In addition, the concerned parties need to be honest and willing to compromise and only get what is rightfully theirs out of the resolution process (Kyle, and Nigel, 2013).This only happens when the resolution process focuses on the problem as opposed to focusing on the conflict’s symptoms. This is made possible by the independence and impartiality of any third party involved in resolving the conflict. In other words, the mediators/negotiators should be and actually be seen to be impartial in the whole process if it is to result in a just and fair settlement. Neutrality and handedness are attributes and skills that should never lack in a mediator if the resolution process and outcome is to be fair and just to the parties to the conflict (Coleman, 2010). This has been seen in many international conflicts such as the ones involving boarder disputes where mediators faced with two unequal parties decide to maintain a neutral stance and hence succeeded in balancing the imbalance between the conflicting parties. An example of a conflict resolution process that was seen as fair and just and hence arrived at a permanent peaceful settlement is the dispute between Sudan and southern Sudan. The end result was splitting of Sudan into two and although there still lays issues that remain unaddressed, there has been relative calm and peace between the two countries since the split. Megan, (2009) states that such successful resolutions only happen as a result of mediators being neutral and insisting on procedural equality and calling for respectful behavior from the conflicting parties. This implies that with deliberate efforts from both the conflicting parties to be honest and the mediators or negotiators to remain neutral, conflict resolution can always be fair and just to all the parties involved. Conclusion As established above, it is not always possible for conflict resolution to be fair and just to all parties involved. The difficulty arises from power difference between the conflicting parties and the need to make compromises in order to achieve peace. In addition, the resolution processes do not require honesty or public scrutiny hence lowering the probability for the process to be fair and just to the parties involved. However, it’s worth noting that conflict resolution processes are not to be blamed for the power imbalance in society despite their potential to perpetrate unfairness when the more powerful parties are favored by ignoring the power imbalances. Third parties therefore have a role to remain neutral and refuse to resolve conflicts under intimidation, pressure or violence. With such deliberate efforts, conflict resolution has the potential of always being fair and just to all parties involved. However, at the moment, this has not been achieved due to the weaknesses of the resolution methods involved and the unwillingness of the parties to the conflict to be honest while mediators have at times taken sides. As such, it is not possible for conflict resolution to always be fair and just to the parties involved in the conflict. References: Coleman, G. (2010). Alternative dispute resolution mechanisms. The American Journal of International Law, 100(3), 107-115. Weinstein, D. (2004). Conditions of successful third party intervention. Journal of conflict Resolution, 15(2), 152-159. Fisher, J. (2005). Interactive conflict resolution: Characteristics and Challenges. International Negotiation Journal, 2(3), 15-22. Grossman, H. (2000). Civil conflict: Ended or never ending? Journal of conflict resolution, 44(3), 807-821. Arya, J. (2013). Kenyan Elections 2013: Can the precipice be avoided? Africa Peace and Conflict Journal, 5(2). 45-58. Damundu, J. (2005). The paradox of peace: Leaders, decisions, and conflict resolution, Political Science Quarterly, 18(3), 451-458. Jette, K. (2003). Resolving or exacerbating disputes? The WTO’s new dispute resolution System. International affairs, 79(4), 785-798. Keen, K. (2004). Resolving conflicts. Peace and Change, 29(4), 25-36. Blazes, K. & Lyon, L. (2013). Democratic communities and third party conflict management. Journal of conflict management, 41(16), 723-748. Sondermann, M. (2009). Preventing war and providing peace? International organisations and the management of territorial disputes. Journal of conflict resolution, 26(2), 144-163. Lomoro, N. (2000). Conflict resolution: Dynamics, process, and structure, International Journal On World Peace, 16(4), 89-96. Culbert, N. (2010). Rethinking reconciliation: The lessons from the Balkans and South Africa. Peace and conflict studies, 17(1), 144-175. Boehm, P. (2009). The culture question and conflict resolution. Peace and Change, 56(2), 22-45. Fairman, R. (2011). The politics of non-violent action. American Journal of international law, 105(2), 50-60. Knorp, R. (2002). Rational choice theory and international law: Insights and limitation. Journal Of Legal Studies, 31(5), 308-318. Edmondson, S., & Stanton, M. (2011). Bias and the effectiveness of third party conflict management mechanisms. Conflict management and peace science, 28 (2), 124-144. Gaultang, J. (2010). Peace agreements: Their nature and legal status, The American Journal of International Law, 100(2), 370-376. Scherpbier, R. (2010). Localizing peace: An agenda for sustainable peace building. Peace and Conflict Studies, 17(1), 100-133. Aukermann, H. (2012) Cross cultural effects in conflict management: Examining the nature and relationship between culture and international mediation. International Journal of Cross Cultural Management, 12(1), 25-47. Wainberg, M. (2009). Distribution of benefits in negotiation. Journal of conflict resolution, 26(2): 58-87. Read More