Search results

The nexus between peacebuilding and development is widely acknowledged, and yet the two fields continue to operate differently in diagnosing destructive intergroup conflicts, as demonstrated by conflict analysis methods versus conflict assessment frameworks. This article juxtaposes conflict analysis, as illustrated by a problem- solving workshop on the Cyprus conflict, with a specialised conflict assessment workshop on an intergroup conflict in India. A comparative analysis based on participant observation in each workshop revealed basic similarities, but these were outweighed by important differences primarily related to differing assumptions about conflict causation (relationships versus structures). The implications for greater cross-fertilisation and the improvement of practice in both fields are identified.

"Third-party intervention in situations of human conflict has a long history and a wide variety of forms and functions. Disputants in most, if not all, societies and at all levels of social interaction have had access to external actors to whom they can turn when they find they are unable to manage their differences by themselves. A common response to perceived incompatibilities in goals, methods or values between contesting parties is to enter into negotiation in order to reach a mutually acceptable agreement. Negotiation appears to be a universal, human phenomenon, although it is of course expressed in variations that are appropriate to each cultural context. Mediation, which is intended to facilitate the negotiation process, also needs to be practised within the norms and assumptions of any given cultural or subcultural milieu. At the same time, Western theorists of negotiation and mediation have attempted to spell out generic models, which they hope will serve to capture many of the essential elements. Much further crosscultural research will be necessary to tell us if this is indeed the case. Theorists have also identified additional forms of third-party intervention designed to complement negotiation that are distinguished primarily by the degree of power that the intervener exercises over the process and outcome of the conflict. This continuum of power is characterized not only by a varying capacity to influence, but also by a noteworthy shift in the type of power exercised. Thus, more traditional, coercive methods such as arbitration engage influence and control as 'power over', while more recent innovative methods such as problemsolving workshops (PSWs) seek to engage and induce 'power with', to draw on a useful distinction identified by Mary Parker Follett (1924 / 1942) and evident in feminist literature (Taylor / Miller 1994). A contemporary notion in the third-party literature is the idea that not all conflicts at all points in time will be amenable to a single and unified method of intervention. The defining characteristics of the conflict, particularly the stage of escalation, need to be considered in the light of the question as to which type of third party might intervene in the conflict most effectively and in which manner. Likewise, the interplay between different forms of third-party intervention and conflict transformation must be considered carefully, particularly because the various forms will typically play different roles in the overall process. Conflict transformation further requires that the antagonists agree upon and create the political, economic and social structures that will engender positive peace with social justice over the longer term. It is clear that these kinds of outcomes require more complex and coordinated third-party activities than the field of conflict resolution has been able to develop and implement so far, along with, of course, local empowerment and engagement. This chapter will focus first on the method of mediation, acknowledging its role as one of the most commonly applied and studied forms of intervention in conflicts. This will set the larger stage for a consideration of the various forms and functions of third-party intervention, some of which draw their appeal from their supplementary nature to mediation and negotiation. A rudimentary model for matching types of interventions to the stage of conflict escalation will be presented as an initial heuristic for realizing the potential complementarity of different forms of intervention. Finally, a number of issues will be identified that can affect the overall current and future usefulness of third-party intervention in addressing the multitude of destructive conflicts that regularly beset humankind." (excerpt)

The theory and practice of third-party intervention continue to develop in constructive directions and increasingly acknowledge the utility of unofficial methods directed more toward the subjective and relational aspects of international conflict. A previously developed contingency model of third-party intervention articulates the potential complementarity of these unofficial approaches (e.g. problem-solving workshops) with more traditional, official methods (e.g. power mediation) in pursuit of resolution. A comparative analysis of five cases of successful unofficial intervention in ethno-political conflicts identifies important contributions to the peace process. Descriptions of the interventions are followed by an identification of the transfer mechanisms and effects that carried the fruits of the unofficial interactions into the official domain. Each case is then reflected on the contingency model by identifying the stage of conflict escalation and the initiation, sequencing, and complementarity of interventions. The analysis provides some support for the validity of the model, although variations in the patterns of intervention indicate that strict applications of the model may be untenable. The model is thus seen as an idealized representation of a complex reality, but one that identifies some of the necessary interplay between official and unofficial interventions in order to effectively address intractable ethno-political conflicts.

An important form of coordination between track one & track two diplomacy revolves around unofficial problem-solving workshops at the level of politically influential individuals that make contributions to the process & outcomes of official negotiations. These contributions typically occur during the prenegotiation phase through the opening up of communication, the improvement of attitudes, the analysis of conflict issues & dynamics, the development of frameworks, the creation of options directed toward resolution, & so on. In order for these effects to be maximally beneficial, coordination between unofficial & official interventions is essential. This study describes connections between track two & track one peacemakers through a comparative analysis of four successful instances where workshops made important prenegotiation & paranegotiation contributions to the official peace processes. The analysis finds that such coordination was limited mainly to information sharing & indirect sequencing of efforts, & that in only one case did it involve the more engaging activities of joint strategy planning & collaboration in implementation. The article concludes that there are inherent limitations to coordination between track one & track two, given their unique & independent roles, but that both domains are evidencing more acceptance & respect for the other, which augurs well for the field of conflict resolution in terms of coordination toward greater effectiveness. References. Adapted from the source document.

The Cyprus conflict is an intractable, identity-based conflict that has challenged the international community for over 40 years. This article provides an overview of the history and sources of the conflict, followed by a description of both official and unofficial third-party interventions. Formal mediation, primarily by the United Nations, has consistently failed to produce a settlement by which the Greek-Cypriot and Turkish-Cypriot communities could rebuild their fragile political relationship. Unofficial interventions have been limited in consistency, and their direct connection to official decisionmaking has been minimal. More recently, unofficial efforts have focused on the grass-roots level, and have engaged hundreds of influential individuals in bicommunal interactions. Nonetheless, the parties remain locked in an adversarial frame that is self-perpetuating and mutually destructive, and that might only be altered through a comprehensive and sustained unofficial track of conflict analysis and resolution that can overcome the trauma of the past and address the basic needs of the parties.

Protracted social conflicts rooted in the denial of the basic needs of identity groups are highly resistant to de‐escalation. The difficulty of following peacekeeping with successful peacemaking calls for the fuller development of peacebuilding, defined as interactive and developmental activities to improve the relationship and address basic needs. A contingency model of third‐party intervention provides a context for peacebuilding in which approaches to peace are coordinated and sequenced for maximal effect. The Cyprus dispute illustrates the potential role that peacebuilding could play in resolving intractable conflicts.