From conflict management to collective conflict management: the rise of networks forms of conflict management between international organizations

Abstract

Existing IR studies have underlined how much International organizations' strategies have evolved. The most obvious transformation is the increase of networked forms of conflict management arrangements such as simultaneous peace operations, ad-hoc coalitions, joint programs or joint opinions. These forms of interventions, characterized by the co-involvement of several types of actors challenge both realistic views of third parties' cooperation in conflicts and methodological approaches of this phenomenon. In this paper, I propose to use the new Database on Inter-Organizational Relations in Conflicts (DIORc) in order to compare, with a social network perspective, the interplay between inter-governmental organizations in two conflicts. The aim of the paper is twofold: first, the network perspective is used to open the black box of multipartite intervention. Cooperation is designed as an affiliation network where 'actors' represent the IGO's institutions (parliaments.) and 'events' are conflict management activities in which actors are involved. Secondly, this paper seeks to contribute to the understanding of cooperation in peace and conflicts. The contemporary conflict management doctrine is based on a comprehensive approach that includes two aspects: First, all the dimensions of a conflict should be addressed and second, institutional overlapping should be avoided through the division of labor between conflict managers. However, analysis of the level of coordination temper the comprehensive argument, suggesting that collaborative advantage rather linked to legitimacy than efficiency. Second, following Putman (2000)'s distinction between 'bridging' and 'bonding', this paper shows that transorganizational actions occur more frequently between homogeneous groups of institutions than across divers groups.