Peace and Conflicts!!

IB SL Global Politics - Peace & Conflict

Negative Peace

Negative Peace

Absence of war/violent conflict

BUT there is still tension (structural or cultural or both)

Positive Peace

Absence of war/violent conflict

Tensions/contradictions are resolved

Stage 1 of Peace

Absence of war

negative peace

Stage 2 of Peace

Balance of forces

Prevents war through stability

Note: Hegemonic stability theory → single dominant power creates stability

Stage 3 of Peace

No structural violence (positive peace)

Stage 4 of Peace

Feminist peace (removal of discrimination)

Stage 5 of Peace

Humans living sustainably and harmoniously with environment

Stage 6 of Peace

Individual

Spiritual/religious

What is violence?

a manifestation of conflict due to incompatible goals. Thus resulting in harm to one or more of the parties involved

Misconceptions of conflict

1. caused by single factors

2. conflict parties are unitary actors

3. it’s always visible

4. always undesirable

5. needs to be settled

6. requires a third-party intervention

Realist focus on conflict

only focus on “state”/inter-state conflict & alliences

Liberal focus on conflict

increase in NSAs (non-state actors) means that it’s no longer just about “states”

Typology 1: COW

Correlates of War (Project of the University of Michigan)

• inter-state conflict

• extra-state conflict

• internationalized internal conflict

• intra-state conflict

• NSA conflict

Inter-state conflict

between states/governmental parties

Extra-state conflict

between state and a non-state group outside its territory

(usually colonial/imperial wars)

after de-colonisation is uncommon

Internationalized internal conflict

between the govt. of a state and internal opposition WITH international intervention from other states

Intra-state (internal) conflict

beweetn govt. of a state and internal opposition WITHOUT intervention from other states

Non state conflicts

the groups involved are not under the govt./state

Typology 2: Fr Christopher Moore (MOORE)

• relationship

• data

• interest

• structural

• value

Relationship conflict

when parties are upset with e/o

one party has a negative stereotype of the other

poor communication damaging relations

Data conflict

inadequate/untrustworthy data

when parties distort/hide/downplay/exaggerate information

Interest conflicts

real/perceived competitive interests

• over land/resources/markets/influence

Structural conflict

structural violence

tension between those trying to solve issues & those resisting

Value conflicts

similar to structural conflicts

different criteria used to evaluate ideas/behaviours

focused on ideology/religion/culture

Why is conflict good/needed?

inevitable of human social interations (can’t always agree w e/o)

natural/constructive for human interaction

is important for a functioning democracy - political parties alw argue about how to govern a state

it’s only bad if it results in violence

Types of violence

Direct

structural

cultural

Direct violence

Physical force that leads to harm (lethal/non-lethal)

most visible

eg. armed conflict, terrorist attacks, riot police dispersing protesters

Structural violence

responsibility of the govt.

social injustice & inequality

people are harmed bc of the social/political/legal structures created within the state

results in - lack of healthcare, housing, employment opportunities etc.

less noticable

Cultural violence

embedded in all levels of society

beliefs & values

committed anywhere

driven in the mindset, so hard to remove

Just war theory

when should war be allowed and how to conduct it. (usually abt inter-state)

Just cause in war

should be fought for moral purposes

Just manner of conduct in war

the war itself should be fought justly

(no POWs, avoid civilian casualties, violence shld be proportional)

Jus ad bello

having just cause

being a last resort

being declared by a proper authority

possessing right intention

having a reasonable chance of success

the end being proportional to the means used.

Jus in bello

the law that governs the way in which warfare is conducted

Jus post bello

deals with the morality of the termination phase of war, including the responsibility to rebuild.

Humanitarian intervention

3rd party using military force to intervene in an armed conflict to protect civilians and stop violatins of human rights (ie. war crimes, genocide, crimes against humanity)

Has implications to sovereignty

Manifestation of conflict

direct violence

direct, can be seen, visible

Latent conflicts

Cultural & structural

indirect, usually not visible

What does Galtung say about conflict?

due to incompatible goals

What does Gerstandt say about conflict?

referring to latent conflicts which leads to “tension of difference”

Most conflicts begin before they manifest

observable actions taken by conflict parties are the manifestations of the underlying conflicts (structural/cultural)

Examples of Conflict manifestations

• resolutions

• avoidance

• activism

• discrimination

• demonstration

• civil disobedience

• violent protests

• arms proliferation

• nuclear deterrence

• guerilla warfare

• terrorism

• genocide

• intrastate war

• interstate war

Conflict party

any actor directly/indirectly involved in a conflict is a conflict party

• state actors

• non-state actors

• transnational actors

• IGOs/NGOs

• militias/freedom fighters/terrorists

• protesters/activists

• individuals

social identity theory

Derives esteem from a group that they positively identify with, therefore they favor it. However, they view the opposition negatively even if their situations are similar

In-groups/out-groups

we judge people similar to us (in-group) better than people different to us (out-group)

Dehumanisation

However, due to in/out group mindsets, we tend to normalize or even glamorize harming the out-groups, even if we won’t be happy with the same harm done to us.

we think it’s okay to dehumanize them just because they are not like us

Unitary actor

treats state as a single entity with the aim to max national interest

Rational actor

decisions are made due to calculated benefits

Galtung’s conflict triangle

Greed

“how do I benefit?”

people fight over opportunistic reasons, cost-benefit calculations, alternative income etc.

Grievance

“how have they wronged me?”

people fight over inequality, discrimination, authro

Peacekeeping

3rd party breaking up the conflict parties and separating them

Peacemaking

coming up with a solution to solve the conflict

Peacebuilding

3rd party monitoring the conflict parties to make sure that they follow through with the negotiation/peace settlement

Ways that 3rd parties intervene

• humanitarian intervention

• direct military assistance

• financial/economic assistance

• weapon sales/embargos

• trade sanctions/freezes/embargoes

• treaty organisation (eg. NATO) involvement

• election observation

• brokering (mediator)/negotation of peace treaties or ceasefires

• multilateral (more than the conflict parties involved) agreements

6 fold typology (before conflict climax)

1. conciliation

2. consultation

3. pure mediation

4. power mediation

5. arbitration

6. peacekeeping

6 fold typology: conciliation

trusted 3rd party gets the conflict parties to negotiate the problem

6 fold typology: consultation

3rd party brings out the expertise and tries to find a problem to the solution

6 fold typology: pure mediation

using persuasion/reasoning/etc. to convince both parties to settle on a negotiated settlement

6 fold typology: power mediation

uses coercion (not actual force, more like promised rewards or punishment)

may involve a third party to monitor agreement

6 fold typology: arbitration

3rd parties gives a binding judgement to impose a settlement that is fair and just

6 fold typology: peacekeeping

3rd party provides military personnel to monitor a ceasefire/agreement

might also engage in humanitarian activities/assist the management of political decision-making processes (ie. elections)

Contingency approach

conflicts are a mixture of objective and subjective interest

when conflict escalates, usually subjective interest increases, later resulting in both parties seeing different realities

Conflict escalation

1. discussion

2. polarisation

3. segregation

4. destruction

Conflict escalation: discussion

parties maintain a respectful relationship & are both wanting to find a joint gain on objective interests

Conflict escalation: polarisation

relationship deteriorate and negative perceptions (stereotypes) and emotions (hostitility) emerge

Conflict escalation: segregation

subjective interests increases, high levels of mistrust, limited direct communication, threats, increased “good vs evil”

Conflict escalation: destruction

conflict parties sees e/o as subhuman

if the losing end feels hopeless, they resort to just settle for losing