Comprehensive Study Notes on Conflict Management and Resolution

Fundamental Definitions and Levels of Conflict

Conflict is formally defined as a disagreement or struggle between two or more individuals, groups, or countries. The scale of conflict is highly variable, ranging from small occurrences—such as two students disagreeing over the sharing of classroom materials—to very large-scale events, such as a war between two nations. It is important to note that conflict is not inherently negative; it can serve as a catalyst for social change and systemic improvement. However, when conflict is poorly managed, it possesses the potential to cause serious harm to individuals and entire societies.

Conflict operates at several distinct levels, and identifying the level is crucial for understanding its core causes and selecting the most appropriate resolution method:

Personal Conflict: This level of conflict occurs specifically between individuals.

Community Conflict: This level takes place between groups within a single society.

International Conflict: This level involves disputes between different countries.

Johan Galtung's Framework: Types of Violence and Peace

Johan Galtung, a Norwegian peace researcher born in $1930$, significantly expanded the academic understanding of violence and peace. Prior to Galtung's research, violence was predominantly understood only as physical fighting or warfare. Galtung proposed that violence can also be embedded within social systems and cultural attitudes. He identified three specific types of violence:

Direct Violence: This is the most visible form of violence, occurring when a person or group intentionally causes harm to another. Examples include organized warfare, physical bullying, and terrorist attacks. Historical context includes the British settlers in Australia using direct violence to forcibly remove Aboriginal communities from their ancestral lands. Similarly, in the conflict between the United States and Native Americans, soldiers were deployed to forcibly remove tribes from their territories, causing clear physical harm.

Structural Violence: This form of violence is more hidden and occurs when social systems, laws, or institutions prevent specific groups from meeting their basic needs, thereby creating inequality. Even if no individual is directly attacking another, the structure of society itself causes suffering. For instance, the U.S. government utilized treaty systems that Native American groups did not fully understand or agree to, yet the legal and political structures enforced them, systematically denying Native Americans land, rights, and self-determination. Another example is the apartheid era in South Africa, where laws explicitly denied Black citizens equal access to education, employment, and political power.

Cultural Violence: This is the most invisible type, referring to the beliefs, traditions, and social attitudes that normalize or justify direct or structural violence. For example, when European settlers held the belief that they were superior to Indigenous peoples, this cultural attitude made it easier to justify the seizure of land and the denial of rights. While cultural violence does not hurt people directly, it creates the essential conditions under which structural and direct violence can occur and be socially accepted.

Galtung also defined two distinct types of peace:

Negative Peace: This refers simply to the absence of direct violence, such as an absence of active fighting or open war. However, in a state of negative peace, structural injustices often remain. For example, after the U.S. and Native American tribes signed treaties, there were periods of no fighting, but the treaties remained unfair and structural violence persisted. Two countries signing a ceasefire achieve negative peace, but the underlying injustice is not resolved.

Positive Peace: This is a deeper, more stable form of peace. It requires not only the absence of war but also the active presence of justice, fairness, and equal rights for all members of society. An example is the Dayton Agreement of $1995$, which ended the war in Bosnia and Herzegovina. The country began rebuilding schools and institutions, which were steps toward positive peace; however, because ethnic divisions and economic inequality persisted, positive peace was not fully achieved.

Galtung's primary insight is the interconnectedness of these concepts: cultural violence normalizes structural violence, which can eventually explode into direct violence. Therefore, lasting peace requires addressing systemic unfairness and challenging harmful cultural beliefs.

Categorization of the Causes of Conflict

Conflicts rarely occur suddenly and are typically driven by a combination of two types of causes:

Long-term causes: These are deep, underlying problems that accumulate over a long duration.

Short-term causes: These are immediate events or "triggers" that set off the conflict.

In the conflict between indigenous communities in Ecuador and the oil company Texaco (later Chevron), the long-term cause was decades of environmental damage from oil drilling without proper regulations, which contaminated rivers and land. The short-term cause was the decision by community leaders, scientists, and lawyers in the early $1990\text{s}$ to initiate legal action.

In Bosnia and Herzegovina, the long-term causes involved decades of ethnic and religious tension between Bosniaks, Serbs, and Croats within Yugoslavia. When communist political control weakened, nationalist leaders exploited historical grievances. The short-term cause was the independence referendum in $1992$, which triggered armed conflict.

In the Eritrea-Ethiopia border war, the long-term cause was a vaguely drawn colonial-era border, while the short-term cause was a local military clash in $1998$ over the disputed town of Badme.

In the U.S.-China trade conflict, the long-term causes were structural economic imbalances—where China exported significantly more to the U.S. than it imported—and disputes regarding intellectual property. The short-term trigger was the U.S. decision in $2018$ to impose tariffs on Chinese goods, leading to an immediate response from China and the resulting trade war.

Multi-dimensional Consequences of Conflict

Conflict produces varied consequences categorized into human, economic, social, and environmental impacts:

Bosnia and Herzegovina: The consequences were catastrophic, with over $100,000$ people killed and approximately $2 \text{ million}$ people displaced. Sarajevo was under siege for nearly $4$ years, causing civilians to lack food, water, and medical supplies. Economically, bridges, factories, and railways were destroyed. The Srebrenica massacre of $1995$, where more than $8,000$ Bosniak men and boys were killed, remains one of the worst European atrocities since the Second World War.

Ecuador: The consequences were both economic and environmental. While oil production generated national income, local indigenous communities suffered from polluted rivers, contaminated soil, and rising health issues, which ultimately slowed long-term regional economic development.

U.S.-China Trade War: The consequences included increased prices for consumers, job losses, and global financial market instability due to the interconnected nature of international supply chains.

Methods for Conflict Management and Resolution

Several structured methods exist for resolving conflicts, each with specific advantages and drawbacks:

Negotiation: This involves parties talking directly to reach an agreement. For example, U.S. and Chinese trade representatives signed the Phase One agreement in January $2020$. Advantage: Relative speed and flexibility. Disadvantage: One side may dominate, or no full agreement may be reached.

Mediation: A neutral third party guides communication but does not make the final decision. In Bosnia, the European Union acted as a mediator between ethnic groups. Advantage: Peaceful and gives both sides a voice. Disadvantage: Fails if one side refuses to cooperate.

Arbitration: Parties agree in advance to accept the decision of an independent arbitrator. In the Eritrea-Ethiopia conflict, both nations used the Eritrea-Ethiopia Boundary Commission (EEBC) at the Permanent Court of Arbitration in The Hague. In $2002$, Badme was awarded to Eritrea. Advantage: Clear, legally binding decision. Disadvantage: Depends on the willingness of parties to comply; Ethiopia rejected the ruling for many years.

Litigation: Solving conflict in court where a judge makes a binding decision. In Ecuador, indigenous communities sued Texaco/Chevron in $1993$, resulting in a $2011$ ruling that Chevron must pay $\$9.5 \text{ billion}$ in compensation. Advantage: Useful for rights violations and drawing public attention. Disadvantage: Expensive, slow (the Ecuador case lasted over $20$ years), and hard to enforce internationally.

Coercion: Using direct pressure, such as military force or economic sanctions. During the $1962$ Cuban Missile Crisis, the U.S. used a naval blockade to pressure the Soviet Union to remove missiles. Advantage: Effective for immediate action when one side has more power. Disadvantage: Creates fear and mistrust, risks escalation to war, and does not foster long-term peace.

Individual and Group Styles of Conflict

There are five primary styles people and groups use to approach conflict:

1. Competing: Aiming to win at all costs. It is fast and useful for emergencies but can damage relationships.

2. Compromising: Each side gives up something to reach a middle ground. It is fair and fast but might not fully satisfy anyone.

3. Accommodating: One side gives in to maintain peace. This supports harmony but can result in one party's needs being ignored over time.

4. Avoiding: Ignoring or delaying the conflict. This prevents escalation of small issues but fails to solve underlying problems.

5. Collaborating: Both sides work together for a mutually satisfying solution. This offers the best long-term outcomes but requires significant time and trust.

Questions and Discussion

Based on Source A, which describes the $1998$-$2000$ war between Eritrea and Ethiopia over the town of Badme:

Question A1: State one long-term cause of the conflict between Eritrea and Ethiopia. Answer: The colonial-era border was vague and unclear, or both countries interpreted old treaties differently leading to disputed territory.

Question A2: State one consequence of the Eritrea-Ethiopia war mentioned in Source A. Answer: Between $70,000$ and $100,000$ people were killed, or the conflict displaced hundreds of thousands of people.

Question A3: Explain why arbitration was chosen as the method of conflict resolution in this case. In your answer, refer to what arbitration means. Answer: Arbitration is a process where parties agree in advance to accept an independent decision. It was chosen because both countries signed the Algiers Agreement ($2000$) after diplomatic negotiations failed and a formal legal boundary decision was required.

Question A4: The arbitration ruling was described as 'final and binding,' yet Ethiopia did not implement it for many years. What does this tell us about the limitations of arbitration as a method of conflict resolution? Answer: Arbitration depends heavily on the political will of the parties to comply. A ruling lacks practical effect if a side refuses implementation, as seen when Ethiopia rejected aspects of the ruling, creating a 'no war, no peace' standoff. This suggests that while arbitration provides legal clarity, it cannot force compliance; political changes or new leadership are often required for resolution.