Conflict Termination Outcomes And Recurrence

As Cierco(Source A) said to his son, “physical force… is characteristic of man.” Peace may last for some time, but differing views on complicated issues means fighting for what you believe is right. For example, the Cold War clearly supports this message because the US strongly believed in democratic values and they were fighting against the Soviet Union who desired to spread communism. The Cold War strengthened US politically because they maintained their democratic values and contained communism by helping out countries that were devastated after World War II. The US was strictly against communism because it harmed their democratic views and because this could not be solved through discussion, the Cold War was bound to happen. The US and USSR wanted to gain more allies through the spread of their own ideologies but, the Soviet Union clearly had a negative intent of spreading their power on the world. The US policy of containment weakened the Soviet Union because they were not able to spread communism and therefore led to the fall of their empire. This shows that war can either strengthen countries or weaken countries who abuse their use of power. Action must be taken against countries who have a negative purpose of spreading their power and if not resolved through discussion, this means going to

We begn by offering a simplified model of johan Galtungs seminal thinking on the relationship between conflict violence and peace.

Throughout history, our world has constantly been bruised and battered by civil turmoil. Today, the civil war in Syria decimates the country; the Israeli and Palestinian conflict rages on; tens of thousands of people have been killed in South Sudan's ongoing civil war. It is not always easy to isolate what exactly ignites the flames of war, but, whenever possible, finding a workable, calm and satisfying solution to a potential uprising is preferable.

If the parties reach a solution, it may be necessary to repair the relationships that may have been damaged during the escalated conflict

This essay will focus on how theorists of peace and conflict have analysed the conflict in recent history. Especially, the peace process after the first Palestinian intifada and the 1993 Oslo-agreements will be analysed. In addition, this essay will shed light on the involvement of the United States in the

In the world today, ideological differences are the root causes of many conflicts between individuals or nations and if allowed to aggravate, it becomes the brush strokes for a canvas that turn out to be the portrait of an all-out warfare. However, before countries engage in militarism, it is prudent that the leadership takes pragmatic steps towards a peaceable resolution because the misconception among architects of conflict is to further private agenda for their personal benefit. In a blind quest for gratification, these benefits are an opportunity cost for the larger society who is the unfortunate recipient of the ensuing anarchy. Nothing is fair in war; casualties caught up within the crossfire

Next, I control for several factors that also influence the recurrence of war in a post-conflict society. First, the duration of previous civil wars affects the probability of winning and the amount of time actors must fight to achieve victory should they choose to resume fighting. Previous war duration in years is used to control for this.

In presenting the rationale behind the publication of the third edition to their book, Ramsbotham, Woodhouse and Miall, explain how the field of conflict resolution has emerged as a specialization in the post-Cold War era. The authors “argue that it is an integral part of work for development, social justice, and social transformation”. As the fundamental challenges linked with state fragility surface, the development of conflict resolution and the related perspectives gain relevance, and will increasingly become more relevant when responding to changing societies; particularly where social bounds are weak due to a lack of consensus between values and traditions. This evolution in conflict analysis is a reflection of the evolution of classical

Factors such as lack of information on the opposing part, commitment problems, and indivisibility among rebel groups provide another obstacle for the government to overcome if it wishes to end conflict before the war. Which in the long run serves as an explanation as to why for most groups, it is easier and often financially cheaper to go war rather than negotiate with an opposing party. In short, civil wars and terrorism are a byproduct of “bargaining

Rudolf and Findley (2016) look into whether the fragmentation of combatants throughout civil war has any long lasting effects on the ability of peace following civil wars. they state that the splintering of combatant groups, will produce potential spoiler groups that are neither related nor insignificant in the course of civil war resolution. The connections made with the spoiling and credible commitment literatures, the authors hypothesize that rebel splintering speeds the reappearance of civil wars. The results advocate the need to pay more attention to the dynamics of fragmentation. “For example, governments that attempt to splinter groups or to use existing fragmentations within rebel groups to end a civil war may encourage the unintended

Peace negotiating can be an extremely daunting task. The demands of opposing factions can create a list of the perfect ingredients to an impossible comprise which leads to a recipe of everlasting quarrels. Throughout history, there has been many nations with internal conflict that has been a victim of the recipe of quarrels time and time again. In my paper I will focus on two different conflicts, one in which who has been able to create a recipe for successful peace in the land, and another in which is still a victim of the recipe that leads to everlasting fights. The conflict I am focusing on that has been able to successfully bring its disagreements into a compromise is the Protestant and Catholic conflict in Northern Ireland during the 20th century. For the dispute that has not been able to create a successful policy agreement, I am focusing on the Palestinian and Israel conflict in the Middle East. The problem in which I analyze is whether or not Palestine and Israel can put together some ingredients that can lead to a recipe of compromise and peace. In the paper I argue that the International Criminal Court is a key ingredient the conflict has been missing and could serve as a peace tool like the Good Friday Agreement has in Northern Ireland.

“Give War a Chance” is an article written by the American economist, historian and military strategist Edward Nicolae Luttwak in 1999, in the American magazine Foreign Affairs. It make an easily understandable “buzz”, since its main assumption is that most kind of peacekeeping or humanitarian operations are, in an objective point of view, a bad thing for the peace, and that it tends, paradoxically, to slower its establishment. We will analyze here the main hypothesis that Luttwak is developing among the article, the first one being the destruction of the legitimacy usually accorded to peacekeeping operations, led by the UN or by other military organizations, and the second one being the obstacle to a durable peace establishment, created

Although the claim that the collapse of the Oslo negotiations was due to a failure of process rather than of substance carries some weight, I will argue that had the substance of the terms of Oslo been more explicit and had they avoided an open-ended gradualism approach, I doubt that the ensuing process would have had such a devastating effect on the negotiations. In the following essay I will analyse the key reasons for the failure of Oslo, namely the constructive ambiguity of the terms themselves and how this contributed to creating conflicting misconceptions regarding the final settlement, the lack of an explicit commitment to the two-state solution as the end-point of the negotiations and finally the gradualist structure for the peace

The aim of this paper is to assess power sharing as a war termination settlement by identifying power sharing institutions along different state dimensions after a civil war, and then laying out its advantages and drawbacks. ‘Do power sharing agreements lead to peaceful resolution on civil war between government and insurgents?’ will be

According to peace conflict resolution studies the strategies for managing potential spoilers of a peace agreement are necessary. “Spoilers” are groups that aim to disrupt any peace agreement either because their interests were not represented or included in the negotiations or because they perceive themselves to benefit more from ongoing violent conflict. Peace processes often exclude spoilers because they do indeed aim to disrupt efforts toward peace. The dilemma in any high-level negotiation is whether to include potential and manifest spoilers. If the process includes both spoilers, they may make it impossible for moderates to make progress in areas where they find common ground across the lines of conflict. On the other hand, a peace process that excludes all potential spoilers may not have anyone around the table. If so-called spoilers are left out of the process because they are more difficult to work with, then they often come back later to disrupt the implementation of an agreement. Excluding potential spoilers can increase their commitment to violence by removing viable political alternatives (Schirch, Rafiee, & Sakhi, 2013).