Galtung Model Of Conflict

In his writing, he stated that war is intrinsically vast, communal (or political) and violent. It is an actual, widespread and deliberate armed conflict between political communities, motivated by a sharp disagreement over governance” (p.135)

In general, conflict theory is to explain the conflict between authority groups and powerless groups through the uneven distribution of power and resources in society (Lai, 2013). It is based entirely in power and how those in power do all they can to hold the majority of the population down and to keep them from gaining power, so as to secure their own position. Conflict theorists all assume that the existing social order is not a product of consensus and mutual benefit but rather a function of power differentials in society. These perspectives recognize that societal resources are limited and contend that opposing groups are in a constant struggle for a greater share of the resources and power that comes with them. As groups struggle to gain

His approach attempts to consider deeper causes of intrastate violence than traditional case-studies have done (Newman 2014, 63). Newman identifies four general types of civil war: ethnic, political-ideological, weakened or failed state, and resource-based (Newman 2014, 63-65). Most intrastate conflicts can be characterized by a combination of these classifications and their influences. Newman defines four loose requirements for a conflict to be considered using this model. First, a conflict must mainly occur within the borders of an internationally recognized state to be considered “civil” rather than interstate (Newman 2014, 62). Secondly, civil wars are fought between organized groups rather than individuals or unorganized affiliates (Newman 2014, 62). Governmental military forces fit this mold, but are not required for a conflict to be deemed as intrastate. Third, there must be evidence of sustained violence. Newman defines this threshold as 1,000 fatalities (Newman 2014, 62). Last, belligerents must be fighting with a political objective in mind (Newman 2014, 62). This requirement is given a wide range of applicability, as almost any objectives of a group can be defined as political. The Nigerian civil war of the late 1960s fits all of these parameters, and can therefore be analyzed using the typologic system devised by

Conflict, according to Wilmot & Hocker (2011), is defined as an expressed struggle between at least two interdependent parties who perceive incompatible goals, scarce resources, and interference from others in achieving their goals.

Theoretically significant to conflict is social identity theory. It allows “predictions to incorporate who is likely to perceive and act in group terms, to remain committed to the group in times of crisis” Turner (1999), Doosje & Ellemers, (1999). Bar-Tal stresses conflict exists when an incompatible goal exists between two groups. The question of when incompatibility sets become important in understanding the cause of inter-ethnic or communal conflicts for instance, even more importantly; conflict within ingroup. Inter-ethnic or communal conflict because within the scope of peacebuilding, that is the point where building peace thrives the most. There is an assumption that for peacebuilding to be

Throughout history there have been a lot of conflicts between many different groups of people. A conflict is a disagreement between a group of people. There are a lot of causes that could lead up to a conflict between groups of people. The Reign of Terror and the Holocaust affects two different groups by killing many people.

The conflict in Myanmar is best described under a “soft” rational choice/instrumental approach. The conflict in Myanmar has incredible historical context that can specifically be related to Horowitz’s causal mechanisms of conflict. In an article by Donald Horowitz, he explains the “hard” and “soft” approaches to violence. The conflict in Myanmar can be understood using a “soft” approach because it is apparent that Muslims and Buddhists in Myanmar “ can be decomposed into the motives of their members, that they are instruments for the pursuit of those motives, and that their actions need to be explained in terms of individual calculations of utility in specific

Conflict theory sees societies comprised of groups with conflicting values and interests. (Vold et al. 1998)

Analyzing the political and historical context (the Cold War) in which this theory emerged, the binary opposition of Peace vis-à-vis War, was useful to explain the domestic and international political context. Currently, Realism fails as a lens to explain the world. Taking into consideration not only that the world economic situation, political structures and social context have changed dramatically, this theory is epistemologically weak. Gordon explained that binary approaches exclude all the nuances that exist in social reality. He argued that “there must be something essentially wrong with binaries and this is asserted by a critical perspective that is against making essential claims. Why must binaries be outlawed in an analysis? Binaries persist in many settings where they are not only accurate ascriptions but also productive […]-Binary opposition- constitutes a structure of is and is-not. […] the possibilities that constitute is-not are infinite. That which is-not is not necessarily in opposition to what-is without an added value of what it means for something to be. (2008, p.19). Therefore, Realism, Neo-realism and Liberal Peace theory have the same epistemological shortfall. Despite the basic premises of the three

Conflict is “an expressed struggle between at least two interdependent parties who perceive incompatible goals, scarce resources, and interference from others in achieving their goals” (Hocker, 1991). There are two basic types of conflicts: substantive and emotional. According to Schermerhorn et.al., substantive conflict is a fundamental disagreement over ends or goals to be pursued and the means for their

Victor Davis Hanson addresses numerous questions concerning the concept of war and its multitude of effects in his article entitled, ‘The Utility of War’. By this extent, he discusses the positive and negative aspects, as well as the reason wars take place, and even how they often end.

This essay will analyse what is new about new wars. It will firstly present the new – old dichotomy presented throughout the literature, which distinguishes four broad categories of transformation: the scope of warfare, the transition from ideological to

Conflict is defined as the behaviour due to which people differ in their feelings, thought and/or actions. Collins (1995) states that the conflict is a ‘serious disagreement and argument about something important’ and also as ‘a serious difference between two or more beliefs, ideas or interests’ (cf. Kumaraswamy, 1997, p. 96). In general it is believed that conflicts are the underlying cause of disputes. In other words, dispute is a manifestation of the deep rooted conflict. A dispute is defined as ‘a class or kind of conflict, which manifests itself in distinct, justifiable issues. It involves disagreement over issues capable of resolution by negotiation, mediation or third party adjudication’

1. International conflict among countries is more likely of what we may think. Today there are many different ongoing conflicts. International conflict is a stage of opposition, disagreement or incompatibility between two or more states (Malek). The term "international conflict" referred to conflicts between different nations and conflicts between people and organizations in different nations (Mr. Turetzky lec 11). It also applies to inter-group conflicts within one country when one group is fighting for independence or increased social, political, or economic power. International conflicts can be divided into two branches: private international conflict and public international conflict. A private international conflict is a disagreement

Conflicts are international problems and require global rather than national effort to eliminate and therefore the international society to recognize it to eliminate the institutions that make war likely. Therefore, the humanitarian organizations have increasingly stressed the need for the international community to embrace principles of human rights, diversity, good governance and participation when responding to situations of insecurity and violent conflict (Botha, 1989). Ethnic conflicts are therefore often caused by an attempt to secure more power or access more resources and in states that have those that have ended, they seem to have difficulties in reconciling the communities (Horowitz, 1985). The first theory is Gurr 's relative deprivation theory which offers an explanation based on an ethnic groups ' access to power and economic resources (Gurr, 1970). This is closely related to Horowitz, who wrote that group worth is based on the results of economic and political competitions. The second theory is from the primordial school and stresses the uniqueness and the overriding importance of ethnic identity. From their point of view, ethnicity is a biological and fixed characteristic of individuals and communities (Geertz , 1963). Additionally, scholars ' attention has also shifted to the nature of ethnic conflict and violence because the post-Cold War era has been marked by the rebirth of ethnic conflict like in South Sudan and even genocide in