The Theory Of The Conflict Trap

1) Based on your readings, in class lectures, notes and discussions, in one to two

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

Why do international wars tend to be resolved so much more quickly than civil wars?

When a researcher studies the causes of most wars, the causes for nearly any war are usually innumerable. However, there are a select few wars that even in the presence of several different motives, one underlying object or ideal seems to always be the root of the problem. One prime example of this idea is the American Civil War wherein almost every individual soldier had a different reason for being on the battlefront. One nation whose people had grown into a melting pot had slowly been torn down the center for several decades before the inevitable war came. Slavery seemed to affect everything in the United States during the time leading up to, during, and even after the Civil War. Thus, the issue was unavoidable, and whatsoever conflict

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.

War is easily explained through the lens of social conflict theory, a sociological theory that suggests society tends toward conflict because it is made up of groups with competing interests and unequal resources. The theory proposes that a

“The most widely accepted relationship between economic factors and civil war is that high-income nations are less likely to experience civil wars than low-income nations.” (Dixon 714). The disagreements over how to spend money and tax imported goods, and how territories should be distributed, cause this one nation to fight against each other.

War is not a common phenomenon anymore after the post cold war era. According a research conducted on active armed conflict across the world at the Uppsala University in Sweden, of all the 101 active armed conflicted between the late 80s and mid 90s, only six were actually between two different states (Solenberg &Wallensteen, 1997). These statistics clearly indicates that the conflict in today's world is more internal and ethnic based.

Civil Wars are often never good for the country or countries involved. They often split people in the countries apart from each other and can lead to mass destruction and mass causalities amongst the fighting country. Civil Wars can also have a very big impact on the development of the country and sometimes can be a very beneficial thing for the country involved even though it may not seem like it at the time.

Conflict Theory derives from the ideas of Karl Marx, who saw humanity as a ground of disparity that generates conflict and social change (Delisi, 2002,

Conflict between and within nations is proven by history to be expected, but the answer to which countries are at a higher risk for conflict depends on whom you are asking. The reading “Ethnicity, Insurgency and Civil War” by James D. Fearon and David D. Laitin, argues that the conditions that favour insurgency are better predictors of which countries are at risk for internal conflict. Determining which countries are at a higher risk depends on multiple logical factors for the perfect environment for rebellion to occur. These factors are based on the political, economic, and organization of the state in question. Fearon and Laitin dissect the formula for rebellion piece by piece over the course of the entire article. By the end it left me in

In the post-cold war era, with the rise of globalisation and the interdependence of markets, one can observe the moribund decline of traditional inter-state conflicts and the rise of more complex intra-state conflicts. The reasons behind these conflicts are manifold but at the heart is arguably always a conflict of interest between two or more groups. The Uppsala Conflict Data Project (2016) defines armed

The article “Explaining the Severity of Civil Wars” by Bethany Lacina looks at why some civil wars are more deadly as compared to others by investigating a new data set that shows the number of combat deaths in civil wars from 1946 to 2002. The article looks at the statistics behind the deaths in the conflicts such as the era, the type of conflict ant the region that the conflict takes place in. The article also uses the strength of the state, the type of regime and cultural characteristics in a test to see if they are predictors for the number of combat deaths in a conflict.

The empirical study of Collier and Hoeffler of 2004 will serve as starting point and basis of this paper, as it has initiated the debate about whether greed or grievance explanations about the origins of civil wars are inferior, as well as it was extremely famous and influential - not only in the academic sector, but also in policy and donor circles and the media (Berdal, 2005; Keen). However, because policy implications resulting out of their economic based conclusion are not overall appropriate, the study needs to be revisited with new data and novel approaches.

The conflict theory approach emphasizes issues of inequality and change in relation to social class, money, race ethnicity and gender. The conflict theory pinpoints the belief that these social classifications are parasitic: only benefiting one group while negatively affecting another. In particular, the social conflict approach focuses on the struggles that lower-class people face in a world where the rich and powerful benefits at their expense. Persons of the lower-class are often disadvantaged, since they are not given a chance to move ahead and are always stuck at the bottom of the social ladder. Upper-class individuals are able to fully educate their children, and hence, their generation will always be rich and powerful. However, a weakness