Conflict Analysis and Resolution as a Field: Core Concepts and Issues - Oxford Research Encyclopedia of International Studies

Conflict Analysis and Resolution as a Field: Core Concepts and Issues

Page 1 of 23

PRINTED FROM the OXFORD RESEARCH ENCYCLOPEDIA, INTERNATIONALSTUDIES (oxfordre.com/internationalstudies).

details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice).

Subscriber: Syracuse University; date: 20 December 2018

Summary and Keywords

Core concepts of the interdisciplinary social science field of conflict analysis and

resolution (CAR) are discussed. Work in the field is based on numerous generally

accepted ideas about the nature of conflict and constructive approaches to conflict. These

ideas include ways of waging conflicts constructively, tracing the interconnectedness of

conflicts, and assessing the multiplicity of actors. Other important core concepts relate to

stages of conflicts: emergence, escalation, de-escalation and settlement, and sustaining

peace. Finally, current and future issues regarding CAR conceptualizations and their

applications are examined.

Keywords: conflict management, constructive conflicts, de-escalation, future work, interaction, interconnected

conflict, nonviolent struggle, normative concerns, peace, stages of conflict

Introduction

This article addresses core concepts of the interdisciplinary social science field of conflict

analysis and resolution (CAR), primarily in terms of ideas, as expressed in the literature,

about the ways in which conflicts can be done constructively. In focusing on the ideas that

constitute the field, it looks at relevant theory and research, treating CAR as an

interdisciplinary social science field, particularly as it relates to international relations.

Additionally, it considers some relatively prescriptive writing when it derives from a

degree of empirical evidence. Significantly, peace studies is one of the sources for the

field, and it now overlaps with and contributes to the field (Kriesberg, 1991). Peace

studies work helps to foster normative concerns about the goals sought in waging

conflicts and the strategies for reaching them.

Conflict Analysis and Resolution as a Field: Core

Concepts and Issues

Louis Kriesberg and Joyce Neu

Subject: Conflict Studies Online Publication Date: Nov 2018

DOI: 10.1093/acrefore/9780190846626.013.512



Oxford Research Encyclopedia of International

Studies

Conflict Analysis and Resolution as a Field: Core Concepts and Issues

Page 2 of 23

PRINTED FROM the OXFORD RESEARCH ENCYCLOPEDIA, INTERNATIONALSTUDIES (oxfordre.com/internationalstudies).

details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice).

Subscriber: Syracuse University; date: 20 December 2018

The contemporary CAR approach builds on academic research and theorizing, as well as

on traditional and innovative practices. Scholars of the approach share a number of

generally accepted ideas about the nature of conflicts and constructive approaches to

resolving them. These ideas provide the foundation for analyzing conflicts, finding ways

of waging conflicts constructively, tracing the interconnectedness of conflicts, and

assessing the multiplicity of actors. The CAR approach tends to rely minimally, if at all, on

the use of violence in waging and settling conflicts. It also tends to emphasize the role of

external intermediaries in the ending of conflicts and in conflict processes that generate

solutions yielding some mutual gains for the opposing sides. Another important

foundational concept is stages of conflicts: emergence, escalation, de-escalation and

settlement, and sustaining peace.

As CAR evolves, workers in the field debate the salience of various ideas and even the

meaning of basic concepts in the field. This engagement has led to increased

contributions to the CAR literature by scholar-practitioners. These contributions offer a

view based on experiencing the realities of various conflicts. This section discusses these

ideas and realities, noting some contemporary variations in their interpretation

(Bercovitch, Kremenyuk, & Zartman, 2009; Coleman, Deutsch, & Marcus, 2014; Sandole,

Byrne, Sandole-Staroste, & Senehi, 2009; see also the companion article by Neu and

Kriesberg, “Conflict Analysis and Resolution: Development of the Field of Scholarship

(forthcoming),” in this encyclopedia.)

This article has three main sections. The first, “CONSTRUCTIVE APPROACHES TO

CONFLICT,” explores the generally accepted ideas about the nature of conflict and about

constructive approaches to conflict and how they play out in the scholarship on analyzing

conflicts, finding ways of waging conflicts constructively, tracing the interconnectedness

of conflicts, and assessing the multiplicity of actors. The second, “Conflict Stages,”

addresses stages of conflicts: emergence, escalation, de-escalation and settlement, and

sustaining peace. The third, “Current and Future Issues,” discusses concepts that are

likely to become more controversial as the social-political context becomes less

supportive of the CAR approach.

Constructive Approaches to Conflict

There is general consensus within the conflict analysis and resolution (CAR) community

on some core ideas about social conflicts. First, social conflicts are universal and

potentially beneficial, providing opportunities to achieve desired change. Second, social

conflicts are waged with different degrees of destructiveness, and the parties in conflict

determine how constructively or destructively they will conduct the conflict. Third, social

conflicts entail contested social constructions; each party has its own view of what the

fighting is about and who its opponents are. Fourth, social conflicts can be transformed;

no matter how entrenched the conflict, outside actors or the parties themselves can take

Conflict Analysis and Resolution as a Field: Core Concepts and Issues

Page 3 of 23

PRINTED FROM the OXFORD RESEARCH ENCYCLOPEDIA, INTERNATIONALSTUDIES (oxfordre.com/internationalstudies).

details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice).

Subscriber: Syracuse University; date: 20 December 2018

positive steps to move toward peaceful transformation. Fifth, social conflicts are dynamic

and tend to move through stages; these stages reflect the constantly changing nature of

the conflict and therefore may not always be linear (Kriesberg & Dayton, 2017).

1. Social constructions. Each party interprets its own and its adversaries’ identities,

as well as which issues are at stake, from its own vantage point. Differences between

parties’ interpretations, therefore, often are contentious.

2. Heterogeneity of adversaries. Within each party, there are different interests and

goals—notably, among and between its leaders and their constituencies others. As

relationships within the party change, a shift in the direction of the conflict may be

feasible.

3. Variety of inducements in waging conflict. These include coercive sanctions to

force change, positive inducements to reward constructive change, and the use of

persuasion to appeal to the other’s best interests and values.

4. Interconnectedness. Conflicts are interrelated and overlap in time and social

space. A conflict is not a closed system and so may be amenable to the intervention

of external intermediaries who can help transform the conflict.

5. Consideration of others. Establishing long-term legitimate relations among

adversaries by considering the opponents’ concerns and interests as well as the long-

term interests of their own people may be the most difficult challenge for everyone,

but it often brings mutual benefits (Kriesberg, 2015).

6. Mediation. Third-party intervention to assist de-escalation and negotiations among

adversaries can help to transform and settle conflicts.

7. Dynamism. Conflicts move through stages during which parties can act with

greater or lesser constructiveness to advance positive conflict transformation.

Analyzing Conflicts

There is long-standing general agreement that the initial step in engaging in or studying

a conflict is to analyze it (Schirch, 2013; U.S. Department of State, 2008; Wehr 1979). This

includes identifying the parties in the conflict and the issues in contention, as the parties

perceive them. In any large-scale conflict, each party is highly differentiated, and there

will be some variation among different groups within each entity, even regarding what is

in contention. Moreover, many other parties have an indirect interest in the conflict and

are affected by its course, and they therefore may become directly engaged in the conflict

or withdraw from engagement in the future. Thus, the parties and intermediaries in a

conflict are likely to be affected by both the possible and the actual interventions of

external actors. All parties ought to reflectively analyze a conflict before acting in it.

The perspectives of the analysts influence their analyses. Generally, people who are

engaged in a conflict, whether as partisans or as interveners, tend to focus on the explicit

positions of the parties in the conflict and how they are acting in the conflict. Those who

are less directly engaged tend to place more emphasis on the structure of the relationship

Conflict Analysis and Resolution as a Field: Core Concepts and Issues

Page 4 of 23

PRINTED FROM the OXFORD RESEARCH ENCYCLOPEDIA, INTERNATIONALSTUDIES (oxfordre.com/internationalstudies).

details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice).

Subscriber: Syracuse University; date: 20 December 2018

among the adversaries and the social context of the conflict. The former kinds of analyses

tend to emphasize factors that are amenable to change in the short term; the latter kinds

of analyses tend to emphasize structural factors that are less malleable in the short term.

The methods of engagement that people employ influence their analyses. Those who rely

heavily on military methods often tend to see conflict as framed by military force;

whereas CAR practitioners, who engage in training, workshops, and dialogue work, may

emphasize the role of opposing narratives and misunderstandings when analyzing

conflicts. Theoretical and ideological inclinations also influence analyses. Greater

recognition of these different circumstances may help foster more comprehensive

analyses and better synthesizing and sequencing of strategies.

Asymmetry between adversaries in a conflict greatly affects the course the conflict and

how it is waged and ended. Members of the CAR field stress the multidimensional

character of asymmetry and its fluidity, since they vary with different issues (Mitchell,

1995). Reducing certain asymmetries, then, is not necessarily conducive to transforming

a conflict and settling it constructively. That depends in good measure on the direction in

which a particular asymmetry is reduced. Thus, if one side has greater solidarity and

cohesion than the other, asymmetry that is reduced by increasing the other side’s ability

to effectively change policies would be conducive to mutual conflict transformation. By

the same token, if one side has greater commitment to the issue in contention, asymmetry

that is reduced by that side softening its unyielding position would be conducive to

bringing about a mutually acceptable conflict transformation.

The changing character of power differences and other kinds of asymmetry are crucial in

choosing the appropriate interventions. For example, if equitable accommodations are

sought, certain kinds of mediation may not be advisable when the asymmetry in resources

between the adversaries is very great.

Recognizing the complexity of this kind of conflict analysis, CAR scholars have produced

a broad array of frameworks for conflict analysis (Fund for Peace, 2014; Goodhand, Vaux,

& Walker, 2002; Mason & Rychard, 2005; Samarasinghe, Donaldson, & McGinn, 2001;

U.S. Department of State, 2008), together with more in-depth examinations of conflict

analyses (Levinger, 2013; Schirch, 2013).

Methods of Waging Conflicts

A cardinal tenet of CAR is that social conflicts are inevitable and often necessary to

improve peoples’ rights. The critical matter in this regard is the way the conflict is

conducted and the methods each adversary applies. Conflicts are commonly defined as

struggles in which each side tries to hurt the other to advance toward its goals. A basic

CAR insight, however, is that efforts to achieve a contested goal are not only coercive,

involving only negative sanctions (Boulding, 1989; Kriesberg, & Dayton, 2017). Positive

sanctions can be a second powerful kind of inducement to obtain desired goals. A third

Conflict Analysis and Resolution as a Field: Core Concepts and Issues

Page 5 of 23

PRINTED FROM the OXFORD RESEARCH ENCYCLOPEDIA, INTERNATIONALSTUDIES (oxfordre.com/internationalstudies).

details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice).

Subscriber: Syracuse University; date: 20 December 2018

kind of inducement is to use persuasive appeals and arguments, relying on shared values

and identities. These three kinds of inducements are combined in many ways to constitute

a particular strategy at a given time.

Interestingly, this idea has been articulated by leading public figures who are not

identified as practitioners in the CAR field. Joseph S. Nye (2004), for example, has

influentially written about the importance of “soft power” in world politics, referring to

the many noncoercive inducements that the United States can and does effectively deploy

in foreign affairs. Armitage and Nye (2007) further elaborated on combining “soft power”

and “hard power,” particularly military power, which would constitute “smart power.”

Hillary Clinton, at her January 2009 confirmation hearings for secretary of state, spoke

clearly about the importance of using smart power and not relying solely on military

power.

As the field has expanded to address how adversaries may be brought to the negotiating

table, more thought has been given to noncoercive inducements and also to applying

coercive force that tends to avoid destructive escalation. One strategic method that has

been increasingly examined and employed is nonviolent action (Chenoweth & Stephan,

2011; Schock, 2005; Sharp, 2005). Imposing nonviolent sanctions can avoid

dehumanizing the enemy and holds out the promise of future mutual benefits.

Interconnectedness of Conflicts

One important reason for conflict fluidity is that each conflict is interconnected with

many others (Dahrendorf, 1959). Many conflicts are nested in larger conflicts and also

encompass smaller ones. Conflicts are generally also linked sequentially, each arising

from a previous one. And each party in a large-scale conflict experiences numerous

internal conflicts that arise among different factions, ranks, and identity groups (Colaresi,

2005). Furthermore, each party is simultaneously engaged in numerous conflicts with a

variety of adversaries.

As the salience of one conflict increases, it tends to reduce the salience of the other

conflicts. Enemy number one may slip to being enemy number two, making de-escalation

in that secondary conflict easier and likelier. Partisans and intermediaries may choose

strategies that are intended to alter the salience of a conflict and speed its peaceful

resolution.

Multiplicity of Actors

Workers in the CAR field are sensitive to the reality that conflicts are rarely between two

homogeneous, unitary entities. Rather, many parties are involved directly or indirectly in

every conflict (Crocker, Hampson, & Aall, 1999; Touval & Zartman, 2001). Even when

there appear to be only two sides, in actuality, each side has some characteristics of a

Conflict Analysis and Resolution as a Field: Core Concepts and Issues

Page 6 of 23

PRINTED FROM the OXFORD RESEARCH ENCYCLOPEDIA, INTERNATIONALSTUDIES (oxfordre.com/internationalstudies).

details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice).

Subscriber: Syracuse University; date: 20 December 2018

coalition. Divisions among the members of each party in a conflict, particularly among

leaders and other groups, significantly affect the course of a conflict. External conflict

can strengthen internal solidarity, but not always and not forever (Wilkenfeld, 1973).

As a conflict de-escalates and moves toward resolution, some factions or allied groups

may resist the movement or even reject a signed agreement. They are spoilers,

unsatisfied with the terms of the accommodation with the adversary or with their portion

in that accommodation (Goren & Elman, 2012; Stedman, Rothchild, & Cousens, 2002).

The parties making the agreement then may try to placate and co-opt the rejectionists or

to isolate, marginalize, and overwhelm them. If the parties have not dealt with their

spoilers by the time the peace talks begin, then it falls to the third party to decide the

best course of action for the talks—either talking to the spoilers or sidelining them. In

varying degrees, spoilers are a widespread phenomenon. Attention to them is often

critical in undertaking de-escalation and in constructing and sustaining an equitable

accommodation.

Actors who are not directly engaged in a conflict can also affect its course (Ury, 2000).

They are potential or actual intermediaries, allies, and antagonists. The actions of those

who are directly engaged in a conflict are affected by concerns about the potential

interventions of external actors. In the CAR field, the possible effects of a mediator in

facilitating and hastening a negotiated end to a conflict is a major topic of study.

The demand for official Track I mediation to resolve armed conflict has increased and

with it, the number of organizations and individuals interested in meeting this demand.

There are multiple mediators in peace processes, who may have different skill levels,

understandings of the conflict and parties, and conflicting interests. This may allow the

parties to play one mediator off the other to the detriment of the process. One idea to

minimize competition between potential mediating organizations was suggested by the

African Union: to have the most local of the intergovernmental organizations take the

lead mediation role (de Coning, 2015; Nathan, 2016B). But considering the meager

organizational resources of many regional and subregional organizations, this is not a

plausible solution. Nathan (2016B) has suggested that partnerships at the decision-

making level of intergovernmental organizations would be more powerful in securing

cooperation and coordination in peace processes. Recognizing the problem of multiple

mediators, the United Nations issued guidelines emphasizing the critical need for

“coherence, coordination and complementarity of mediation efforts” (United Nations,

2012).

Other international actors take part in peace processes as “friends of” the mediation or

as interested states. They may not be directly involved in the talks, but they can have a

positive influence if they support the goals of the peace process (Whitfield, 2010). Finally,

representatives of civil society, women, and youth from the conflict areas will be present

as participants in the talks, observers, or advisers to the parties or the mediation team or

both.

Conflict Analysis and Resolution as a Field: Core Concepts and Issues

Page 7 of 23

PRINTED FROM the OXFORD RESEARCH ENCYCLOPEDIA, INTERNATIONALSTUDIES (oxfordre.com/internationalstudies).

details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice).

Subscriber: Syracuse University; date: 20 December 2018

Conflict Stages

A central tenet of the CAR approach is that conflicts are not immutable and that even

highly intractable conflicts decline in intractability as policies and circumstances change.

This happens as conditions change within the adversaries, in their relationships, and in

their social contexts. This understanding is manifested in the recognition that conflicts

move through a series of general stages. There is little consensus about the names for the

stages, but they may be identified by terms such as emergence, escalation, de-escalation,

termination, and recovery (Kriesberg, 1982; Pruitt & Rubin, 1986). In 1992, the UN

secretary-general, Boutros-Ghali, issued his “Agenda for Peace,” bringing attention to the

different phases of peacemaking and peacebuilding (Boutros-Ghali, 1992). The stages are

not clearly bounded or always linear; past stages may recur. Furthermore, groups

engaged in the conflict may not participate at the same pace in all the stages.

Nevertheless, it is analytically useful to distinguish between the different stages to

highlight the relevant CAR factors and processes at each stage.

The field of CAR initially focused on negotiating the end of conflicts, sometimes using

mediation. Soon, concern about the prior and later stages of the conflict increased.

Greater attention was directed at getting adversaries to the negotiating table and on the

quality and sustainability of agreements that are reached. With the increase in outside

intervention in internal societal wars and attention to nonstate actors, the field expanded

to include giving greater attention to preventing the outbreak of warfare and to

recovering from past violent outbreaks. The field presently incorporates the full range of

conflict stages, and practitioners often specialize in particular stages of conflict. The

ideas and practices that are particularly important at each stage are discussed next.

Conflict Emergence

Conflict emergence draws attention to the underlying conditions that precede an overt

conflict. Thus the conditions of structural violence, of unsatisfied human needs, and of

exploitation are often pointed to as crucial in characterizing a latent conflict preceding

the outbreak of a manifest conflict (Burton, 1990; Dahrendorf, 1959). In actuality,

conflicts often break out not because of the actions of the most oppressed, but because of

the actions of the more powerful. The oppressed may have reason to fight, but they often

do not believe that some particular group is responsible for their poor circumstances or

that they can change those others in a way that will improve their conditions. The more

powerful, however, have reason to believe that they can readily get more of what they

want from the weaker party. Acting on this belief, they may provoke resistance and a

violent conflict.

Adversaries’ beliefs about collective identities, the perceived capabilities of each side,

judgments about what is fair and just, and the chance of achieving sought-for goals

determine if and when a conflict becomes manifested in deeds. This is why the ideologies

Conflict Analysis and Resolution as a Field: Core Concepts and Issues

Page 8 of 23

PRINTED FROM the OXFORD RESEARCH ENCYCLOPEDIA, INTERNATIONALSTUDIES (oxfordre.com/internationalstudies).

details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice).

Subscriber: Syracuse University; date: 20 December 2018

that are constructed and adopted by members of a collectivity are critical in conflict

emergence. Political, religious, military, and intellectual leaders can utilize a suitable

ideology to arouse and mobilize supporters against an enemy and influence the means to

be used in the struggle against that enemy. This also is highly relevant for conflicts that

stress ethnic differences or differences in religious or political systems of thought.

Conflict Escalation

How a conflict emerges influences how quickly and destructively it escalates. Often, a

burst of violence at the initial manifestation of a conflict results in a rapid and sustained

escalation, which can entrap the adversaries, who will want to keep fighting in order to

justify the losses they have already experienced (Brockner & Rubin, 1985). A careful,

proportional, tit-for-tat series of exchanges, however, can often contain the scale of the

escalation and result in cooperation (Axelrod, 1984). The way adversaries interact is the

basic determinant of the duration and destructiveness of a conflict’s escalation (Dayton &

Kriesberg, 2009). Attention to the growing role of nonviolent action and to transforming

feelings and thought via social media has increased attention about constructive

escalation (Kriesberg & Dayton, 2017).

External interventions, often in the form of mediation and consultation by, for example,

representatives of the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe and other

international governmental organizations, helped prevent destructive escalation in

Eastern Europe after the dissolution of the Soviet Union (McMahon, 2007; Möller, 2006).

External actions or the threat of them can also help to contain a conflict, inhibiting wide-

ranging violent attacks. They can also help channel the means of the struggle to electoral

politics or nonviolent actions. Unofficial Track Two conflict resolution training and the

facilitation of workshops can contribute to such channeling.

Conflict De-escalation and Settlement

Before the emergence of the CAR approach, research and theorizing about de-escalation

were relatively neglected topics. Now there is considerable work on the factors and

processes that contribute to de-escalation, conflict settlement, and, particularly,

negotiating agreements.

Processes and factors that are internal to each adversary, pertain to their relationships,

and are components of the external context can contribute to turning an escalating

conflict around. Internally, some groups come to believe that the burdens of continuing to

fight to achieve some contested goals are costlier than those goals are worth. The

relationship between adversaries may change as conciliatory gestures by one side are

convincingly made (Mitchell, 2000). Changes in the global system’s power relations or

salient norms can help shift a conflict toward de-escalation.

Conflict Analysis and Resolution as a Field: Core Concepts and Issues

Page 9 of 23

PRINTED FROM the OXFORD RESEARCH ENCYCLOPEDIA, INTERNATIONALSTUDIES (oxfordre.com/internationalstudies).

details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice).

Subscriber: Syracuse University; date: 20 December 2018

The transition from confrontation to de-escalation is a matter of great interest in the field.

The idea that a turning point is reached when the adversaries are locked in a hurting

stalemate is an influential one (Touval & Zartman, 1985). Indeed, members of the

opposing sides often come to believe that neither side can impose the settlement it would

like, and they begin to search for a settlement they can accept. The discovery or

construction of a new option may then appear highly attractive. An interplay between the

conflict conditions at a given time and the possible new options marks the suitable time

for a particular solution to be proposed and accepted.

Sustaining Peace

There has been a growing literature since the 1990s about the content of peace

agreements, recovering from violent societal conflicts, reconciliation, building legitimate

institutions of governance, and other matters pertinent to fashioning an enduring and

equitable peace (Bar-Siman-Tov, 2003; Pouligny, Chesterman, & Schnabel, 2007). Peace

agreements are difficult to obtain and to sustain. Of 121 armed conflicts between 1990

and 2005, only one third were concluded by peace agreements (Harbom, Hogbladh, &

Wallensteen, 2006). Yet since the 1990s, negotiated settlements have become the

preferred way to end wars (DeRouen et al., 2010).

Walter (2002) defines the success of a peace agreement in terms of duration: if there is

no violence for at least five years after the agreement is signed and the parties make

efforts to implement the terms of the agreement, then it is successful. Hampson (1996)

suggests that a “partial success” would be when the parties observe the terms of the

agreement they have signed. A more complete success would entail putting in place

structures and institutions that discourage the parties from going back to war.

Westendorf (2015) posits that a minimalist view of success would be physical security and

the absence of war—that is, a negative peace. A maximalist view would be establishing a

positive peace—which would require a deeper and longer term commitment to making

the changes needed to establish conditions that are popularly viewed as equitable and

legitimate institutions that can address potential conflicts.

Durable peace agreements are characterized by (a) adequate state capacity to implement

the agreement (DeRouen et al., 2010), (b) third-party intervention during the peace

process and post-agreement implementation (DeRouen et al., 2010; Hampson 1996;

Walter 2002), (c) inclusion of a mechanism that foresees and addresses problems that

may arise during implementation; and (d) participation of civil society and women in the

peace process and in post-agreement implementation (Nilsson, 2012; O’Reilly, Ó

Súilleabháin, & Paffenholz, 2015; Wanis-St. John & Kew, 2008).

Some of the reasons given for the fragility of peace are that civil society is not always in a

position to provide the space and resources for peacemaking, that ongoing violence is

Conflict Analysis and Resolution as a Field: Core Concepts and Issues

Page 10 of 23

PRINTED FROM the OXFORD RESEARCH ENCYCLOPEDIA, INTERNATIONALSTUDIES (oxfordre.com/internationalstudies).

details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice).

Subscriber: Syracuse University; date: 20 December 2018

socially and politically destabilizing, and that most peace processes have a narrow focus

on governance reform (Brewer, 2010, p. 30).

Current and Future Issues

Given the diversity of CAR’s sources, the changing topics of inquiry, and the increasing

domains of work, it is to be expected that many contentious issues are currently matters

of disagreement and dialogue. Consideration of seven such matters follows.

Universal or Cultural

An enduring controversy relates to the universality of particular ideas in the CAR

approach. As in the case of conflict emergence, some in the field emphasize a particular

set of universal human needs, which, when unsatisfied, result in conflicts. Others stress

that ways of negotiating, forms of mediation, styles of confrontation, and many other

aspects of conducting and settling conflicts vary among different national cultures,

religious traditions, social classes, gender, and many other social groupings (Abu-Nimer,

2003; Cohen, 1997; Faure, 2005). Moreover, within each of these groups are

subgroupings and personal variations. The differences between groups are matters of

central tendencies, and there is a great overlapping of similarities. More needs to be

known about the effects of situational as well as cultural effects and about the ease with

which people learn new ways of contending and settling fights. The UN declarations and

conventions on human rights offer CAR analysts and practitioners standards that can

guide CAR practice and yield equitable and enduring settlements (Hayner, 2009).

Discipline or General Approach

A major internal issue in the CAR field concerns the extent to which CAR is and should be

a focused discipline, a collection of loosely related arenas of research and practice, or a

shared broad general approach. In the 1950s, the vision of many workers in the field was

of a new comprehensive, interdisciplinary, research-grounded theory, but that was not

realized.

Considerable agreement does exist about particular conflict processes and empirical

generalizations. Without a comprehensive theory, however, inconsistencies among various

generalizations and propositions are not reconciled. Moreover, without a comprehensive

theory or theories of the middle range, it is difficult to know under what conditions a

particular social process or empirical generalization is or is not operative, and to apply

such knowledge to practice. On the other hand, the more general and necessarily

abstract perspective about social conflicts lacks the precision needed to make reliable

applications. Despite these considerations, empirical generalizations and knowledge of

Conflict Analysis and Resolution as a Field: Core Concepts and Issues

Page 11 of 23

PRINTED FROM the OXFORD RESEARCH ENCYCLOPEDIA, INTERNATIONALSTUDIES (oxfordre.com/internationalstudies).

details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice).

Subscriber: Syracuse University; date: 20 December 2018

relevant conflict processes can be useful guides to effective actions that minimize the

destructiveness of conflicts if used in conjunction with good information about a

particular conflict.

Complicating the CAR approach are the differing places occupied by theory and practice.

Each has varied in prominence within the field, and both are, in principle, regarded as

important. In actuality, however, theory and practice have not always been well

integrated. Theory has rarely sought to specify or assess major theoretical premises or

propositions. Often, it is largely descriptive of patterns of actions. And though more

research on assessing practice is being done, it has been focused on particular

interventions, executed and assessed within a short time frame. Although in some

spheres, there is a strong interplay between theory and practice, notably regarding

negotiation, mediation, nonviolent action, and problem-solving workshops, additional

work is needed to integrate other realms.

Nonviolence or Limited Violence

Another contentious issue relates to the use of violence in waging conflicts. There is

widespread agreement among CAR analysts and practitioners that violence is wrong,

particularly when it is used to serve internal needs rather than for its effects on an

adversary. The presumed internal needs may be psychological, status- or power-based, or

economic in nature and situated within individuals, organizations, or larger collectivities.

Adherents of CAR generally agree that violence is morally and practically wrong when

violence is used in a broad, imprecise manner and when it is not used in conjunction with

other means to achieve constructive goals. The increasing use of “smart bombs” and

missiles from drones pose moral and practical problems about what is good policy

regarding the recourse to such allegedly targeted killing. From its origins, some workers

in the CAR field have opposed resorting to the use of violence in any conflict, whereas

others have believed that limited violence is necessary and effective in some

circumstances, as, for example, is articulated in just war theory.

These differences in values and beliefs are becoming more important with the increased

use of military intervention to stop destructive and escalating domestic and international

conflicts and gross violations of human rights. The challenges are made greater by the

increased cooperation of CAR adherents with governments. Much more analysis is

needed about how specific violent and nonviolent policies are combined and with what

consequences for the various parties under particular conditions. More specificity is

needed beyond the generalization that great reliance on naked violence often fails. When

violence is undertaken, in desperation, against a mightier antagonist, it most likely fails.

Conflict Analysis and Resolution as a Field: Core Concepts and Issues

Page 12 of 23

PRINTED FROM the OXFORD RESEARCH ENCYCLOPEDIA, INTERNATIONALSTUDIES (oxfordre.com/internationalstudies).

details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice).

Subscriber: Syracuse University; date: 20 December 2018

Neutral Process or Good Result

A long-standing issue in the CAR field is whether the emphasis should be on the process

by which a conflict is settled or on the justice and consequences of the settlement. If the

process is emphasized, the value of the neutrality of the intermediary is stressed and less

attention is directed at the nature of the conflict to be settled. This matter is particularly

acute in considering when and how mediation is best undertaken (Laue, 1982). Some

practitioners in the field stress mediator neutrality and the mediator’s focus on the

process to reach an agreement. Others argue that a mediator either should avoid

mediating when the parties are so unequal that equity is unlikely to be achieved or should

act in ways that will help the parties reach a balanced and just outcome (Nader, 1991).

Internal Affairs

As is no doubt the case in any field, research findings and best practices have not always

been applied internally within the CAR field. Gender bias, for example, remains a

challenge. There is notable progress, in many CAR programs in universities, women now

appear to be in the majority. According to the ISA’s Committee on the Status of Women in

the Profession, women earned 58% of doctoral degrees in the social sciences, and 42% of

those in political science. Yet the committee found that women constituted only 12.3% of

full professors compared to 23.5% for men (Hancock, Baum, & Breuning, 2013). With the

rise of contingent workers at universities, women faculty members are disproportionately

employed in part-time positions (Curtis, 2013). Women and men faculty express the same

preference for research and share the opinion that service is an imposition, yet women

spend significantly more time teaching, mentoring, and providing service to the

university than do their male counterparts (Chenoweth et al., 2016; Misra, Lundquist,

Holmes, & Agiomavritis, 2011).

Gender bias extends to whose research gets taught and whose work is cited. Consistent

with numbers in the top international relations journals, 82% of the assigned reading in

international relations proseminars was written by male authors. Work by women and

mixed-gender teams made up the remaining 18% (Colgan, 2015). Other research shows

that international relations articles written by women were cited less than those by men

and that even when a research article by a woman is published in a top journal, it

receives significantly fewer citations than had that article been written by a man

(Maliniak, Powers, & Walter, 2013).

External Relations

The way CAR relates to other fields and to its social context raises several issues. As the

number and variety of would-be intermediaries in large-scale conflicts increase, the

relations among CAR-associated organizations and other kinds of governmental and

Conflict Analysis and Resolution as a Field: Core Concepts and Issues

Page 13 of 23

PRINTED FROM the OXFORD RESEARCH ENCYCLOPEDIA, INTERNATIONALSTUDIES (oxfordre.com/internationalstudies).

details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice).

Subscriber: Syracuse University; date: 20 December 2018

nongovernmental actors becomes more problematic. The engagement of many

organizations allows for specialized and complementary programs but also produces

problems of competition, redundancy, and confusion. Adversaries may try to co-opt

intermediary organizations or exploit differences among them. For example, human rights

organizations and conflict resolution organizations can complement each other; but they

may also interfere with each other’s work (Babbitt & Lutz, 2009).

To enhance the possible benefits and minimize the difficulties of relations among many

intervening organizations, coordination of some sort can be helpful. Research indicates

that a variety of measures may be undertaken, ranging from informal ad hoc exchanges

of information to regular meetings among organizations in the field and having one

organization be the “lead” agency (Kriesberg, 1996; Nan, 2008). The Applied Conflict

Resolution Organizations Network (ACRON) was founded in the late 1990s to promote

collaboration among conflict resolution organizations to become “a true force for

peace” (Applied Conflict Resolution Organizations Network, 2000). ACRON went through

a name change in 2003, finally becoming, in 2006, the Alliance for Peacebuilding (AfP).

The AfP brings together 125 organizations and 1,000 individuals engaged in peacemaking

and peacebuilding work. Although coordination will always remain a work in progress,

the AfP has succeeded in providing global linkages that have strengthened peacebuilding

efforts.

The funding for CAR work usually comes from external sources, which raises another set

of issues. The Hewlett Foundation ended its 20-year program of support for conflict

resolution programs in 2004, and no comparable source for sustaining programs of

theory, research, and applications has since appeared. Tuition charges help support

education and training; service fees help sustain nongovernmental organizations doing

applied work; and government agencies and various foundations provide funds for

research and service projects. All this keeps the work relevant for immediate use.

However, the small scale and short duration of this kind of funding hamper the making of

long-term and large-scale research assessments and the theory building that are needed

for creative new growth and appropriate applications.

Autonomy or Dependence

Finally, issues relating to autonomy and professional independence deserve attention.

CAR analysts and practitioners may tailor their work to the preferences, as they perceive

them, of their funders and clients. This diminishes the goals that in their best judgment

they might otherwise advance. These risks are enhanced when tasks are contracted out

by autocratic or highly ideological entities. Furthermore, as more nongovernmentals are

financially dependent on funding by national governments and international

organizations, issues regarding autonomy and co-optation grow.

Conflict Analysis and Resolution as a Field: Core Concepts and Issues

Page 14 of 23

PRINTED FROM the OXFORD RESEARCH ENCYCLOPEDIA, INTERNATIONALSTUDIES (oxfordre.com/internationalstudies).

details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice).

Subscriber: Syracuse University; date: 20 December 2018

On the other hand, CAR ideas are increasingly picked up by people who do not consider

themselves as being in the CAR field. For example, the evidence that countries with

democratic political systems do not fight wars with each other has been used as a reason

to try to make countries democratic, even by warfare. Obviously, officials and other actors

who do not accept the CAR approach as a whole may selectively use elements of it. Such

usage sometimes appears to be misusing the approach and making it ineffective.

Nevertheless, as people who do not think of themselves as being in the CAR field adopt

particular methods and ideas of the field, those methods and ideas are diffusing into

society and gaining + credibility.

On the Future

Undoubtedly, the sociopolitical context in the United States and in many other countries

in the 21st century has become less conducive to the rise and acceptance of the CAR

approach. As discussed in Neu and Kriesberg, “Conflict Analysis and Resolution:

Development of the Field of Scholarship (forthcoming),” the sociopolitical context in

earlier decades supported the emergence and institutionalization of the CAR approach.

Several recent developments have contributed to the deterioration of this support.

Notably, in the United States, political parties have become highly polarized with a high

level of mutual hostility (Dionne, Ornstein, & Mann, 2017). Growing economic inequality,

stagnating wages for many, and increasing wealth for a few generated grievances among

the nonrich. Some of the rich used their resources to further enrich themselves—by

denying inconvenient scientific facts, disregarding democratic civility, weakening trade

unions, and denigrating opponents of these actions. Republican Party leaders often joined

in promoting such practices. Moreover, Democratic Party leaders failed to deal with the

growing public dissatisfaction with these developments (Frank, 2016).

Many other broad, external changes contributed to the foregoing changes. These include

technological changes relating to the evolving social media that reduced previously

widely shared views of reality. Conversely, technological developments have also

contributed to the growing integration of the world, with accompanying economic effects.

Following the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq in 2003, a surge of wars prompted waves of

refugees entering Europe. Terrorist attacks added fears, gave rise to anti-Muslim

feelings, aroused ethnonationalist sentiments, and contributed to authoritarian

tendencies in many countries around the world. In the United States, the election of

Donald J. Trump to the presidency of the United States is a symptom of and promotes

views and behaviors that are antithetical to the CAR approach. This is illustrated by his

bullying style, lack of empathy, and discounting of empirical evidence.

Many aspects of the reaction to these developments in the United States and elsewhere,

however, are consistent with and lend support to the CAR approach. A reliance on many

aspects of nonviolent action has been evident in massive demonstrations and acts of

solidarity with people threatened by the policies of the Trump administration. Resistance

has taken many forms, including forming broad coalitions and creating new social

Conflict Analysis and Resolution as a Field: Core Concepts and Issues

Page 15 of 23

PRINTED FROM the OXFORD RESEARCH ENCYCLOPEDIA, INTERNATIONALSTUDIES (oxfordre.com/internationalstudies).

details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice).

Subscriber: Syracuse University; date: 20 December 2018

organizations, notably in the national Indivisible movement (Dionne, Ornstein, & Mann,

2017). Moreover, many of the persuasive efforts convey empathy for and propose

alternative policies to alleviate the grievances that drove some people to vote for Trump.

Generally, the persuasive efforts foster mutual regard for all people and attention to

evidence-based understandings of reality.

The new circumstances should be met with new adaptations among workers in the CAR

field. Broadly, this would include giving more attention to enhancing human rights and

satisfying human needs in the ways conflicts are waged and transformed. Attention to

such matters would extend to sustainable peacebuilding. This could include work on the

ways governmental officials and nongovernmental organizations work together

constructively (Gerard & Kriesberg, 2018). Humans, over many thousands of years, have

gradually come to live together with declining rates of violence (Pinker, 2011). Work in

the CAR field can contribute to continuing that progress, despite setbacks.

Links to Digital Sources

Note: The following list is not intended to be comprehensive; it is, however, illustrative of

the diversity of CAR resources. Many of the descriptions are from the organizations’

websites.

ACCORD: The African Centre for the Constructive Resolution of Disputes (Durban,

South Africa). ACCORD is a South Africa–based civil society organization working

throughout Africa to bring creative African solutions to the challenges posed by conflict

on the continent. ACCORD publishes the African Journal on Conflict Resolution, Conflict

Trends, and Policy and Practice Brief.

Alliance for Peacebuilding (Washington, DC). The Alliance for Peacebuilding (AfP)

leads a community of more than 100 organizations building peaceful and just societies

around the world. In this integrated field, the AfP amplifies the strengths of its members

through collaboration, tackling a spectrum of issues too large for any one organization to

address alone.

Berghof Foundation (Berlin, Germany). The Berghof Foundation is an independent

nongovernmental organization that supports efforts to prevent political and social

violence and to achieve sustainable peace through conflict transformation. The

foundation publishes the Berghof Handbook for Conflict Transformation.

Beyond Intractability (Boulder, CO). Created by a team of more than 400 distinguished

scholars and practitioners from around the world, the Beyond Intractability/CRInfo

Knowledge Base is built around an online “encyclopedia” with easy-to-understand essays

on almost 400 topics. The essays explain the many dynamics that determine the course of

conflict along with the available options for promoting more constructive approaches.

Conflict Analysis and Resolution as a Field: Core Concepts and Issues

Page 16 of 23

PRINTED FROM the OXFORD RESEARCH ENCYCLOPEDIA, INTERNATIONALSTUDIES (oxfordre.com/internationalstudies).

details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice).

Subscriber: Syracuse University; date: 20 December 2018

The Carter Center (Atlanta, GA). The Carter Center, a nonprofit organization in

partnership with Emory University, is guided by a fundamental commitment to human

rights and the alleviation of human suffering. It seeks to prevent and resolve conflicts,

enhance freedom and democracy, and improve health.

Centre for Conflict Resolution (Cape Town, South Africa). The center aims to

contribute to a just and sustainable peace in Africa by promoting constructive, creative,

and cooperative approaches to the resolution of conflict through training, policy

development, research, and capacity building. The center produces a wide range of

publications including seminar reports, policy briefs, books, and occasional reports.

HD: The Centre for Humanitarian Dialogue (Geneva, Switzerland). The Centre for

Humanitarian Dialogue (HD) is a Swiss-based private diplomacy organization founded on

the principles of humanity, impartiality, and independence. Its mission is to help prevent,

mitigate, and resolve armed conflict through dialogue and mediation. The center

publishes reports on the conflicts and issues in which it is involved.

Centre for Mediation in Africa (Hatfield, South Africa). The center strives to make

mediation efforts throughout Africa more effective by offering academic and practical

courses in mediation, researching new and current best practices, and supporting

organizations such as the United Nations, the African Union, and those African

governments involved in the mediation process. The center produces research on

mediation best practices.

Conflict Management Initiative (CMI) (Helsinki, Finland). The Conflict Management

Initiative (CMI) works closely with all conflicting parties in some of the world’s most

intractable conflicts to forge lasting peace through informal dialogue and mediation. CMI

was founded in 2000 by Nobel Peace laureate and former president of Finland Martti

Ahtisaari.

Conflict Resolution Information (Boulder, CO). A free online clearinghouse, indexing

peace- and conflict-resolution-related webpages, books, articles, audiovisual materials,

organizational profiles, events, and current news articles.

Conciliation Resources (London, UK). The mission of Conciliation Resources is to

provide practical support to help people affected by violent conflict achieve lasting peace.

It draws on shared experiences to improve peacebuilding policies and practice

worldwide. Conciliation Resources publishes the Accord series.

Crisis Group (Brussels, Belgium). An independent, nonprofit nongovernmental

organization committed to preventing and resolving deadly conflict, Crisis Group

conducts analyses of major current conflicts based on fieldwork and makes policy

suggestions. It publishes alerts, reports, and briefings on the various conflicts it works

on.

Conflict Analysis and Resolution as a Field: Core Concepts and Issues

Page 17 of 23

PRINTED FROM the OXFORD RESEARCH ENCYCLOPEDIA, INTERNATIONALSTUDIES (oxfordre.com/internationalstudies).

details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice).

Subscriber: Syracuse University; date: 20 December 2018

European Institute of Peace (Brussels, Belgium). The European Institute of Peace

(EIP), launched in May 2014, is an independent partner to the European Union and

Europe, augmenting its global peace agenda through mediation and informal dialogue.

The EIP pursues multitrack diplomacy and acts as a flexible external tool in support of EU

mediation efforts where the EU has limited freedom to act. It also serves as an

operational hub, connecting existing expertise and sharing knowledge and lessons on

European mediation.

Institute for Peace and Security Studies (Addis Ababa, Ethiopia). The Institute for

Peace and Security Studies (IPSS) at the Addis Ababa University is the premiere institute

for education, research, and policy dialogues on peace and security in Africa. The IPSS

produces two types of policy periodicals, the IPSS Policy Analysis and the IPSS Policy

Brief to provide comprehensive policy options in the areas of peace, security, and

governance.

INCORE: International Conflict Research Institute (Ulster, UK). INCORE is a joint

project of the United Nations University and the University of Ulster. It provides a

Conflict Data Service and a comprehensive database and resource guide to conflict-prone

regions and countries.

Kofi Annan International Peacekeeping Training Centre (Accra, South Africa). The

Kofi Annan International Peacekeeping Training Centre (KAIPTC) is one of three

institutions designated by the Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS) as

a regional Centre of Excellence for the delivery of training and research in the areas of

conflict prevention, management, and peacebuilding.

Nairobi Peace Initiative–Africa (Nairobi, Kenya). The Nairobi Peace Initiative–Africa

(NPI-Africa) is a continental peace resource organization, engaged in a broad range of

peacebuilding and conflict transformation initiatives in Africa.

Peace and Collaborative Development Network (Washington, DC). Created by Dr.

Craig Zelizer in 2007, the Peace and Collaborative Development Network (PCDN) is the

go-to hub for the global change-making community. The PCDN is a rapidly growing social

enterprise that gathers over 35,500 professionals, organizations, and students engaged in

social change, peacebuilding, social entrepreneurship, development, and related fields.

Peace Research Institute of Oslo (Oslo, Norway). Peace Research Institute of Oslo

(PRIO) conducts research on the conditions for peaceful relations between states, groups,

and people. It publishes the journal Security Dialogue and the Journal of Peace Research.

Stockholm International Peace and Research Institute (Stockholm, Sweden). The

Stockholm International Peace and Research Institute (SIPRI) is an independent

international institute dedicated to research into conflict, armaments, arms control, and

disarmament. SIPRI provides data, analyses, and recommendations based on open

Conflict Analysis and Resolution as a Field: Core Concepts and Issues

Page 18 of 23

PRINTED FROM the OXFORD RESEARCH ENCYCLOPEDIA, INTERNATIONALSTUDIES (oxfordre.com/internationalstudies).

details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice).

Subscriber: Syracuse University; date: 20 December 2018

sources to policymakers, researchers, media, and the interested public. SIPRI produces

the annual SIPRI Yearbook.

United States Institute of Peace (Washington, DC). An independent, nonpartisan

institution established and funded by the U.S. Congress. Its goals are to help prevent and

resolve violent international conflicts; promote postconflict stability and development;

and increase conflict-management capacity, tools, and intellectual capital worldwide. The

USIP offers online and on-site courses, and the United States Institute of Peace Press has

been publishing books on CAR since 1991.

UN Peacemaker (New York, NY). UN Peacemaker is the online mediation support tool

developed by the United Nations Department of Political Affairs. Intended for

peacemaking professionals, it includes an extensive database of peace agreements,

guidance material, and information on United Nations mediation support services. UN

Peacemaker is part of the United Nation’s overall efforts to support UN and non-UN

mediation initiatives.

West Africa Network for Peacebuilding (Accra, South Africa). The West Africa

Network for Peacebuilding (WANEP) is a leading regional peacebuilding organization

founded in 1998 in response to civil wars that plagued West Africa in the 1990s. Over the

years, WANEP has succeeded in establishing strong national networks in every member

state of the Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS) and has over 500

member organizations across West Africa.

References

Abu-Nimer, M. (2003). Nonviolence and peace building in Islam: Theory and practice.

Gainesville: University Press of Florida.

Applied Conflict Resolution Organizations Network (2000, November). Concept

Paper, Revised Draft. ACRON, Washington, DC.

Armitage, R. L., & Nye, J. S., Jr. (2007). A smarter more secure America. Washington, DC:

Center for Strategic and International Studies.

Axelrod, R. (1984). The evolution of cooperation. New York, NY: Basic Books.

Babbitt, E. F., & Lutz, E. L. (Eds.). (2009). Human rights and conflict resolution in context.

Syracuse, NY: Syracuse University Press.

Bar-Siman-Tov, Y. (Ed.). (2003). From conflict resolution to reconciliation. Oxford, UK:

Oxford University Press.

Bercovitch, J., Kremenyuk, V., & Zartman, I. W. (Eds.). (2009). Sage handbook of conflict

resolution. London, UK: Sage.

Conflict Analysis and Resolution as a Field: Core Concepts and Issues

Page 19 of 23

PRINTED FROM the OXFORD RESEARCH ENCYCLOPEDIA, INTERNATIONALSTUDIES (oxfordre.com/internationalstudies).

details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice).

Subscriber: Syracuse University; date: 20 December 2018

Boulding, K. E. (1989). Three faces of power. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Boutros-Ghali, B. (1992). An agenda for peace: Preventive diplomacy, peacemaking and

peacekeeping (Report of the Secretary-General, A/47/277). New York, NY: United Nations.

Brewer, J. D. (2010). Peace processes: A sociological approach. Cambridge, UK: Polity.

Brockner, J., & Rubin, J. Z. (1985). Entrapment in escalating conflicts: A social

psychological analysis. New York, NY: Springer Verlag.

Burton, J. (1990). Conflict: Resolution and provention. New York, NY: St. Martin’s.

Chenoweth, E., Fortna, P., Mitchell, S., Savun, B., Weeks, J., & Cunningham, K. (2016).

How to get tenure (if you’re a woman). Foreign Policy, April 19, 2016.

Chenoweth, E., & Stephan, M. J. (2011). Why civil resistance works: The strategic logic of

nonviolent conflict. New York, NY: Columbia University Press.

Cohen, R. (1997). Negotiating across cultures. Washington, DC: United States Institute of

Peace Press.

Colaresi, M. P. (2005). Scare tactics: The politics of international rivalry. Syracuse, NY:

Syracuse University Press.

Coleman, P. T., Deutsch, M., & Marcus, E. C. (Eds.). (2014). The handbook of conflict

resolution: Theory and practice (3rd ed.). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Colgan, J. (2015, August 27). New evidence on gender bias in IR syllabi. Guest Post.

Duck of Minerva Blog.

Crocker, C. A., Hampson, F. O., & Aall, P. (Eds.). (1999). Herding cats: Multiparty

mediation in a complex world. Washington, DC: United States Institute of Peace Press.

Curtis, J. W. (2013). What roles are we modeling? Gendered academic employment and its

consequences. Washington, DC: Association of American Colleges and Universities.

Dahrendorf, R. (1959). Class and class conflict in industrial society. Stanford, CA:

Stanford University Press.

Dayton, B. W., & Kriesberg, L. (Eds.). (2009). Conflict transformation and peacebuilding:

Moving from violence to sustainable peace. London, UK: Routledge.

de Coning, C. (2015). Regional approaches to peacebuilding. Tokyo, Japan: Centre for

Policy Research, United Nations University.

DeRouen, K., Jr., Ferguson, M. J., Norton, S., Park, Y. H., Lea, J., & Streat-Bartlett, A.

(2010). Civil war peace agreement implementation and state capacity. Journal of Peace

Research, 47, 333–346.

Conflict Analysis and Resolution as a Field: Core Concepts and Issues

Page 20 of 23

PRINTED FROM the OXFORD RESEARCH ENCYCLOPEDIA, INTERNATIONALSTUDIES (oxfordre.com/internationalstudies).

details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice).

Subscriber: Syracuse University; date: 20 December 2018

Dionne, E. J., Ornstein, N. J., & Mann, T. E. (2017). One nation after Trump. New York, NY:

St. Martin’s.

Faure, G. O. (Ed.). (2005). La négociation: Regards sur sa diversité. Paris, France:

Publibook.

Frank, T. (2016). Listen, liberal; or what ever happened to the party of the people? New

York, NY: Metropolitan.

Fund for Peace. (2014). Conflict assessment framework manual. Report. Washington, DC:

Fund for Peace.

Gerard, C., & Kriesberg, L. (Eds.). (2018). Conflict and Collaboration: For better or worse.

New York, NY: Routledge.

Goodhand, J., Vaux, T., & Walker, R. (2002). Conducting conflict assessments: Guidance

notes. London, UK: Department for International Development.

Goren, N., & Elman, M. F. (Eds.). (2012, July 23). Spoilers of peace and the dilemmas of

conflict resolution. Ramat Gan, Israel: The Israeli Institute for Regional Foreign Policies

(MITVIM) and the Program for the Advancement of Research for Conflict and

Collaboration (PARCC). Based on a workshop conducted by MITVIM and the U.S.

Embassy, Tel Aviv, Kfar Shmaryahu, Israel, 2012.

Hampson, F. O. (1996). Nurturing peace: Why peace settlements succeed or fail.

Washington, DC: United States Institute of Peace Press.

Hancock, K. J., Baum, M. A., & Breuning, M. (2013). Women and pre-tenure scholarly

productivity in international studies: An investigation into the leaky career pipeline.

International Studies Perspectives, 14, 507–527.

Harbom, L., Högbladh, S., & Wallensteen, P. (2006). Armed conflict and peace

agreements. Journal of Peace Research, 43, 617–631.

Hayner, P. (2009, February). Negotiating justice: Guidance for mediators. Report. Geneva,

Switzerland: Centre for Humanitarian Dialogue.

Kriesberg, L. (1982). Social conflicts. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Kriesberg, L. (1991). Conflict resolution and applications to peace studies. Peace and

Change, 16, 400–417.

Kriesberg, L. (1996). Coordinating intermediary peace efforts. Negotiation Journal, 12,

pp. 341–352.

Kriesberg, L. (2015). Realizing peace: A constructive conflict approach. Oxford, UK:

Oxford University Press.

Conflict Analysis and Resolution as a Field: Core Concepts and Issues

Page 21 of 23

PRINTED FROM the OXFORD RESEARCH ENCYCLOPEDIA, INTERNATIONALSTUDIES (oxfordre.com/internationalstudies).

details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice).

Subscriber: Syracuse University; date: 20 December 2018

Kriesberg, L., & Dayton, B. W. (2017). Constructive conflicts: From escalation to

resolution (5th ed.). Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.

Laue, J. (1982). Ethical considerations in choosing intervention roles. Peace and Change,

8, 34.

Levinger, M. (2013). Conflict analysis: Understanding causes, unlocking solutions.

Washington, DC: United States Institute of Peace Press.

Maliniak, D., Powers, R., & Walter, B. F. (2013). The gender citation gap in international

relations. International Organization, 67(4), 889–922.

Mason, S., & Rychard, S. (2005). Conflict analysis tools. (Tip Sheet). Swiss Agency for

Development and Cooperation, Bern, Switzerland.

McMahon, P. C. (2007). Taming ethnic hatred: Ethnic cooperation and transnational

networks in Eastern Europe. Syracuse, NY: Syracuse University Press.

Misra, J., Lundquist, J. H., Holmes, E., & Agiomavritis, S. (2011). The ivory ceiling of

service work. Academe, 97(1), 22–26.

Mitchell, C. R. (1995). Asymmetry and strategies of regional conflict reduction. In I. W.

Zartman & V. A. Kremenyuk (Eds.), Cooperative security: Reducing third world wars (pp.

25–57). Syracuse, NY: Syracuse University Press.

Mitchell, C. R. (2000). Gestures of conciliation: Factors contributing to successful olive

branches. New York, NY: St. Martin’s.

Möller, F. (2006). Thinking peaceful change: Baltic security policies and security

community building. Syracuse, NY: Syracuse University Press.

Nader, L. (1991). Harmony models and the construction of law. In K. Avruch, P. W. Black,

& J. A. Scimecca (Eds.), Conflict resolution: Cross-cultural perspectives (pp. 41–59). New

York, NY: Greenwood.

Nan, S. A. (2008). Conflict resolution in a network society. International Negotiation, 13,

111–131.

Nathan, L. (2016b). Will the lowest be first? Subsidiarity in peacemaking in Africa. In P.

Aall & C. A. Crocker (Eds.), Minding the gap: African conflict management in a time of

change (pp. 157–170). Waterloo, ON: Centre for International Governance Innovation.

Nilsson, D. (2012). Anchoring the peace: Civil society actors in peace accords and durable

peace. International Interactions, 38, 243–266.

Nye, J. S., Jr. (2004). Soft power: The means to success in world politics. New York, NY:

Public Affairs.

Conflict Analysis and Resolution as a Field: Core Concepts and Issues

Page 22 of 23

PRINTED FROM the OXFORD RESEARCH ENCYCLOPEDIA, INTERNATIONALSTUDIES (oxfordre.com/internationalstudies).

details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice).

Subscriber: Syracuse University; date: 20 December 2018

O’Reilly, M., Ó Súilleabháin, A., & Paffenholz, T. (2015). Reimagining peacemaking:

Women’s roles in peace processes. New York, NY: International Peace Institute.

Pinker, S. (2011). The better angels of our nature: Why violence has declined. New York,

NY: Viking.

Pouligny, B., Chesterman, S., & Schnabel, A. (Eds.). (2007). After mass crime: Rebuilding

states and communities. Tokyo, Japan: United Nations University Press.

Pruitt, D. G., & Rubin, J. Z. (1986). Social conflict: Escalation, stalemate, and settlement.

New York, NY: Random House.

Samarasinghe, S., Donaldson, B., & McGinn, C. (2001). Conflict vulnerability analysis:

Issues, tools, and responses. Report. USAID Africa Bureau, Office of Sustainable

Development, Washington, DC.

Sandole, D. J. D., Byrne, S., Sandole-Staroste, I., & Senehi, J. (Eds.). (2009). Handbook of

conflict analysis and resolution. Abingdon, UK: Routledge.

Schirch, L. (2013). Conflict assessment and peacebuilding planning. Boulder, CO:

Kumarian.

Schock, K. (2005). Unarmed insurrections: People power movements in nondemocracies.

Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.

Sharp, G. (2005). Waging nonviolent struggle: 20th century practice and 21st century

potential. Boston, MA: Porter Sargent.

Stedman, S. J., Rothchild, D., & Cousens, E. M. (Eds.). (2002). Ending civil wars: The

implementation of peace agreements. Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner.

Touval, S., & Zartman, I. W. (2001). International mediation in the post–Cold War era. In

C. A. Crocker, F. O. Hampson, & P. Aall (Eds.), Turbulent peace: The challenges of

managing international conflict (pp. 427–444). Washington, DC: United States Institute of

Peace Press.

Touval, S., & Zartman, I. W. (Eds.). (1985). International mediation in theory and practice.

Boulder, CO: Westview.

United Nations. (2012, September). Guidance for effective mediation. New York, NY:

United Nations.

Ury, W. (2000). The third side. New York, NY: Penguin.

U.S. Department of State (2008). Interagency conflict assessment framework.

Washington, DC: Office of the Coordinator for Reconstruction and Stabilization.

Conflict Analysis and Resolution as a Field: Core Concepts and Issues

Page 23 of 23

PRINTED FROM the OXFORD RESEARCH ENCYCLOPEDIA, INTERNATIONALSTUDIES (oxfordre.com/internationalstudies).

details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice).

Subscriber: Syracuse University; date: 20 December 2018

Walter, B. (2002). Committing to peace: The successful settlement of civil wars. Princeton,

NJ: Princeton University Press.

Wanis-St. John, A., & Kew, D. (2008). Civil society and peace negotiations: Confronting

exclusion. International Negotiation, 13, 11–36.

Wehr, P. (1979). Conflict regulation. Boulder, CO: Westview.

West Africa Network for Peacebuilding. (2012). Dialogue and Mediation: A Practitioner’s

Guide. Accra, Ghana: WANEP.

Westendorf, J.-K. (2015). Why peace processes fail: Negotiating insecurity after civil war.

Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner.

Whitfield, T. (2010). Working with groups of friends. Washington, DC: United States

Institute of Peace Press.

Wilkenfeld, J. (Ed.). (1973). Conflict behavior and linkage politics. New York, NY: D.

Mckay.

Louis Kriesberg

Maxwell School of Citizenship and Public Affairs, Syracuse University

Joyce Neu

Facilitating Peace