Strategic Assessment

“Conflict Resolution is a vibrant field of enquiry. This is the first thing to understand. One can hardly imagine the current world of policy without it.”
Bercovitch et al., 2009, p. 2

The literature review below presents the leading conceptualizations and approaches in the field of conflict resolution.i The starting point of this discussion is the understanding that the field of conflict resolution is shaped by the shifting structure of global politics and the changes that have occurred in conflicts in the international arena since the emergence of the discipline in the late 1940s. These changes have significantly influenced how researchers in the field think about conflict resolution processes. Developments have posed new challenges and shaped paradigmatic changes in the field since its inception, from a paradigm of conflict management to that of conflict resolution, which is post-rational, multidimensional, and diverse in terms of its approaches and the strategies it proffers. The trend of ongoing development of change and expansion processes in the field continues today, amidst the widespread challenges that the international system has witnessed over the past two decades in a system of world disorder (Zartman, 2019).

The review is divided into two main sections:
the first explains what constitutes the essence of the field of conflict
resolution. It presents the two main paradigms underlying the various
approaches in the field and their basic assumptions. Four main research
clusters in the field are presented in the second section.

What
is Conflict Resolution?

Conflict resolution is a general approach that
offers parties to the conflict, or third parties, tools that enable
constructive management of a conflict or its resolution (Kriesberg & Neu,
2018). Researchers in the field see the phenomenon of conflict, from the level
of the individual to the level of the state and the international system, as a
generic social phenomenon.

Conflict occurs when two or more actors
(individual or collective) perceive their goals as
incompatible, and each side invests efforts to achieve its goals
(Kriesberg & Neu, 2018). Each conflict is a complex and multidimensional
phenomenon that contains three main components: the subject of the conflict;
the attitudes and perceptions of the parties to the conflict; and the behavior
of the parties to the conflict. These components are present in every conflict
and at every social level, and over time interact dynamically with each other (Mitchell,
2014).

The field of conflict resolution is both
analytical and normative: it includes analysis and understanding of the respective
interests of the parties to the conflict and their mutual perspectives, while
studying the right way to transition from violent conflict or potentially
violent conflict to a constructive relationship, and even resolution of the
conflict.

Conflict resolution researchers who study
international conflicts focus on inter-state conflicts and intra-state
conflicts occurring within the borders of a country that have a regional or
global impact. This impact may also derive as well from the involvement of external
actors—nation states, global or
regional international governmental organizations, international non-governmental
organizations (NGOs), non-state actors, and various transnational actors whose
activities cross borders—who
serve as mediators that provide assistance to the actors involved in the conflict
(Ramsbotham et al., 2016).

The
Conceptual
Paradigms

East-West relations during the Cold War, the
changing nature of the international system after the Cold War, and the need to
deal with different and often violent types of conflicts in the international
arena have generated changes in thinking about conflict resolution processes.
The multidimensionality of conflicts has prompted the need to develop
integrated, effective, and relevant strategies for managing and resolving
conflicts by tapping knowledge from various fields: economics, peace studies,
international relations, political science, law, psychology, anthropology,
sociology, and mathematics.

There is no grand theory in the conflict
resolution field. The various approaches and strategies span a wide range that
includes approaches and theories of conflict management, conflict resolution, conflict
prevention, and conflict transformation. Some refer and apply to different stages
in the life cycle of conflicts, some lend particular importance to diverse forms
of intervention by third parties in formal and informal processes of conflict
management or resolution, and some provide the parties themselves with tools to
improve their capabilities to manage and resolve conflicts.

The wide range of theories and approaches in the
field can be divided into two paradigms: conflict management and conflict
resolution. The two paradigms differ in their view of the sources of
international conflicts, the actors in the international system, and their mode
of operation, and diverge regarding the meaning of the term “peace.” While the
conflict management paradigm is rooted in the realist approach, the origins of
the conflict resolution paradigm are rooted in the liberal approach (Schiff,
2019).

The conflict management paradigm dominated for
the first three decades of research in the field, and was influenced principally
by the bipolar structure of global politics during the Cold War. The theories
in this paradigm rested on the assumptions about the supremacy of power
politics, anarchy as the natural state of the system, and the effect of the
security dilemma on the conduct of the actors.

The
approaches that developed herein are rational, interest-based, one-dimensional,
and focused at the state level. They are characterized by a minimalist approach
to the mitigation of conflicts, aiming at reaching a state of “negative peace” marked
by the absence of direct violence between the parties, as well as an attempt to
control violence, minimize conflict damage, make conflict less destructive and
more constructive, and direct the parties toward cooperation based on their
mutual interests (Maoz et al., 2004). Key principles in the conflict management
discourse are the preservation of the sovereignty and territorial integrity of
the state, non-interference in states’ internal affairs (in intra-state
conflicts and humanitarian crises), and the supremacy of national interests
(Bercovitch & Jackson, 2009).

The roots of the conflict resolution paradigm
can be found in approaches that developed during the first decades of the field
and in parallel with conflict management approaches. Researchers proposed perspectives
and tools for dealing with international conflicts that reflected universal
values ​​rooted in the liberal approach, such as individual liberties and
belief in the ability to change political reality through the individual, and
through state and international institutions (Schiff, 2019). The approaches
that developed from the conflict resolution paradigm are maximalist, and deal with
long term processes toward fulfillment of basic human needs that motivate the
parties in the conflict and the responses that aim at the complete removal of
the roots of the conflict (Maoz et al., 2004). In this context, a wide range of
liberal approaches to conflict resolution has developed that include rational
and post rational conflict resolution approaches, conflict transformation
approaches, and peacebuilding. These approaches have expanded greatly over the
past three decades with the proliferation of violent intra-state conflicts and
the increase in the number of failed states, along with the widening range of
conflict issues and actors that are party to conflicts or are third party
mediators.

The current prevailing paradigm is a
multidimensional conflict resolution paradigm that includes normative and
practical dimensions. It combines new approaches with traditional
first-generation conflict management approaches, and is divided into four main
research clusters (see below). This paradigm offers tools designated for
implementation at different stages of conflicts, and strategies to create
multidimensional and two-way processes, from the leadership to the people (top-down)
and from the people to the leadership (bottom-up). These consider a variety of
actors who are a party to conflicts or engage as third parties to issues and norms—not only in systemic or strategic terms, but
also at the normative level, which links civil society to the state level and
to regional and international levels. Emphasis today is on processes that
provide human security alongside state security, the division of roles between
the state and the individual in global politics, and the aspiration to achieve
goals according to the context of each conflict (Bercovitch & Jackson,
2009).

A conflict, if it is managed in a constructive manner that is acceptable to all parties, may succeed in promoting important values. Therefore, the issue is not to prevent the very phenomenon of conflicts, but to prevent violent manifestations of conflicts and destructive consequences.

Main
Insights

Alongside the variety of approaches and divergent
theories in the field are also certain shared basic insights. First, conflicts
at all social levels, including the international level, are a phenomenon that
is not necessarily negative. A conflict, if it is managed in a constructive
manner that is acceptable to all parties, may succeed in promoting important
values. Therefore, the issue is not to prevent the very phenomenon of conflicts,
but to prevent violent manifestations of conflicts and destructive consequences
(Kriesberg & Neu, 2018).

A second insight concerns the
distinction between conflict resolution and conflict management, and the
dialectic between these two concepts (Bar-Siman-Tov, 2010). Conflict resolution
is a process in which the parties to a conflict or a third party work to reach
a fundamental resolution to the issues in dispute by addressing the basic needs
that are at the root of the conflict and motivate the parties. This is in
contrast to conflicts where efforts to reach a resolution fail repeatedly, and
which must be managed constructively by controlling violence and promoting the
interests of each of the parties to the conflict in a way that allows them to
live with it (Maoz et al., 2004). The hope is that conflict management will be
a preliminary step and will influence the transition to conflict resolution in
the future (Bar-Siman-Tov, 2010).

A third insight is that
conflict derives from the parties’ perceptions of the relations between them,
which can be changed through a third party or by the parties to the conflict
themselves (Kriesberg & Neu, 2018). Many times, the parties perceive their
relations as containing only conflicting interests. This situation is described
in the field as “pure conflict,” which means that if one party gains, the other
party loses—yet in practice this is
almost always not the case. In most cases, the dynamics of the conflict prevent
the parties from also seeing common or complementary interests. Therefore, the
key to conflict resolution lies in the ability to change the perceptions of the
parties and bring them to the realization that relations between them consist
of both conflict and interdependence, enabling cooperation that will lead to a win-win
solution that benefits both sides.

Researchers see international
conflict as a dynamic phenomenon that progresses in several stages, though not
necessarily in linear fashion: emergence, escalation, de-escalation and
settlement, and sustaining peace (Kriesberg & Neu, 2018). Different strategies
have been suggested for each of the stages. Selecting the right strategy is a
necessary (although insufficient) condition for an effective outcome.

Research
Clusters in the Multidimensional Conflict Resolution Paradigm

The multidimensional conflict
resolution paradigm is currently divided into four main research clusters:

1. Rational conflict
   management approaches (traditional approaches)
2. Rational conflict
   resolution approaches—based
   on interests and problem-solving processes
3. Post-rational approaches
4. International intervention through
   preventive diplomacy and humanitarian intervention

Some of the strategies proposed in the field,
such as those designed to prevent and manage conflicts, will be satisfied with
conflict management and its maintenance, while others designed to resolve or
transform conflicts will work to eliminate the sources of the conflict (Schiff,
2019).

Rational
Conflict Management Approaches (Traditional Approaches)

Rational conflict management approaches refer to a wide range of influence strategies and tactics that rely on the rational actor assumption, and can be implemented by the actors involved in a conflict with or without third-party assistance. The goal is to prevent, limit, or control the spectrum of violence without resorting to extensive military use of force, and to create an environment that allows for interaction to promote cooperation that will enable conditions for a future resolution, while maximizing the benefits or interests of each of the parties, though without resolving the conflict (Bar-Siman-Tov, 2010). The strategies are unilateral, bilateral, or multilateral, and primarily address the processes of de-escalation and negotiation within the framework of traditional diplomacy through negotiation and mediation, coercion and deterrence, and coercive diplomacy with a combination of threats and incentives - with parties to a conflict or a third party employing hard power, soft power, and smart power.

The bargaining negotiation paradigm, which
dominated the field for the first three decades, emphasized the competitive
nature of negotiation. It was influenced by the development of the realist paradigm
during the Cold War period, which emphasized the competitive nature of state
relations in an anarchic environment, and by game theory which served as the
foundation for many studies (Hopmann, 2001). Alongside the understanding that
the parties are in a conflictual situation of “mixed motivations” (Schelling,
1960), there was an emphasis on each state's efforts to advance its own
interests, as well as the need for each of the parties to bargain competitively
so that its adversary gains the impression that it cannot be taken advantage of
easily (Hopmann, 2001).

Based on the rationality assumption, researchers
focused on formulating prescriptions, with a top-down logic (focusing on the
leadership and decision makers) intended to increase benefit in the
give-and-take dynamic around the negotiating table, producing a compromise
agreement. Prominent in these studies were the classic works of scholars such
as political economist Thomas Schelling (1960; 1966), who developed the art of
deterrence as part of a bargaining strategy in negotiation that also allows for
changes in perception from a zero-sum game to a non-zero-sum game that includes
possibilities for cooperation; the works of the mathematician Anatol Rapoport
(1960; 1966); the work of the economist Kenneth Boulding (1962); and the work
of political scientist Fred Charles Iklé (1964), which includes theory and
examples from the world of diplomacy, with the aim of helping to formulate a
policy for state conduct in the nuclear age (Kriesberg, 2007).

The bargaining paradigm also influenced studies
that dealt with negotiations conducted with the mediation of third parties—three-way bargaining aimed at balancing the
positions of the conflict parties, employing the carrot and stick method, and
helping the parties reach an arrangement that would basically maintain the
status quo (Iklé, 1964; Young, 1967). These were influenced by international
norms such as territorial integrity, non-intervention, and self-determination.

The reality of the Cold War and the need for
conflict management led to the development of the idea of combining negative
sanctions (e.g., economic, diplomatic, military) with positive sanctions
(various incentives that encourage change of undesirable behavior, and seen as
helping to create the foundation for peace and long-term cooperation) (George,
1996; Art & Cronin 2007), to increase the possibility of peaceful conflict
management. Others have highlighted the difficulty in implementing unilateral
strategies of deterrence and coercive diplomacy in conflicts involving non-state
actors—especially non-state actors
that are split among themselves—that
are determined to achieve their goals (Bar-Siman-Tov, 2005). Alongside these
were confidence-building strategies such as Graduated Reciprocation in Tension
Reduction (GRIT), formulated by the psychologist Charles Osgood (1962), and Tit
for Tat (TFT), formulated by the political scientist Robert Axelrod (1984).

Rational
Conflict Resolution Approaches—Interest-Based and Problem-Solving
Processes

Approaches that appeared in the early years, based
on problem-solving processes and on collaborative efforts to enable the
potential realization of the mutual interests of the parties and increase
mutual benefits (Walton & McKersie, 1965; Rapoport, 1966; Burton, 1969),
have increased significantly in scope and impact. With the expansion of liberal
thinking in recent decades, they have influenced the prevailing negotiation
paradigm of problem solving
(Hopmann, 2001).

A conflict may derive from an objective
situation of conflicting interests, but it can also derive from the parties’
different perceptions regarding the subjects of conflict, which imprison the
parties in a state of hostility and adherence to threat perceptions. In these
two situations it is possible through negotiation as a collaborative process,
in the spirit of the problem-solving paradigm, to lead a creative
problem-solving process that includes identifying the roots of the problem,
providing a response to the needs of the parties, searching for a common
denominator, or creating and drafting an agreement that reflects mutual
benefit, contrary to the zero-sum game perception (Schiff, 2019).

There are two main approaches within the
problem-solving negotiation paradigm. The first is the rational and
interest-based; the second is the identity approach (discussed below). The
approach of Roger Fisher and his colleagues to negotiations (Fisher et al.,
1991) is perhaps the most prominent among the interest-based rational
approaches. The theory aims to develop the capabilities of a third party and
the parties to a conflict, in order to conduct a negotiation process based on
common interests that build mutual trust and conclude in an agreement that will
lead to optimal results in terms of providing a response to the parties’ needs,
and will last over time.

The process school of thought of negotiation has played a key role in the development of the problem-solving paradigm. Contrary to the bargaining paradigm, which focused on give-and-take relationships around the negotiating table, the process school of thought sees negotiation as a long process with complex dynamics that commences even before the parties meet at the negotiating table and ends long after an agreement is signed, and is influenced by many different aspects that must be considered (Zartman & Berman, 1982; Druckman, 1986). The discussion of ripeness, which deals with the appropriate conditions required for the successful inauguration of negotiations, has played a central role in the development of this school of thought. Over the past decade the discourse has also dealt with the necessary conditions for concluding negotiations with agreement (Zartman, 2000; 2012).

Changes in the international system after the
end of the Cold War and the spread of inter-communal conflicts with their
unique characteristics, as well as the diversity in the types of third parties
or peacemakers, required a different approach than in the past to the
phenomenon of mediation. The
reference is to third-party intervention—from
official actors and unofficial actors—that
does not make use of military force to help the parties reach agreement to
manage or resolve their conflict. There is no single formula for action that
can instruct a mediator seeking to mediate in an international conflict. The
challenge facing researchers as well as potential mediators is first, to
recognize the difference in the phenomenon of mediation from the perspective of
the third parties that are involved in terms of their power; to recognize their
capabilities, advantages, and limitations, based on the understanding of the
context in which the conflict and the mediation take place, sometimes with the
involvement of several third parties, which requires coordination, and then to
use the most effective range of tools in any given conflict situation (Zartman,
1995; Touval & Zartman, 2001; Aall, 2007; Bercovitch, 2009; Vuković, 2015;
2019).

In the past, in studies that were part of the
bargaining paradigm, the objective measure for assessing the success of
mediation was the achievement of an agreement at the conclusion of negotiations—be it a ceasefire, or a full or partial
agreement—which spelled short-term
success (Iklé, 1964). However, given the way peace processes have played out in
the last three decades, the trend has begun to change, and researchers believe
that a broader objective criterion for the success of mediation should be considered,
and that a distinction is required between the short and long terms, alongside
the use of tools and concepts from the world of preventive diplomacy and
humanitarian intervention. It is important to examine objective indexes of the
success of mediation processes in the long term, whether a mediated agreement
is in fact actually implemented, what the mediator's role was in ensuring and
guaranteeing the implementation of the agreement, whether the parties are
abiding by the agreement, and more (Bercovitch & Jackson, 2009).

Post-Rational Approaches

This cluster includes three main approaches: the
identity approach, the intercultural approach to negotiation, and the transformative
approach for peacebuilding.

The Identity Approach

The identity approach includes a wide range of
concepts and theories that are based on social psychological theory and
understandings and form the foundation for the social psychology school and its
prominence in the field of conflict resolution in the last three decades.

The approach that developed under the influence
of the liberal school out of John Burton's work (Burton, 1969) in the 1960s
represented the most striking change, when compared to the rational conflict
management approaches. The approach grew out of the disappointment from the
limitations inherent in traditional approaches to conflict management,
especially with regard to identity-based conflicts. The identity approach
scholars contend that the root causes of conflicts, and in particular identity-based
conflicts, are to be found in the non-fulfillment of basic needs and collective fears of the
groups involved in the conflict. Thus, emphasizing the inter-societal nature of
conflicts, scholars contend that as long as the parties to the conflict do not acknowledge
these needs and fears, do not clarify them, and do not address them to the
satisfaction of all, the obstacles to the resolution of the conflict will remain.
Therefore, researchers from the identity approach focus on the importance of addressing
shared human needs and collective fears in inter-societal peace processes
through dialogues in unofficial diplomacy tracks, and on the importance of
creating mutual trust and changing attitudes toward others, through
psychological processes, transformational dialogues, and reconciliation
processes of long-term changes aimed at reaching a stable peace.

Identity approach researchers focus in their
work on the subjective perceptions of the parties to identity conflicts, and on
exploring misunderstandings and misconceptions of the conflict by members of an
ethnic identity group who are central actors in an identity conflict (Kelman,
1998). Burton (1969), whose pioneering work was also one of the first attempts
to connect between conflict resolution theory and practice, and his successors
in the identity approach Edward Azar (Azar et al., 1978) and Herbert Kelman
(1991) developed techniques that focused on mitigating the subjective and
relationship component in identity conflicts, through a transformation processes
conducted in the framework of “interactive problem-solving” workshops (Fisher,
2005). In the processes that take place in these workshops, which are based on
the assumptions of the contact hypothesis (Allport, 1954), a dialogue takes
place between representatives of elites from the parties to the conflict, facilitated
by academics from the field. The participants do not hold official positions, rather
are private individuals who are close to decision makers in their group.

A distinction was made between “Track I," which
refers to formal diplomacy and “Track II," which refers to informal
diplomacy (Davidson & Montville, 1981) and contributes to the removal of
psychological barriers to agreements in the first track. Research has further
focused on studying the effects between the two levels (Fisher, 2005). Further
concepts developed: “multi-track diplomacy” (Diamond & McDonald, 1996), “Track
1.5 diplomacy” (Nan, 2005), and “Track III” or people-to-people diplomacy.

The Intercultural Approach to Diplomacy

The 1980s and 1990s saw an expansion of research
with regard to cultural diversity as a source of obstacles to conflict
management and resolution, leading to the development of the intercultural
school (Hall & Hall, 1983; Cohen, 1996; Avruch, 1998). It focuses on
studying the impact of intercultural differences between parties to conflicts
on negotiation processes and their outcomes. Researchers argue that since
different cultures attach different meanings to events in reality, an
understanding of the adversary’s culture and its impact on the ability to reach
an agreement is required. The assumption is that in the absence of common
beliefs and norms, the parties to the conflict will define the situation
differently and will interpret signals sent from the other party and its
negotiation strategy in negotiations in different ways. These become an
obstacle or disruption to the process of resolving the conflict. In this
approach, importance is attached to cultural understanding and intercultural
diversity, and therefore a third party, the mediator, and the parties
themselves must take these factors into account when preparing for negotiations
or when in negotiations. Among the dimensions that create cultural diversity
and require cultural understanding are norms of communication style, the
cultural values of individualism versus collectivism, egalitarianism versus
hierarchy, and more.

The Transformative Approach and
Peacebuilding

Studies conducted by Burton and Azar were the
foundation for the development of the conflict transformation approach and
peacebuilding (which was also based on knowledge from the field of peace studies).
Researchers such as the sociologist Johan Galtung (1996; 1967) and John Paul Lederach
(1997) developed frameworks that address human needs and structural sources of
violence from a transformative perspective that transforms conflicts in
processes of mutual influence between the various levels of society, while
emphasizing the role of civil society and a civilian peace discourse in the
process of peacebuilding. Galtung coined the term “positive peace,” which
refers to the creation of change in relationships and is conducted as part of a
long-term and in-depth proactive process.

Since the 1990s, work by Galtung and by Lederach
on peacebuilding has also led to work on reconciliation processes. These
processes focus on a multi-dimensional psychological process, intended to help
former rivals establish a stable and lasting peace following the signing of a
peace agreement (Bar-Tal & Bennink, 2002; Kriesberg, 2002).

In recent decades, the focus on peacebuilding
processes based on a liberal peace perception has expanded and deepened, with
the liberal perception seen as central to the resolution of conflicts and peacebuilding
processes. However, despite the good intentions of mediators in peace processes
in civil wars and the investment of significant resources, peace processes in
violent intra-state conflicts have not succeeded in bringing about lasting
peace. Most of the civil wars that took place after 2003 were found to be a
recurring phenomenon (Westendorf, 2015). This insight has led to the expansion
of research into the factors that contribute to the success and stability of peace
agreements (sustaining peace) in intra-state conflicts. Special emphasis is
placed on mechanisms that may enable security and stability, the construction
of functioning and legitimate government institutions that will provide the
state the capabilities to implement the agreement, and third-party intervention
in the peace process and at the implementation phase of the agreement (Walter,
2002; DeRouen et al., 2010). The literature also deals with mechanisms capable
of addressing issues that arise during the implementation phase, such as international oversight and
arbitration mechanisms and reconciliation processes. The literature further
studies the role of civil society in negotiations and at the implementation
phase of the agreement (Pouligny et al., 2007; O’Reilly et al., 2015).

Some require the allocation of a more significant role to civilians in peacebuilding processes. Others argue that too rapid or too strong a push for democratization and reconciliation may create greater polarization and intra-state competition, rather than the cooperation.

Studies conducted over the past decade point to considerable difficulty coordinating the multitude of agencies involved in state-building processes—among themselves and between themselves and the local population and the local authorities—and emphasize the need to devote intellectual time and practical effort to improving coordination. Some require the allocation of a more significant role to civilians in peacebuilding processes. Others argue that too rapid or too strong a push for democratization and reconciliation may create greater polarization and intra-state competition, rather than the cooperation required for a functioning state (Hampson & Mendeloff, 2007; Crocker et al., 2018).

International
Intervention Approach—Preventive Diplomacy and Humanitarian
Intervention

The traditional approaches to conflict
management focused on conflicts at the state level while adhering to the
principle of sovereignty, and have struggled to address the expanding and
challenging phenomenon of the civil wars—the
“new wars” (Kaldor, 2006)—that
has grown since the end of the 20^th century. These have included
massacres of innocent civilians in the territories of sovereign states
committed either by the state or sponsored by the state; chaos created within
the boundaries of the states where fighting took place; and mass displacement
and regional and global dangers inherent in conflicts spilling beyond the
borders of the state where they arise. These challenges demanded new
theoretical and practical thinking and led to the development of a discourse on
human security, which focused on an effective response to prevent violence and cease
violent conflict. The international community’s failures to deal with conflicts
in Rwanda, Bosnia, and Somalia in the 1990s amplified the recognition that
preventing and ending civil wars and creating the conditions for long-term
peace requires a multidimensional, comprehensive, and proactive approach (Bercovitch
& Jackson, 2009).

Preventive
diplomacy is the intervention of a third party by
diplomatic means or through the threat of the use of force to prevent
escalation of a conflict (Ackerman, 2003; Lund, 2009) (or conflict prevention).
Humanitarian intervention
is a collective intervention using scaled measures such as diplomatic and
humanitarian and even the use of force, in order to stop widespread and
critical harm to the civilian population (Bellamy, 2012; 2013). Both of these
approaches evolved as third-party intervention strategies. The innovation in
the concept of preventive diplomacy is in the use by various actors, including
the parties to the conflict, of diplomatic tools of conflict management and
resolution, as part of an international early warning system against the
escalation and prevention of conflicts.

The discourse of international intervention,
which may also include the use of military force to protect an innocent
civilian population, has created tension between the civil population's right
to protection and the principle of maintaining state sovereignty and the
state’s right to non-interference in its internal affairs. This is the
background to the emergence of the concept of Responsibility to Protect (R2P)
as a normative legal framework for intervention, including the use of force for
humanitarian reasons (for more on R2P, see Bellamy, 2013). Today, the principle
of humanitarian intervention is evolving in theory and in practice in the
shadow of the international community's military intervention to stop combat,
as in the case of Libya in 2011 and in contrast to the lack of decisive
intervention to halt the harm to the civilian population, such as in the civil
war in Syria (Bellamy, 2012; 2013).

Mitigating international conflicts, in the effort to manage or resolve them, requires the combined use of various levels of different strategies from the approaches in the field.

Legal, normative, political, and operational
challenges make it difficult to implement R2P uniformly. While there have been
some successes, the application of the principle is still stumbling and has
failed to prevent or stop bloody civil wars. The selectivity in the
implementation of R2P, such as in the war in Syria, suggests that the attempt to implement
it is limited by power struggles between states. Moreover, it appears that lack
of response has become the new normal in an international system that is
characterized by normative chaos. In the context of R2P, the claim has been
made that in the face of an international system characterized as a system of
global disorder, there is a need for a greater effort than in the past to build
stable states with legitimate regimes, capable of realizing the state's
responsibility to protect its citizens (Zartman, 2019).

Conclusion

The review presents four main clusters of research in the field of conflict resolution, and the diverse range of approaches included in them. Mitigating international conflicts, in the effort to manage or resolve them, requires the combined use of various levels of different strategies from the approaches in the field. A prerequisite for correct handling of conflict, whether by a third party or the conflict parties themselves, is an understanding and analysis of the characteristics of the conflict, while adapting and channeling optimal methods to the conflict theater.

Two paradigms: Conflict management vs. multidimensional conflict resolution

---

References

Aall, P. (2007). The power of nonofficial actors
in conflict management. In C. A. Crocker, F. O. Hampson, & P. Aall (Eds.), Leashing
the dogs of war: Conflict management in a divided world (pp. 477–494).
Washington, DC: United States Institute of Peace.

Ackerman, A. (2003). The idea and practice of
conflict prevention. Journal of Peace Research, 40(3), 339–347.

Allport, G. W. (1954). The nature of
prejudice. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.

Art, R., & Cronin, P. M. (2007). Coercive
diplomacy. In C. A. Crocker, F. O. Hampson, & P. Aall (Eds.), Leashing
the dogs of war: Conflict management in a divided world (pp. 299–318). Washington,
DC: United States Institute of Peace.

Avruch, K. (1998). Culture and conflict
resolution. Washington, DC: United States Institute of Peace.

Axelrod, R. (1984). The evolution of
cooperation. Basic Books.

Azar, E. E., Jureidini, P., & Mclaurin, R.
(1978). Protracted social conflict: Theory and practice in the Middle East. Journal
of Palestine Studies, 29, 41–60.

Bar-Siman-Tov, Y. (2005). From conflict resolution to conflict management. In Y. Bar-Siman-Tov (Ed.), The Israeli-Palestinian conflict: From a peace process to violent confrontation, 2000-2005 (pp. 16-34). Jerusalem: Jerusalem Institute for Israel Studies [in Hebrew].

Bar-Siman-Tov, Y. (Ed.) (2010). Barriers to peace
in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Jerusalem: Jerusalem Institute for
Israel Studies [in Hebrew].

Bar-Tal, D., & Bennink, G. (2002). The essence of reconciliation. Politika, 9, 9–34 [in Hebrew].

Bellamy, A. J. (2012). R2P—Dead or
alive. In M. Brosig (Ed.), The responsibility to protect: From evasive to
reluctant action? The role of global middle powers (pp. 11–29). Institute
for Security Studies.

Bellamy, A. J. (2013). The responsibility to
protect: Towards a “living reality.” United Nations Association-UK.

Bercovitch, J. (2009). Mediation and conflict
resolution. In J. Bercovitch, V. A. Kremenyuk, & I. W. Zartman (Eds.), The
Sage handbook of conflict resolution (pp. 340–357). Sage.

Bercovitch, J., & Jackson, R. (2009). Conflict
resolution in the twenty-first century: Principles, methods, and approaches.
The University of Michigan Press.

Bercovitch, J., Kremenyuk, V. A., & Zartman,
I. W. (2009) Introduction: The nature of conflict and conflict resolution. In
J. Bercovitch, V. A. Kremenyuk, & I. W. Zartman, (Eds.), The Sage
handbook of conflict resolution. Sage.

Boulding, K. E. (1962). Conflict and defense:
A general theory. New York, NY: Harper.

Burton, J. W. (1969). Conflict and
communication: The use of controlled communication in international relations.
Macmillan.

Burton, J. W. (1987). Resolving deep-rooted
conflict: A handbook. University Press of America.

Cohen, R. (1996). Cultural aspects of
international mediation. In J. Bercovitch (Ed.), Resolving international
conflicts: The theory and practice of mediation (pp. 107–128). Lynne
Rienner.

Crocker, C. A., Hampson, F. O., & Aall, P. (2018).
International negotiation and mediation in violent conflict. Routledge.

Davidson, W. D., & Montville, J. V. (1981).
Foreign policy according to Freud. Foreign Policy, 45, 145–157.

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(3),
333–346.‏

Deutsch, M. (1973). The resolution of
conflict: Constructive and destructive processes. Yale University Press.

Diamond, L., & McDonald, J. (1996). Multi-track
diplomacy: A systems approach to peace. Institute for Multi-Track Diplomacy.

Druckman, D. (1986). Stages, turning points and
crises: Negotiating base rights, Spain and the United States. Journal of
Conflict Resolution, 30(2), 327–360

Fisher, R. J. (2005). Introduction: Analyzing
successful transfer effects in interactive conflict resolution. In R. J. Fisher
(Ed.), Paving the way: Contributions of interactive conflict resolution to
peacemaking. Lexington Books.

Fisher, R., Ury, W., & Patton, B. (1991). Getting
to yes: Negotiating without giving in. Penguin.

Galtung, J. (1967). Theories of peace: A
synthetic approach to peace thinking. Oslo: International Peace Research
Institute.

Galtung, J. (1996). Peace by peaceful means:
Peace and conflict, development and civilization. PRIO.

George, A. L. (1996). The role of force in
diplomacy: Continuing dilemma for U.S. foreign policy. In C. Crocker, F.
Hampson & P. Aall (Eds.), Managing Global Chaos. United States
Institute of Peace.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/military/force/article.html#1

Hall, E. T., & Hall, M. R. (1983). Hidden
differences: Studies in international communications, how to communicate with
the Germans. New York: Stern.

Hampson, F. O., & Mendeloff, D. (2007).
Intervention and the nation-building debate. In C. A. Crocker, F. O. Hampson,
& P. Aall (Eds.), Leashing the dogs of war: Conflict management in a
divided world (pp. 679–700). United
States Institute of Peace.

Hopmann, P. T. (2001). Bargaining and problem
solving: Two perspectives on international negotiation. In C. A. Crocker, F. O.
Hampson, & P. R. Aall (Eds.), Turbulent peace: The challenges of
managing international conflict (pp. 445–468). United States Institute of
Peace.

 Iklé, F. C. (1964). How
nations negotiate. Harper and Row.

Kaldor, M. (2006). New and old wars: Organized
violence in a global era. Polity Press.

Kelman, H. C. (1991). Interactive problem
solving: The uses and limits of a therapeutic model for the resolution of
international conflicts. In V. D. Volkan, D. A. Julius, & J. V. Montville
(Eds.), The psychodynamics of international relationships (pp. 145–160).
Lexington Books.

Kelman, H. C. (1998). Social-psychology
contributions to peacemaking and peacebuilding in the Middle East. Applied
Psychology: An International Review, 47, 5–28.

Kriesberg, L. (2002). Reconciliation actions in the domestic arena and in the international arena. Politika, 9, 35-58.

Kriesberg, L., & Neu, J. (2018). Conflict
analysis and resolution as a field: Core concepts and issues. Oxford
Research Encyclopedia of International Studies.
https://doi.org/10.1093/acrefore/9780190846626.013.512

Lederach, J. P. (1997). Building peace:
Sustainable reconciliation in divided societies. United States Institute of
Peace Press.

Lund, M. S. (2009). Conflict prevention: Theory
in pursuit of policy and practice. In J. Bercovitch, V. Kremenyuk, & I. W.
Zartman (Eds.), The Sage handbook of conflict resolution (pp. 287–321).
Sage.

Maoz, Z., Mintz, A., Morgan, T. C., Palmer, G.,
& Stoll, R. J. (Eds.), (2004). Multiple paths to knowledge in
international relations. Lexington Books.

Mitchell, C. (2014). The nature of
intractable conflict: Resolution in the twenty-first century. Palgrave
Macmillian.

Nan, S. A. (2005). Track one-and-a-half diplomacy:
Contributions to Georgian-South Ossetian peacemaking. In R. J. Fisher (Ed.), Paving
the way: Contributions of interactive conflict resolution to peacemaking
(pp. 161-173). Lexington Books.

O'Reilly, M., Súilleabháin, A. Ó., &
Paffenholz, T. (2015). Reimagining peacemaking: Women's roles in peace
processes. International Peace Institute.

Osgood, C. (1962). An alternative to war and surrender.
University of Illinois Press.

Pouligny, B., Chesterman, S., & Schnabel, A.
(Eds.), (2007). After mass crime: Rebuilding states and communities.
United Nations University Press.

Ramsbotham, O., Woodhouse, T., & Miall, H.
(2016). Contemporary conflict resolution: The prevention, management and
transformation of deadly conflicts (4^th ed.). Polity Press.

Rapoport, A. (1960). Fights, games, and
debates. University of Michigan Press

Rapoport, A. (1966). Two-person game theory:
The essential ideas. University of Michigan Press.

Schelling, T. (1960). The strategy of
conflict. Harvard University Press.

Schelling, T. (1966). Arms and influence.
Yale University Press.

Schiff, A. (2019). Conflict resolution in the
international arena. Open University Press. Temporary edition [in Hebrew].

Touval, S., & Zartman, I. W. (2001).
International mediation in the post-cold war era. In C. A. Crocker, F. O.
Hampson, & P. R. Aall (Eds.), Turbulent peace: The challenges of
managing international conflict (pp. 427–443). United States Institute of
Peace.

Vuković, S. (2015). International multiparty
mediation and conflict management: Challenges of cooperation and coordination.
Routledge.‏

Vuković, S. (2019). International multiparty
mediation: Prospects for a coordinated effort. Global Policy, 10, 76–83.‏

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

Walton, R. E., & McKersie, R. B. (Eds.).
(1965). A behavioral theory of labor negotiations. McGraw-Hill

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

Young, O. R. (1967). The intermediaries:
Third parties in international crises. Princeton University Press.

Zartman, I. W. (1995). Dynamics and constraints
in negotiations in internal conflicts. In I. W. Zartman (Ed.), Elusive
peace: Negotiating an end to civil wars (pp. 3–24). Brookings Institution.

Zartman, I. W. (2000). The hurting stalemate and
beyond. In P. C. Stern & D. Druckman (Eds.), Conflict resolution after
the Cold War (pp. 224–250). National Academy Press.

Zartman, I. W. (2008). Ripeness revisited: The
push and pull of conflict management. In I. W. Zartman (Ed.), Essays on
theory and practice (pp. 232–244). Routledge.

Zartman, I. W. (2012). Process reasons for
failure. In F. Cede & G. O. Faure (Eds.), Unfinished business: Why
international negotiations fail (pp. 303–317). University of Georgia Press.

Zartman, I. W. (2019). Fragmented conflict:
Handling the current world disorder. Global Policy, 10, 6–13.

Zartman, I. W., & Berman, M. R. (1982). The
practical negotiator. Yale University Press.