CONFLICT RESOLUTION AND PAECE BUILDING
IGNOU BPSE 146 Solved Free Assignment
BPSE 146 Solved Free Assignment July 2023 & January 2024
Q. 1. Trace the life cycle of a conflict.
Ans. A conflict is not a static situation, but rather a dynamic one in which the level of intensity fluctuates throughout its life cycle.
Understanding the conflict cycle is critical for knowing when, and how to implement various conflict prevention and management techniques and procedures.
Numerous theories and models of conflict patterns have been proposed over time. In terms of their severity levels, conflicts are typically defined as cyclical, i.e., progressing from situations of bad peace or unstable peace to crisis and war.
The conflict then de-escalates into an unstable peace. The majority of researchers concur that these cycles are cyclical.
The only thing that can break the cycle is peace. Therefore, peace is not only the absence of violence but rather a so-called “positive” peace.
In theory, conflict prevention, conflict management, and conflict resolution are relevant in many conflict phases.
In conclusion, conflict preventive techniques are meant for the onset of a dispute before it becomes visible.
In the later stages, when a conflict is clear but hasn’t turned violent yet, management methods are put into place.
In contrast, conflict resolution could be utilized during the de-escalation phase of a violent conflict. The conflict life cycle given here includes both the conflict process and potential conflict prevention, management, and resolution techniques.
There are five intensities of conflict (stable peace, unstable peace, open conflict, crisis and war).
Stable peace is marked by low levels of tension between the parties and a wide range of connections and ways to work together, such as working together on the economy, the environment, and other non-sensitive issues.
Crisis Prevention different from Crisis Management?
Crisis Prevention: There are numerous methods for preventing conflict. Preventive measures strive to enhance the system’s structure, which is required for peacefully resolving conflicts during times of stable and unstable peace.
However, conflict prevention techniques are only successful during periods of stable and unstable peace, i.e., prior to the manifestation of a conflict.
It is vital to distinguish between structural and direct preventive actions in this context. The best time to implement structural measures is during a steady period of peace.
They are made up of structural measures that help certain groups or issues, like economic growth, political participation, and cultural freedom.
The advantage of implementing structural adjustments early on is that their adoption tends to be greater when mistrust amongst players is low.
Thus, more extensive and institutional steps can be taken. The more intense a disagreement develops, the more exact the corresponding measures must be.
In the unstable peace phase, direct preventive efforts focus on issues with a shorter-term objective in mind, namely reducing tension and fostering trust between the parties.
Concurrently, the window of opportunity for longer-term measures, such as the establishment of institutions, gradually closes, and the struggle becomes more issue-specific and expensive in financial and political terms.
Examples of direct preventive efforts include formal or informal workshops addressing potential conflict issues.
Boutros Boutros-Ghali defined preventative diplomacy as “the employment of diplomatic measures to prevent disagreements from developing, from escalating into military conflict, and from spreading.”
Crisis Management: When there is a brief window of time before a war is about to break out, called a “crisis,” when the conflict is rapidly escalating and there is little time for management measures, crisis management is implemented.
During this time period, there is insufficient information available, in addition to a lack of time and other resources to devote to resolving the problem.
The term “crisis management” refers to a more extreme form of crisis management that employs more extreme tactics to achieve its goal of preventing the emergence of armed conflict using any and all methods at its disposal.
One example of such a measure is the involvement of a third party by an organization like NATO or the United Nations. There is an opinion among experts that preventive strikes could be used as a method of conflict and crisis management.
When conflict is raging, neither prevention nor management are viable options for dealing with the situation.
Military means are utilized as the primary instrument, even if political, economic, and social means are used simultaneously to lessen the opponent’s willingness or capability to fight.
This is because military means are the most effective at reducing the opponent’s ability to fight.
At this point, the parties involved must either keep fighting until they reach a so-called “hurting stalemate” in which both sides agree it’s time to end the fight, or players from outside the dispute must step in and make peace.
Q. 2. Write a note on sources of conflict-II.
Ans. The second sources of conflicts are human factors. For sample individuals, groups, parties, states, or nations. Inter-personal Conflict: Inter-personal conflict is caused by irreconcilable needs, goals, or approaches.
Communication breakdown causes many interpersonal conflicts. Communication skills can prevent and resolve such issues. Despite greater communication, people still have significant differences.
Personality conflict refers to extremely different motives, ideals, or communication styles. In such situations, both partners seek power and want to be dominant in a relationship; neither can be satisfied, hence a power struggle arises.
Exaggerated incentives and punishments, deception and evasion, threats and emotional blackmail, and flattery or ingratiation are common inter-personal power struggle strategies.
Unresolved power conflicts frequently cause relationship breakdown and termination.
Role Conflict: Role conflict involves discrepancies in role definitions, expectations, or obligations between interdependent individuals.
If there are uncertainties in a company’s role descriptions or unclear obligations, then interpersonal conflict is likely. Unfortunately, the dispute is often misunderstood as an inter-personal rather than a role conflict, complicating and misdirecting solutions.
Role conflict is often emotionally intense since individuals are personally involved and tend to personalize it. This applies to state or national leadership, too.
Intergroup Conflict: Inter-group conflict includes ethnic or racial groups, departments or decision-making levels within an organization, and union and management.
Competition for finite resources is a typical source of intergroup conflict, and civilizations have created regulatory systems, such as collective bargaining and mediation, to deal with it. Intergroup conflict involves social and psychological dynamics.
Group members stereotype and discriminate against others. These traditional intergroup conflict signs can be seen in organizations and race relations in communities.
Intergroup conflict can quickly escalate. Group identities jeopardize interoperability. Intergroup conflict can cost a society economically and socially.
Multiparty Conflict: Variable interest groups and organizations have different agendas for resource management and policy formation, causing multiparty conflict. Complex conflicts incorporate economics, value, and power.
This intricacy often dominates traditional authoritative or adversarial procedures. For conflict resolution, more collaborative consensus-building is needed.
International Conflict: Global conflict, value and power conflicts outweigh resource competition. Diplomacy is a high- stakes game of give-and-take. Conflict and propaganda can produce similar social illusions.
Unlike between businesses, state competitiveness oscillates between peace and conflict. All relationships experience covert and overt conflict in peace and war. International relations develops the overt-covert pattern.
Clausewitz’s famous remark that war is an extension of diplomacy contrasts diplomacy and warfare. Diplomacy and conflict swap continually, though not routinely.
We use the word “diplomacy” instead of “peace” to talk about the covert-conflict system of international relations.
This is partly because “peace” is an overused and vague word, but it’s also because it’s important to make a clear distinction between a system of covert conflict between states, which has a high chance of turning into war, and real peace, or “political integration,” in which the institutions for non-violent resolution are in place.
Here’s international conflict’s second oddity. War is a system boundary of worsening diplomatic ties and a lashing out when tension becomes unsustainable for one party. It’s also an ever-present threat in diplomatic relations.
Diplomatic relations are peaceful or warlike based on the level of war threat used in their conduct, e.g. US-Canada relations have almost no war threat. US-Russia relations threat of war is never unlikely.
Q. 1. Examine Quincy Wrights classification of types and levels of conflict.
Ans. Quincy Wright was one of the first political scientists to make a methodical study of conflicts and wom He did this in the early 20th century.
According to him, there are many distinct kinds of entities that can be in conflict with one another. He categorizes disputes as either being physical, political, ideological, or legal in nature. He recognizes four different kinds of conflicts.
He differentiates between political conflict and physical conflict, defining the former as when two or more entities attempt to occupy the same space at the same time, and the latter as when a group attempts to force its policies on others.
In addition, he differentiates these two types of conflict from ideological conflicts, which occur when competing systems of thought or values are at odds with one another, and legal conflicts, which occur when disagreements over claims or demands are resolved through processes that are generally accepted by all parties involved. In addition to this, he identifies a fifth type of conflict known as war.
According to him, war in the sense of the law is characterized by the union of all four types of conflict that were mentioned before in this paragraph.
Through the political struggle of nations to achieve policies against the resistance of others; through the ideological struggle of people to preserve or extend ways of life and value systems; and through the legal struggle of states to acquire titles, to vindicate claims, to prevent violence, or to punish offenses by recognized procedures of regulation, war is manifested.
The physical struggle of armies to occupy the same space, with each side trying to kill, disarm, or capture the other. The political struggle of nations to make policies against the resistance of other countries.
Q. 2. What is social identity theory of conflict? Explain.
Ans. Henri Tajfel developed the Social Identity Theory in an effort to explain why individuals favor their own group over others. According to Tajfel, groups inhabit several tiers of the power and status ladder.
The process of discriminating between us and them alters how individuals view one another.
Tajfel argued that the driving force behind this behavior was the desire for a solid and stable self-image-a positive social identity. Thus, it can be concluded that the majority of individuals view their organization favorably.
But groupings become psychologically real only when contrasted with other groups. Therefore, group members aim for a positive social identity and take steps to get it by favorably distinguishing themselves from other groups.
In addition. Tajfel addressed the subject of what happens to groups having a lower status than others.
One of the following options are available to such a group: leave the group, either physically or psychologically; focus only on features that make one’s group look good; compare one’s group to other groups that are placed even lower on the status hierarchy; devalue the aspects that reflect poorly on one’s group; or attempt to alter the existing status hierarchy by engaging in social change.
However, the selection of one of these alternatives will depend on a variety of factors. In essence, social identity theory was a theory of social change.
Q. 3. Write a note on conflict management.
Ans. “Conflict management” refers to a certain form of activity, such as mediation by experts who can resolve conflicts.
Much of the literature on conflict resolution focuses on how to persuade conflicting parties to participate in talks and listen to each other; the size and shape of the table (colonial rulers in India preferred a roundtable with stakeholders seated around it), how to break the ice; the precise moment that makes the conflicting parties enter the negotiation process, etc.
There are as many conflict management manuals laying forth rituals and protocols as there are conflict management institutions worldwide.
Conflict management is currently a profession. State-led development in Jangalmahal, West Bengal, or other Maoist-affected areas can be interpreted as attempts to manage tensions and overcome violence.
Managers often refuse to remain mute facilitators and set terms for ending disagreement.
Third-party state and non-state players may be needed for conflict management. As we’ll see, civic society’s role in handling disputes cannot be overstated in this setting.
Q. 1. Civil society and conflict resolution
Ans. Civil society institutions prevent, contain, and resolve conflicts. This point deserves attention.
Usually, the state prescribes and implements conflict settlement. Because conflict causes are rising and the state can’t always properly respond, civil society institutions have stepped up.
The spread of participatory democracy raises two claims for citizen participation. The first is for a more equitable sharing of society’s resources and access to enabling rights and privileges that states must grant.
Second claim: participation in society’s governance. Human rights claims in society and decentralization of democracies show both views.
Non-governmental organizations are invited to play a larger role. They help claimants understand their rights. This affects conflict avoidance, containment, and resolution. Health care and education are examples.
Environmentalism is another example. These privileges sometimes bring people and governments into conflict. The intervention of volunteer non-governmental agencies also adjusts claims and counterclaims.
Several examples show this trend. The NGOs’ role in promoting minority- rights by invoking the Indian Constitution and the UN Declaration of Human Rights and by pressuring the government to adopt them goes a long way in minimizing long-term potential for conflict and, above all, in achieving just aims for society’s peace.
Similarly, NGOs help avoid damage to public interest when big irrigation and other development projects remove thousands of people from their natural environment.
In recent decades, civil society has evolved as a significant conflict-resolution force. Some cultures within states believe the latter are unable to handle conflict or are pursuing socio-economic policies that contribute to conflict.
Q. 2. Role of UN in promotion of world peace.
Ans. The UN is genuinely worldwide. It was founded in October 1945 to preserve peace and end war.
To eliminate conflict by promoting economic, social, educational, scientific, and cultural advancement worldwide; To protect the rights of all people and nations.
Despite carefully crafting the UN Charter, the Cold War between the US and the erstwhile USSR prevented the UN from solving many world concerns.
In international crises, it arranged ceasefires, negotiated, and provided peacekeeping forces. Non- political triumphs include refugee care, human rights protection, economic planning, and tackling world health, population, and famine.
The UN Security Council is its chief peacekeeper. The Council uses “collective security.” This approach considers one state’s hostility against another a UN-wide attack.
It allows the Security Council to act only if five permanent members (Great Powers) the US, USSR, France, China, and Britain – agree.
These are known as P5 states. Any veto prevents such action. Any veto kills communal security. Cold War (1945-1991) vetoes crippled the Council.
In 1950, the General Assembly (GA) presented the “Uniting for Peace” Resolution in case one of the P5 vetoed.
If the Security Council’s plans were vetoed, the GA may meet within 24 hours to decide what to do, including military intervention if required. In this circumstance, the Assembly needs a two-thirds majority.
The USSR, which exercised more vetoes than any P5 state, consistently claimed that a Security Council veto should trump a GA decision. The Assembly ignored Soviet Union protests multiple times.
Q. 3. Negative and Positive peace.
Ans. Peace can be two things. Negative peace means no direct, organized violence. When warring countries or organizations cease fire, bad peace results. Negative because violence halted.
This doesn’t mean peace has been restored. Secondly, positive peace. Positive peace prevails when human civilization cooperates and integrates.
Positive peace benefits everyone. Lack of violence doesn’t mean absence of conflict. Non-violent mechanisms can solve conflict. This divergence leads to a fourfold classification of bilateral connections:
- War, which is planned, collective violence;
- Negative peace, when there is no violence but no interaction or cooperation occurs, and where peaceful coexistence is the ideal situation.
- Positive peace, which is punctuated by sporadic violent outbursts and includes some cooperation; and
- Absolute peace, in which there is no violence and complete collaboration.
Johan Galtung (1996) defined it as the absence of personal violence, war, war preparation, civil war, terrorism, and national and international conflict management. Violence dominates.
The approach explores direct violence or physical attack used to divide people by religion, race, class, caste, gender, etc.
Gandhian peace is a significant divergence from this approach. Gandhi saw peace not as a negative state of harmlessness or lack of violence, but as a positive state of love, of giving good to even evil doers.
Peace-less state of affairs is when humans are blocked from achieving full growth, either by internal (inside the group) or external (with other groups or people) connections.
Violence is the threat or use of physical force or power against nations, groups, communities, or individuals that causes harm, injury, death, psychological disturbance, and misery. Violence ruins peace and relationships.
Reasons for violence vary. Often it begins when a person’s potential growth (mental or physical) is hindered by social ties that cause emotional and social deprivation (poor education, health, unemployment) or a sense of unfairness and grievance.
If these difficulties aren’t resolved nonviolently, violent confrontation results. Injustice and disagreement often cause violent conflict. Violence stems from individual and society problems.
Violence exists when people’s somatic and mental realisations are below their potential, according to Johan Galtung (1996). He divides violence into direct and systemic, or uneven authority over resources.
He calls the absence of direct violence “negative peace” and systemic violence “positive peace” or social justice. They provide true peace. Peace happens when both sorts of violence are abolished.
To define peace as non-war is neither theoretical nor practical. Consider Norway and Nepal, two countries far apart with little interaction. As such, it’s not an ideal relationship worth pursuing.
Peace, like health, has cognitive and evaluative components: it marks states of a system of nations, yet this state is so prized that institutions are formed to safeguard and promote it.
Positive peace is worth exploring, as negative peace is a must. Although conceptually distinct, the two conceptions of peace may be actually related.
Q. 4. Peace-building.
Ans. Peacebuilding is a well-established subfield of international peace operations. It’s especially intriguing since it begins when weapons stop firing and there’s an implicit or formal ceasefire agreement between parties.
Conventional UN peacekeeping would stop here and the UN forces would leave, leaving the parties to conflict to resolve their disagreement politically.
Peace building is a specialized discipline that focuses on strengthening peace after hostilities has ended and a ceasefire is signed.
The modern notion of ‘peace building’ was coined by Johan Galtung in 1975 and formalized in Boutros Boutros-Ghali’s 1992 report, “An Agenda for Peace”.
This UN report defined peace building as “activities to identify and promote structures that deepen and solidify peace”.
This new mission has made peace building a specialized area and a vital aspect of international peace and conflict resolution thinking and activities around the world.
Peace building lacks a definite description, other than that it occurs in a “post-conflict” situation where traditional peacekeeping was intended to terminate.
Peace building incorporates capacity building, reconciliation, and societal transformation to build norms, behaviors, and institutions for post-conflict peace.
Peace building begins when a conflict’s violence ends or slows down, allowing efforts to be undertaken for a permanent post-conflict peace.
Q. 5. Meaning of post-conflict re-construction and rehabilitation.
Ans. Despite ending great power rivalry, the Cold War saw many intrastate disputes, especially in developing countries.
During the 1990s, one-third of the world’s countries were in armed conflict, with two-thirds in Asia, Africa, and Latin America. Post-conflict reconstruction required international attention and global engagement.
The World Bank defines post-conflict reconstruction as reconstructing the socio-economic framework of society and the framework of government and rule of law.
Post-conflict reconstruction encompasses reconstructing a society’s political, security, social, and economic components.
It includes addressing the core causes of the conflict, fostering social and economic fairness, and establishing political frameworks of governance and the rule of law to solidify peace building, reconciliation, and development.
This includes social and economic growth, good governance, justice, and reconciliation, and long-term development aid.
No definition for post-conflict rehabilitation and peace-building has been agreed upon by the necessary consensus for use by the diverse parties in the process.
Post-conflict reconstruction and rehabilitation is the process of implementing long-term initiatives to improve the economic well-being of damaged communities and people, and developing institutions that can deliver governance, political and social justice.
After violent conflicts and military operations, reconstruction and rehabilitation are crucial. International organizations and country coalitions are working to restore or transform vulnerable social capital.
A larger commitment to post-conflict reconstruction and rehabilitation is needed to establish policies that fill the gap between humanitarian aid and development and organize cooperation and partnership.
Conflict also causes capital flight, economic downturn, increased defense spending, and economic structural changes. Postwar economic recovery depends on private sector solutions.
Reconstruction involves reconstructing pre-war government structures, institutions, and conditions. It includes restoring health and education services.
The largest problem is defining postconflict reconstruction priorities and how to rebuild. All peacetime conditions, however desirable, cannot be restored quickly and must be prioritized.
Post Conflict Reconstruction Framework was issued in 2002 by a partnership of multinational entities, including CSIS. The framework identifies three periods of activity between conflict cessation and normalization.