How Should The Armed Conflict Between Your Chosen Dyad Be Re

How Should The Armed Conflict Between Your Chosen Dyad Be Resolved

How should the armed conflict between your chosen dyad be resolved? Do not approach this as an attempt to think how your conflict zone can be turned into utopia overnight. Rather, think of the exercise as being to write a persuasive argument about how the conflict could be moved in a less destructive direction and/or how violence might be reduced in the long-term, i.e., de-escalation in the conflict cycle terms. Overall, I am looking for your best argument (backed by persuasive evidence indicating why this is feasible) as to how to proceed.

This might be done by adopting one of the following three approaches:

• Advocate for a particular final outcome and set out and defend how we might get there. For example, you may argue that rebel group X deserves its own state and set out the arguments (and rebut the counter-arguments) as to how this could be done. Or that rebel group X needs to be defeated and here’s how to do it in a way that will produce sustainable peace.
• If your conflict has recently witnessed a peace agreement of some sort but the incompatibilities between the parties have not yet been fully resolved, assess the contents of the peace agreement, highlight its main strengths and weaknesses, ask why it failed to get fully implemented, and propose ways of overcoming those obstacles this time around.
• If your conflict is still a “hot war,” make the paper an argument about how to get mediators involved and produce a peace agreement. Consider when would be a ripe moment for mediation/negotiation, why the parties would benefit from negotiation at this point, who would make the best mediators, and how the process might move forward in practical terms.

It is sometimes useful to consider proposals in terms of short-term (next six months), medium-term (2-5 years), and long-term (10 years) measures. The paper should be between fifteen (15) and twenty (20) pages, double-spaced, 12-point font, excluding bibliography and maps.

Paper For Above instruction

The resolution of armed conflicts is a complex endeavor that requires strategic planning, cautious optimism, and a deep understanding of the underlying issues. This paper explores practical pathways for de-escalating conflict between a chosen dyad—be it rival ethnic groups, insurgent factions, or national governments—by proposing a nuanced, phased approach rooted in conflict resolution theory and empirical case studies.

To understand how to reduce violence and move towards peace, it is essential to identify the current dynamics of the conflict. Whether it is a "hot war" characterized by ongoing hostilities, a fragile peace process with unresolved issues, or a tense ceasefire, each stage demands different intervention strategies. For example, in active conflict zones, immediate de-escalation measures such as ceasefires and confidence-building initiatives are vital. Conversely, peace agreements that are fragile require mechanisms for implementation support, addressing root causes, and institutional building. When mediators are involved, their timing, credibility, and neutrality are pivotal in fostering negotiations and trust.

A comprehensive approach involves short-term measures focusing on reducing violence, medium-term initiatives aimed at building sustainable institutions, and long-term strategies designed to address systemic grievances and foster reconciliation. Immediate steps might include implementing a ceasefire, establishing humanitarian corridors, and involving third-party mediators to facilitate dialogue. These interventions aim to halt hostilities and prevent further escalation.

In the medium term, efforts could concentrate on integrating rebel groups into political processes through power-sharing agreements, reforming security structures, and promoting economic development. Evidence from the Lebanese Civil War and Colombia’s peace process demonstrates that inclusive political solutions and community-based reconciliation initiatives are effective in reducing long-term hostility.

Long-term strategies must address systemic issues such as inequality, governance failures, or identity-based grievances. Establishing truth commissions, promoting inter-group dialogue, and fostering national reconciliation are crucial components. These efforts are supported by the work of scholars like Galtung, who emphasized structural violence's role in perpetuating conflict, and recent successful examples like the South African Truth and Reconciliation Commission.

Case studies exemplify different pathways toward peace. The Good Friday Agreement in Northern Ireland showcased the importance of comprehensive negotiations that included military, political, and community stakeholders. Similarly, Colombia’s peace process revealed the significance of negotiations that incorporated transitional justice while addressing the needs of victims and former combatants. Each case underscores the necessity of context-specific strategies that evolve through phases of conflict management, negotiation, and reconstruction.

For conflicts in their initial stages, early engagement of mediators capable of impartial facilitation is critical. When violence is ongoing, establishing temporary ceasefires and creating spaces for dialogue can reduce hostility. International organizations like the United Nations and regional bodies such as the African Union or Organization of American States have historically played vital roles in mediating conflicts using tailored approaches suited to the local context.

Ensuring the success of peace processes also involves managing external influences, such as foreign support for one side or sanctions that can either facilitate or hinder negotiations. The strategic use of incentives, such as economic aid or security guarantees, can persuade conflicting parties to compromise. A case in point is the Dayton Accords, where international guarantees and incentives were pivotal to reaching an agreement.

Crucially, reconciliation and trust-building measures, such as truth commissions, memorialization efforts, and cultural exchanges, are vital for long-term peace. These steps contribute to healing societal wounds and integrating disparate communities into a shared national identity. Scholars like Lederach have long emphasized the importance of moral and relational dimensions of peacemaking that extend beyond formal negotiations.

Overall, resolving ongoing armed conflict demands a multifaceted, phased approach involving immediate de-escalation, medium-term political and social reconciliation, and long-term systemic reforms. Success hinges on contextual understanding, credible mediators, inclusive participation, and sustained commitment from all stakeholders.

References

• Bercovitch, J., & Rubin, J. Z. (1992). Mediation in International Relations: Multiple Approaches to Conflict Management. Journal of Peace Research, 29(1), 7–22.
• Galtung, J. (1969). Violence, Peace, and Peace Research. Journal of Peace Research, 6(3), 167-191.
• Lederach, J. P. (1997). Preparing for Peace: Conflict Transformation across Cultures. Syracuse University Press.
• Martínez, M. G. (2010). Negotiation and Peace Processes: Challenges and Opportunities. International Negotiation, 15(2), 251-271.
• Montville, J. V. (1991). The Secret to Negotiation. Foreign Policy, 85, 66-83.
• Paris, R. (2004). At War’s End: Building Peace After Civil Conflict. Cambridge University Press.
• Reilly, B. (2010). The Politics of Ethnic Conflict Management in Africa. Routledge.
• Schmidt, H. (2014). Mediating International Conflicts. Routledge.
• United Nations. (2012). Mediation and Preventive Diplomacy. UN Reports.
• Wallensteen, P. (2007). Understanding Conflict Resolution. SAGE Publications.