GNS 207

DEFINITION, CAUSES AND TYPES OF CONFLICT AND PEACE.

Conceptual Definition and Understanding of Peace and Conflict

1. Conceptual Definition of Conflict and Peace

1. The Concept of Peace

Deriving from the Latin pax, meaning "peace, compact, agreement, treaty of peace, tranquillity, absence
of hostility, harmony", peace in the Western world is generally considered a contractual relationship
that implies mutual recognition and agreement. Understandings of peace throughout the world often
disclose a much deeper comprehension of peace in relation to the human condition, which also includes
inner peace.

Peace is a concept of societal friendship and harmony in the absence of hostility and violence. From a
social perspective, peace is usually used to connote a lack of conflict and the absence of fear of violence
between individuals or groups of people. There is also the "Psychological peace", such as peaceful
thinking and emotions. Although less well defined, yet it is often a necessary precursor to establishing
behavioural peace. Peaceful behaviour sometimes results from a peaceful inner disposition. Some have
expressed the belief that peace can be initiated with a certain quality of inner tranquillity that does not
depend upon the uncertainties of daily life. The acquisition of such a "peaceful internal disposition" for
oneself and others can contribute to resolving otherwise seemingly irreconcilable competing interests.
Peace is not often in the state of excitement although we are happy when excited, but peace is when
one's mind is quiet and satisfied. Hence, on a personal level, peaceful behaviours are kind, considerate,
respectful, just, and tolerant of others' beliefs and behaviours that manifest into friendliness and
goodwill.
Peace is also a political condition that ensures justice and social stability through formal and informal
institutions, practices, and norms. Several conditions must be met for peace to be reached and
maintained:

• balance of political power among the various groups within a society, region, or, most ambitiously, the
world

• legitimacy for decision makers and implementers of decisions in the eyes of their respective group, as
well as those of external parties, duly supported through transparency and accountability

• recognised and valued interdependent relationships among groups fostering long-term cooperation
during periods of agreement, disagreement, normality, and crisis

• reliable and trusted institutions for resolving conflicts

• sense of equality and respect, in sentiment and in practice, within and without groups and in
accordance with international standards

• mutual understanding of rights, interests, intents, and flexibility despite incompatibilities

Notoriously elusive, peace connotes more than a mere absence of war or hostilities; an absence of
conflict is impossible. In addition, the state of peace should be distinguished from techniques that simply
avoid conflicts or employ violent or coercive approaches to engage in, manage, or resolve them.

The comprehensive understanding of peace outlined above extends beyond what are referred to as
positive conceptions of peace but acts in accordance with them as well. This contrasts with negative
conceptions of peace, which are described most commonly as the mere absence of war or violent
conflict.

Negative versus Positive Peace

Johan Galtung, the father of peace studies often refers to the distinction between ‘negative peace’ and
‘positive peace’ (e.g. Galtung 1996). Negative peace refers to the absence of violence. When, for
example, a ceasefire is enacted, a negative peace will ensue. It is negative because something
undesirable stopped happening (e.g. the violence stopped, the oppression ended). Positive peace is
filled with positive content such as restoration of relationships, the creation of social systems that serve
the needs of the whole population and the constructive resolution of conflict.

Peace does not mean the total absence of any conflict. It means the absence of violence in all forms and
the unfolding of conflict in a constructive way.

Peace therefore exists where people are interacting non-violently and are managing their conflict
positively – with respectful attention to the legitimate needs and interest of all concerned.

We can then conclude that:

Peace is more than just the absence of war and violence

Peace is not the absence of conflict – but the ability to manage conflict constructively, as an important
opportunity for change and increased understanding

Peace is a commitment to understanding, celebrating and learning from difference

Peace is a commitment not to harm, but also to nurture, all individuals

2. The Concept of Conflict

The word “conflict” is derived from the Latin word confligere, meaning to “strike together.”

Lexically, according to Webster Dictionary, Vol. 1, 1971,conflict means

: to strike, to dasy. A fight, struggle or battle, clash, contention, confrontation, a controversy or quarrel,
active opposition, strife or incompatibility, to meet in opposition or hostility, to contend, to be contrary
or to be at variance.

Conflict also means contradiction arising from differences in interests, ideas, ideologies, orientations,
beliefs, perceptions and tendencies. Although, conflict is a normal, natural and inevitable phenomenon
in any interactive situation of human life, contradictions exists at all levels of the society – intra –
psychic/personal, interpersonal, intra – groups, inter – group, institution, intra – national and
international. Conflict is not necessarily negative in itself. It is often a by – product of social change and
may lead to constructive transformation.

Many scholars have come up with different definitions, concepts, views or school of thoughts of
conflicts from a more intellectual platform all over the world.

Quicy Wright (1990:19) defines conflict as opposition among social entities directed against one
another, it distinguished competition and defined it as opposition among social entities independently
striving for something of which the resources are inadequate to satisfy all. Competitors may not be
aware of one another, while they are parties to a conflict.

Two points which are directly related to conflict analysis and management can be deduced from this
definition. One is that contrary to the old perspective which regards conflict as national, it is not
inevitable, only competition can be so regarded.

Secondly, conflict and competition are two points of a continuum on which conflict represents
aggravated competition. In order words conflict arises when disagreement emerging from competition
cannot be resolved. It follows therefore that conflict management has to begin with and include
management of supposedly simple competition. The other point that can be inferred from Wright’s
definition is that conflicts are themselves processes that tend to degenerate from non-violent to violent
and from crisis to full-scale war.

Conflict take on a wide variety of forms and have been classified based on the intensity or scale of
violence, structural and character of parties in conflict ( such as class, ethnic, groups, religious group,
racial group, and so on) and manifesting a distinct spatial character ( such as national, regional, inter-
state or international). However, non-violent conflict has the potential to become violent if the
regulatory mechanism is ineffective.

Wright also opines that war is a type of conflict, thus, by understanding conflict we may learn about the
probable characteristics of war under different conditions and methods most suitable for regulating,
preventing, and winning wars. Wright proceeds to give two senses in which war could be understood,
that is, in the legal sense, war is considered a situation during which two or more political groups are
equally entitled to settle conflict by armed force. Whereas in the sociological sense, which is of ordinary
usage, war refers to conflicts among political groups carried on by armed forces of considerable
magnitude.

Kriesberg (1973:17) simply defines conflict as “…… a relationship between two or more parties who…..
believe they have incompatible goals.”

Stagner defines conflict as “…a situation in which two or more human beings desire goals which they
perceived as being obtainable by one or the other, but not both… each party is mobilising energy to
obtain a goal, a desired object or situation, and each party perceives the other as a barrier or treat to
that goal.”

Ross (1993 6:xiv) notes that: “If disadvantaged groups and individuals refuse to consider open conflict,
they deny themselves what sometimes is their most effective means for bringing about needed change”.
Rose therefore saw nothing wrong in conflict, he saw it as a natural and inevitable human experience
and as a critical mechanism by which goals and aspirations of individual and groups are articulated, it is a
channel for the definition of creative solutions to human problems and a means to the development of a
collective identity. What Ross is trying to infer is that without conflict we cannot have change.

Similarly, Laue (1990:256-7) tries to disabuse our minds about the dysfunctional perception of conflict.
He notes that:

conflict is not deviant, pathological, or sick behaviour per-se. It is not the opposite of order….. There is
orderliness in conflict, although conflict can become disorderly. And it can be a very helpful and useful
part of society.
What to be feared is destructive conflicts (that is, conflict that have started producing negative results)
rather than conflict itself.

Action Aid (1994) and Hoivik and Meijer (1994) see conflict as “incompatible behaviour between parties
whose interests are or appear to be, incompatible or clashing.” Two things could be taken from these
simple definitions. The first is that conflict emanates from (social) relationships, and second, the
conflicting groups must reside in close proximity whether physically or psychologically.

Causes of Conflict.

1. Causes of Conflict

As earlier mentioned, conflict is inevitable and it keeps occurring in every individual life, either at home,
work, social outings or even when we sleep in our bedroom without interacting with anyone. Although,
we are familiar with those inexhaustible things that cause conflicts, but in this context, they can be
categorised into four namely:

i. conflicts over resources

ii. conflicts over psychological needs

iii. conflicts involving values

iv. conflicts over inadequate information

i. Conflicts over Resources

These types of conflicts are usually easy to identify because they can be seen and are more potentially
easy to resolve. This conflict occurs when two or more people are competing for inadequate (or
perceived to be inadequate) resources over a period of time. The competition may assume negative or
destructive dimension when the available resources are not evenly and judiciously distributed. The
relatively deprived would always struggle to improve their lot. This view agrees with the Marxian theory
of conflict, which posits that the more the rate of unequal distribution of scarce resources in the society,
the greater is the basic conflict of interest between its dominant and subordinate segments. He also says
that when practices of dominant segment create “alienation dispositions” the more the subordinate
segments of a system become aware of their collective interests and question the distribution of scarce
resources, the more likely they are to join in overt conflict against dominant segment of a system.
Resources that cause conflict include landed properties, money, vehicles, and company
ownership/shares among others.

ii. Conflict over Psychological Needs

Conflicts over psychological needs of groups and individuals are conflicts which cannot be seen but
affect the psyche of the individual and group self-actualisation, need for individual and group respect,
attempt to project one’s group to be better than the others. With particular reference to Maslow’s
theory, he points out that when an individual psychological need is achieved or satisfied, such an
individual becomes dominated by a drive for the other unsatisfied needs through a process he calls
“Fulfillment Progression”. Example includes structural factor, politics, personality clash, and ethnicity.

iii. Conflict Involving Values

Contradicting value systems such as religious beliefs, ideological positions, and general worldview is
another factor responsible for social conflict among the interacting parties. Conflict involving values are
the most difficult to understand and resolve because most times people could die for what they believe
in. According to Weaver, who likens culture to an iceberg, he says “internal culture”, is implicitly learnt
and difficult to change. That is part of culture that is below the waterline in the iceberg analogy. It
includes some of our beliefs, our values and thought patterns, attitudes, non-verbal communication and
perception. Beliefs are interrelated and form “belief system”, which because they are learnt in life, are
difficult to change. Examples of values laden conflicts include the Cold War, terrorism (suicide bombing),
religious conflicts such as 1980 Maitatsine crisis, the 1991 Bonnke crisis in Kano, the 2002 Beauty
Pageant crisis. Others include the September 30, 2005 Cartoon crisis over a Danish newspaper, Jyllands
Posten, published cartoons caricaturing Prophet Mohammad, the most recent of all the religious crisis in
Nigeria is the Boko Haram crisis that has killed an estimated 3,500 people.

iv. Conflict over Information

 The last but not the least of the factors causing conflict in any society is “manipulation of information”.
The pivotal role of information in societal conflict cannot be over-emphasised, they can either be
manipulative or constructive. Especially in a widespread conflict situation, the role of information
becomes more crucial, difficult and dangerous. When the information system in a society is tampered
with, there is bound to be conflict. The information system can be tampered with in different ways. This
can be either by feeding people with lies or giving the right information at the wrong time. In our
contemporary societies, the quantity and quality of information vary dramatically and are dependent on
wide range of factors, from level of literacy to social cohesiveness and stability to available technology.
Central to the availability and quality of public information is the media (print, audio and audio-visual).

Also, in deeply divided societies, the media can also shape opinion and decisions related to the nature
and scope of conflicts, as well as the potential alternatives to conflict, where social, political and
economic conflict have degenerated into widespread violence, the role of information in mitigating the
effects of violence or in presenting alternatives can be crucial. Because communication is an integral
part of conflict, it comes as no surprise that those participating in organised violence often use the
media to attack opponents, and “spread disinformation or misinformation” and “rally external and
internal support.”

Some of the communication barriers that are capable of distorting meanings are physical distance,
language, and the listeners value judgement.

Phases in Conflict

1. Conflict Cycle and Stages of Conflict

Conflict tend to progress from one place to another when the stakeholders (the oppressed and the
oppressor) become more aware of a conflict of interest, means to act and then mobilise to alter the
prevailing situation to each group advantage. In the course of altering the situation or addressing the
injustice being faced by the oppressed, a sporadic violence can erupt if either parties should fail to adopt
positive approach of conflict management.

1.1 Stages of Conflict.

The following are the various stages of conflicts emerging in different parts of the world.

A. The Formation Stage

This is the first stage of conflict whereby a problem emerges and acts or things, or situations that were
previously ignored or taken for granted now turn to serious issues. The obvious antagonistic shifts in
attitude and a behaviour patterns is a clear indication of the early warning signs of conflict formation,
which need to be addressed if further escalation is to be avoided.

B. The Escalation Stage

This stage is characterised by the formation of enemy images. People begin to take sides, positions
harden, communication stops, perception becomes distorted and parties begin to commit resources to
defend their position, leaders begin to make inflammatory public statements regarding their positions
and street demonstrations intensity.

C. The Crisis Stage

At this stage, parties in conflict now begin to use physical barricades to demarcate their territories.
Attempts to defend or expand territories or interests lead to direct confrontation and eruption of
violence. Stockpiled weapons or arms are now freely used in an attempt to dominate or have upper
hand leading to breakdown of law and order and essential. Services are virtually disrupted and people
begin to experience discomfort due to lack of water, food, electricity and other essential goods and
services.

D. De-escalation Stage

This is the stage in which parties in conflict begin to experience gradual cessation of hostility arising
from conflict weariness, hunger, sanctions or external intervention.

E. Improvement Stage

At this stage, stakeholders begin to have a rethink, shift ground and needs for dialogue are recognised
and efforts are made towards attaining relative peace.

F. Transformation Stage
All causes of conflicts have been removed at this stage.

Conflict Handling Styles

1. Model One

These are various forms or ways by which individual, groups, societies or nations perceive and respond
to conflicts arising from diverse/conflicting views, opinion, ideas, values and belief. The behaviours and
attitudes of the parties concerned usually determined the success and failure of any conflict which can
be described along these two basic dimensions namely:

a. Assertiveness

This describes the extent to which an individual attempts to satisfy his needs and concern.

b. Cooperativeness

This explains the extent to which a person attempts to satisfy his needs and concerns as well as the
other person’s needs. These two basic dimensions of behaviour can be applied to define or explain the
following five conflict handling styles: dominating/competing; accommodating; avoiding; collaborating
and compromising.

i. Dominating/Competing

This takes place when an individual is very assertive and not cooperative. Such a person pursues his
own concerns at another person’s expense. It is a power-oriented mode. It is a position that states: “I
have to win.” It can also mean: “I have to stand up for myself, for my rights.” It entails defending a
position by argument, by rank, or by economic advantage. This position connotes “you win, the other
loses.”

ii. Accommodating
You are unassertive and cooperative. It is the opposite of competing. When accommodating, you
neglect your own concerns to satisfy the concerns of the other person; there is an element of self-
sacrifice in this handling style. It can be selfless, generous; it can be yielding because of weakness or low
self-esteem.

iii. Avoiding

You are unassertive and uncooperative. You do not (immediately) pursue your own concerns or those of
other person. You do not address the conflict. It can be a diplomatic way of handling conflict, postponing
for a better time. It can also be a withdrawal, that could lead to worsening of a relationship.

iv. Collaborating

Under this dimension, you are both assertive and cooperative. It is the opposite of avoiding. You are
working with the other person to find a solution that fully satisfies the concerns of both parties. It means
dialogue, it means good listening, it means understanding your and the other person’s needs and
concerns and creating solutions to meet those concerns. In this case, both sides win. A win-win situation
for all.

v. Compromising

You are partially assertive and partially cooperative. When you compromise you attempt to find an
expedient, mutually acceptable solution which partially satisfies both parties. When you compromise,
you split the difference, you make concessions, you give up something, to gain something in return. You
seek a middle – ground position. You win a little, and you loose a little.

CONFLICT TRANSFORMATIONS.

The Concept of Conflict Transformation.

1. Definition of Conflict Transformation

Conflict Transformation

The fundamental objective of this latest concept is to transform unfair social interactions. The
International Alert (1996: I:1-, II: 37) conceptualizes conflict transformation as a particular approach
which aims to recognize the grievances, needs and issues of all the parties. It focuses on the processes
by which conflict develops into violence, rather than focusing exclusively on how to bring a violent
conflict quickly to a cease fire for settlement. It addresses the structural reality of inequality, rights and
injustice in the society involved, and offers alternative ways of addressing those matters. This approach
aims to transform a conflict from violence and destruction into a constructive force which reduces social
change, progressively removing or at least reducing the conditions from which the conflict and violence
have arisen. The peace, which develops, can then be well- founded and sustainable.

Conflict transformation is essentially integrative conflict resolution orientation that aims at positively
altering those perceptions, communication and root factors that instigate conflicts. This laborious
approach is preferred because it focuses on:

producing transformation in the whole conflict environment

producing transformation in the relationship of the conflicting parties, or

producing empowerment-based transformation in parties to the conflict (Burgess and Burgess, 1972:
285-286).

Conflict transformation is the aggregate of all efforts that concentrate on the developmental stages or
processes of a conflict, rather than simply on its end point. In addition, it pays attention to how conflict
transforms relationships, communication, perceptions, issues and social organisation. Based on this,
conflict transformation aims to transform the conflict from violent manifestation characterised by
armed conflict and war to constructive and peaceful expression.

Conflict transformation also focuses on transformation and sometimes the removal of all structures that
impede sustainable positive peace. It also seeks ways of involving all stakeholders including erstwhile
combatants, local individuals, communities and external third parties in a concerted way.

Conflict transformation can also be defined as an improvement of the whole context of the conflict, a
positive change in the disputants’ relationships or complete behavioural and attitudinal changes of the
disputants. Conflict transformation entails an informed reassessment and redefinition of the disputants
to explore avenues for new compensations and appointments. The aim of this is to transcend zero-sum
(win-lose) phase to arrive at a positive-sum (win-win) agreement. New mutually benefiting
arrangements are proposed and worked out in which the hitherto contested issues become less or no
longer relevant and other issues and values become more dearer to all the parties in the conflict. An
example is the Franco-German reconciliation after the Second World War.

Conflict transformation has also been defined as a particular approach that takes into cognisance the
grievances, needs and issues of all the parties. It pays due attention to the degeneration stages of
conflict to violence rather than solely on how to bring a violent conflict to a cease- fire or settlement. It
confronts the structural reality of inequality, rights and injustice in the locales concerned and proposes
alternative ways of addressing those realities.

Conflict transformation aims to transform a conflict from violent and destructive stage into a
constructive force, which will lay the foundation for social change. This can be achieved by
systematically and progressively removing and playing down the conditions that gave rise to conflict and
violence. The objective is to have a well-founded and sustainable peace. In achieving the foregoing, due
attention is paid to the actors, the issues, the rules, and the structures.

In approaching conflict transformation, there are two broad approaches. These are non-violent conflict
transformation associated with Gandhi otherwise known as the Gandhi theory. The second though
seemingly unscrupulous app2of approaches that does not pre- suppose resolution of the
incompatibilities, but tries to freeze the conflict, negate it, protect it, through all kinds of devices,
including structural and direct violence.

The non-violence theory or Gandhi theory is vehemently intolerant of the use of either structural
violence or direct violence because it will contradict the spirit and letter of the non-violence theory. In
addition, non-violence is an admonition to struggle against both direct and structural violence, and an
equally strong admonition not to use them in the struggle. Non-violence or Gandhi theory will also not
condone the fair protractive devices earlier mentioned because they are antithetical to the non-violence
theory of conflict transformation. For Gandhi; “there is no way to peace; peace is the way; to be taken,
now.”

One of the chief proponents of conflict transformation is John Lederach. In his analysis, Lederach
distinguishes conflict transformation from conflict management and conflict resolution. Conflict
transformation is desirable than the two because it emphasises a broader and deeper understanding of
the conflict. “Conflict resolution” suggests that conflict is destructive like fire; therefore, it should be put
out quickly. It also implies that conflict is a flash or spark that can be handled once and for all in a
decisive manner through mediation or other intervention processes.

“Conflict management” correctly posits that conflicts could be protracted in span, which makes it
difficult to be swiftly resolved, but “management” implies that people can be directly or remotely
manipulated, as they were physical objects. Furthermore, the notion of management implies that its
goal is the mitigation or control of volatility without dealing with the real source of the problem.

Conflict transformation transcends simply eliminating or controlling conflict, but stresses making on the
dialectic or dynamic nature of conflicts. In the context of social conflict, Lederach argues that social
conflict is ordinarily created by humans who have relationships that suffer immediately there is a
conflict. Therefore, cause-and-effect relationship goes both ways from the people and the relationships
to the conflict and back to the people and the relationships. Conflict changes relationships in predictable
ways often negatively; it changes modes and contexts of communication processes of social
organisation, altering images of the self and of the other.

Lederach also opines that conflict transformation is a prescriptive concept. This implies that on its own,
conflict can have destructive consequences. However, the consequences can be regulated or
transformed in order to improve self-images, relationships, and social structures depending on the way
it is handled. Usually this is done by transforming perceptions of issues, actions, and other people or
groups. In as much as conflict destroys relationships by altering perceptions and emphasising on the
differences between people and positions, efficacious conflict transformation can work to improve
mutual understanding. Even when actors’ interests, values, and needs are contrasting or irreconcilable,
a fair understanding of one another though contacts and communication can help. This has potentials or
effects on the way conflict is expressed. This can make the expression of conflict aggressively or violently
replaced by non-violent advocacy, conciliation or attempted cooperation.
For the success of conflict transformation processes have been evolved. Although different writers
emphasize different aspects, nevertheless, most of them seem to agree on the following for conflict
transformation to be effective.

Multi-level participation involving elements from all social levels of the involved parties, from top
decision makers through middle range opinion leaders to grass roots constituents, including those who
would normally be excluded from the process and whose interests would not be represented in ‘normal’
negotiations.

Efforts to empower the ‘underdogs’ in the struggle so that between parties that are more equal than
they could otherwise be.

Efforts to ensure that those directly involved in the conflict can control the transformation processes to
their own satisfaction and thus make sure that any outcomes have the approval and support of those
affected.

Focus not merely on immediate issues but also on long standing traumas and on any deep-rooted sense
of past injustices.

Brokerage by appropriate intermediaries who understand the culture and social structures in which
adversaries are embedded.

Co-creation of a new understanding of the conflict, how it arose and what it needs to be changed in
order both to resolve it and to ensure that other, similar dispute do not arise in future.

An ability to create and put in place procedures that will maintain and continue the changes found
necessary to resolve the current conflict and prevent others arising in future, or-when they arise – taking
on a protracted and destructive form.

The mutual, inter-active education of adversaries about the nature of the socio-political and economic
systems from which the conflict arose and of the dynamics of that conflict; and their training in skills
that will enable them deal with that conflict and other that may arise in future.

The above according to Mitchell helps to understand the concept of conflict transformation in three
main categories. The first category comprises those dealing with personal changes, the second, those
dealing with structural changes and the third those dealing with relationship changes.

Conflict transformation is geared towards positive peace and restorative justice. In theory and practice,
it transcends conflict management and conflict resolution. It stresses the restoration of relationships to
the status-quo-ante of the conflict.
Types of Conflict Transformation

1. Types of Conflict Transformation

1. Issue Transformation

In many instances, issues are often shaped by perception and the fear of its effects on parties
concerned. These are some of the factors that impinge on conflict transformation. Schmid (2000)
defines issue transformation as a change in the political agenda of the conflict, downplaying the
importance of original conflict issues and emphasizing shared concern for new issues. However, for issue
transformation to aid any conflict transformation process the particular types of conflict must be
accurately understood and analyzed. Therefore, a modification of Schmid definition becomes auspicious
because other than political issues or conflicts there are other types of conflicts with vexed and salient
issues that must necessarily be transformed. Issues of identity, security, religion, ecology and others also
often need to be transformed. The main thrust of issue transformation is to make discordant tunes less
salient while making concordant tunes better perceived and appreciated. Issue transformation also
entails the dexterous handling or manipulating of issue structure and contents to enhance the possibility
of conflict transformation. Issue transformation calls for the expansion of the agenda rather than
restricting it to maintain social coalitions and the convergence of disparate interests.

Politically, arrangements supportive of the previous agenda will have to change. Put succinctly, the
transformation simultaneously encapsulates several actors and connects issues and actors with each
other. In large- scale conflicts, this may entail significant political rearrangement within most of or all the
countries involved. This has to be done continuously and mindfully so as not to be seen as prying into
the domestic confines or precincts of actors to avert violence and instability.

Surrounding most issues that need transformation are the parties’ needs, interests and values, which
are not always accurately and explicitly expressed by their positional statements. Interests, needs and
values are the concepts that underlie most conflicts, yet one often mixed up. The concept of “interests”
usually refers to what people or parties in a conflict want. They may be material things as they often are
or not. They are usually negotiable people are willing to trade more or less are interest for more or less
of another. For the fact that conflicts are defined based on the incompatibility of interests, it is assumed
that for things like (money, land, jobs etc.) the more one person or group possesses the less the other
party possesses. Therefore, when conflicts are conceptualized in the context of interest the conflict
becomes a fixed- sum conflict or zero-sum game.
Needs are also things people wants in a conflict. However, they are often immaterial things such as
security, identity and recognition. Needs constitute an integral part of the human being. Needs are
different from interests in many significant ways. First, they are often non-negotiable. Parties in conflict
rarely want to trade away their identity, security or recognition. Identity especially ethnic and religious is
so fundamental to human satisfaction, that people will go to any length to protect and preserve them.
This may include the violation of fundamental norms, or reduce their ability to obtain their interests, in a
bid to fulfil or protect their fundament needs.

A second fundamental difference is that needs are often inextricably linked together. While interests
may be arranged or shared in such a way that only one side gets its objective, needs based issues cannot
be so shared because of their intangible nature. Insecurity or denigration of one party’s ethnic identity
or the desecration of one party’s religious symbols would likely trigger violence or aggression. It is,
however, theorized that, if one’s identity or security is secured, then the likelihood of threatening that
of others is greatly reduced.

Values are also crucial to the social well-being of man. Values are fundamental beliefs that are non-
negotiable. Values are the ideas, habits, customs and beliefs that are characteristic of particular social
communities (Burton, 1990). Values determine how we understand the world and how we respond to it.
Similar to needs, if one’s values are questioned or threatened, one gets compelled to strongly defend
one’s values.

Since values and needs are non-negotiable, any attempt at issue transformation as part of conflict
transformation process must pay due attention to the two. In order to transform issues values and
needs must be extensively and dexterously handled. This is more expedient because of the increasing
occurrences of intra-state conflicts especially in many African countries mostly based on ideological
conflicts, which are inextricably linked to issues of needs and values.

2. Rule Transformation

As the popular saying goes, “rules are made for human being and not vice versa.” Among the Yoruba of
south-western Nigeria, it is also opined that there can be no violation of rules or norms where none
hitherto existed. Rule transformation as part of conflict transformation processes usually occur during
intense conflict or after. Vanynen (1991) describes rule transformation as one of the measures to
restructure a conflict. Rule transformation tries to redefine the norms which actors in a conflict are
expected to follow in their mutual interactions. According to the structuralist approach, the rules of
behaviour have been presumed to be dependent on the position of an actor in the structure and in that
way on its relative power and interests. This implies that rules would only alter the behaviour of an actor
in a conflict based on the interests of the actors and the relative power it possesses to achieve the
interests. In recent times, scholars such as Vaymen, 1991 argue that rules can have independent impact
on inter-actor relations. This is why it is opined that a significant transformation of rules can be expected
to alter actor behaviour and hence create a new basis for managing the conflict. At this juncture, it
becomes apposite to explain further that rule transformation also aims to change rules operation in a
conflict setting or surrounding the issues in a conflict in a way that will at least meet the needs of the
parties in conflict in order to reduce violent or destructive confrontation.

In most international conflicts or large-scale civil wars, an outsider that commands true respect of the
parties may be in the best position to initiate and manage it. To achieve proper rule transformation,
some conditions are necessary. These conditions may include the disappearance of legitimate authority
institutions and law and order. Zartunan (2001) illustrates this with six different cases – Lebanon, Liberia,
Somalia, Zaire (Congo), Haiti and Yugoslavia. The rules have to changed or transformed in the
aforementioned conflict theatres based on the stark reality that parties needed help to get out of the
conflict web. The emphasis is on third-party diplomacy relying primarily on negotiation, not on military
or other physical involvement although this may be involved ancillary. The six instances above confirm
the efficacy of preventive diplomacy in initiating rule transformation. Some of the cases are:

Lebanon under civil war from 1975 until 1989

February 1976: Arabization of the Syrian initiative to provide incentives and modifications for the
proposed Constitutional Document while the conflict was still in civilian hands;

July 1982: Reagan initiative that focused on the Lebanese problem, brought in Syria, and worked
deliberately on a peace agreement;

March 1984: Saudi and US cooperation with Syria to provide incentives and guarantees and to include
militia and parliamentary leaders to reinforce the Lausanne Agreement and

December 1985: March 1986. Saudi, Egyptian and Western involvement alongside Syria to broaden and
strengthen the Damascus Accord.

2. Somalia under civil war after 1988

October 1988: UNSC, Organisation of African Unit (OAU) and Inter-Government Agency on Drought and
Development (IGADD) condemnation of Hawgessia massacre, mediation of monitored ceasefire, and
convocation of national reconciliation conference under US – USSR leadership;
May 1990 – January 1991: US – 1GADD mediation of Siad Barne’s resignation (such as arranged by
Mengistu in March 1991) and leadership transition through a sovereign national conference (as used
elsewhere in Africa);

March – June 1991: Earlier UNSC authorisation of United Nations Operation in Somalia UNOSOM 1, with
anus embargo and a more inclusive Djibouti congress.

March 1992: UNSC authorisation of humanitarian intervention, peacekeeping monitors, confidence –

building measures and a reconciliation conference, with a broadened mandate for UN mediator
Salumonu, as a follow-up to the Mogadishu ceasefire;

March 1993: Seamless transition from the United State Force in Somalia (UNITAF) to UNOSOM II, with a
continuation of UNITAF policies of grassroot institutionalisation, enforcement, and policing; and

October 1993: Firm reaction by US Forces to deaths at the Aideed Cornal.

3. Liberian State collapse into civil war after 1990

October 1985: US desertification of fraudulent electoral results and support for the true court to end
Doe’s regime while political forces were still intact and the army had not been cleansed of anti-Doe
forces;

June 1990: US evacuation of Samuel Doe to safety and retirement offered by Nigeria and Togo, thus
offering an opportunity for influence with Taylor;

April – July 1992: Inclusion of all factions and a stronger mediation role for the Carter Centre’s
International Negotiation Network (INN) to provide fuller implementing details and a monitored
disarmament for the Yamouskrov IV agreement;

July 1993: Stronger mediation rule by the Carter Centre’s INN and the Special Representative to the UN
Secretary- General to provide for realistic disarmament and interim governance at Cotonou and;

July 1998: Follow up to the Taylor-Kabbah agreement through redeployment of an augmented ECOMOG
force along the Liberian – Sierra Leonean border and in the diamond region.

August 4, 2003: ECOWAS Mission in Liberia (ECOMIL) numbering 3,500 troops were deployed to Liberia.
Nigeria contributed 1,500 troops to the vanguard.

The instances above show instances where the rule governing primary parties were altered or
transformed by third-parties through acts of preventive diplomacy.

The Practice of Conflict Transformation.

1. A Chart for Conflict Transformation

Creating a Map for Conflict Transformation

It is common in the study of conflict to develop a map that helps us to engage in conflict assessment and
analysis. Similarly, it is useful to have a map of what we mean by transformation. Below figure provides
a shortcut overview of such a map, which can help us to visualize the development of a strategy to
constructively transform conflict.

This transformational framework has three components, each of which represent a point of inquiry in
the development of a response to conflict:

the presenting situation,

the horizon of preferred future, and

the development of change processes linking the two.

The movement from the present toward the desired future is not a straight line, but rather a set of
dynamic initiatives that set in motion change processes and create a sustained platform to pursue long-
term change. Such a framework emphasizes the challenge of how to end something not desired and
how to build something that is desired.

CONFLICT THEORIES.

Conflict Theories

1. Conflict Theories from Sociological Perspective

1. Karl Marx Theory

Marx the great social philosopher opines that the degree of inequality in the distribution of resources
generates inherent conflicts of interest. He explains that contradiction in capitalist modes of economic
production and how these would lead to conflict processes that would usher in communism via a
revolutionary action that would be carried out by the proletariats (the ruled). Although, his predictions
were wrong, perhaps because of some fatal errors in his logic, but his analysis is still very much useful,
applicable and relevant to most of the conflicts being experienced the world over.
Karl Marx views that the more the rate or degree of inequality in the distribution of the relatively
available or the scarce resources in the society, the greater is the basic conflict of interest between its
dominant and subordinate segments. The more the subordinate segments (proletariat) become aware
of their true collective interests, the more likely they are to question the legitimacy of the existing
pattern of distribution or allocation of scarce resources. Also the subordinates are more likely to become
aware of their true collective interest when changes wrought by dominant segments disrupt existing
relations among subordinates, practices of dominant segments create “alienative dispositions”,
members of subordinate segments can communicate their grievances to one another, which, in turn, is
facilitated by the ecological concentration among members of subordinate groups, and the expansion of
educational opportunities for members of subordinate group.

Marx also exerts that the more the subordinate segments at a system become aware of their collective
interests and question the legitimacy of the distribution of scarce resources, the more likely they are to
join in overt conflict against dominant segments of a system. The greater is the ideological unification of
members of subordinate segment of a system and the more developed is their political leadership
structure, the more likely are the interests and relations between dominant and subjugated segments of
a society to become polarised and irreconcilable. The more polarised are the dominant and subjugated,
the more will the conflict be violent. The more violent is the conflict, the greater is the amount of
structural change within a society and the greater is the redistribution of scarce resources.

2. Max Weber Theory

Weber sees conflict as highly contingent on the emergence of “charismatic leaders” who could mobilise
subordinates. He opined that subordinates are more likely to pursue conflict with super ordinates when
they withdraw legitimacy from political authority when the correlation among members in class, status,
group, and political hierarchies is high, the discontinuity or degrees of inequality in the resource
distribution within social hierarchies is high, and when social mobility and social hierarchies of power,
prestige, and wealth are low.

Conflict between super ordinates and subordinates becomes more likely when charismatic leaders can
mobilise resentment of subordinates. When charismatic leaders are successful in conflict, pressure
mounts to routinise authority through new systems of rules and administration. As a system of rules and
administrative authority is imposed, the more likely are new subordinates to withdraw legitimacy from
political authority and to pursue conflict with the new super ordinates, especially when new traditional
and ascriptive forms of political domination are imposed by elites.
3. Conflict-Theory Model of Dahrendorf

Dahrendorf (1958) introduces to the theory of conflict the view of productive and constructive conflict.
He sees conflict as necessary for achieving an end in the society or for realisation of social goals. He
holds that social conflict produces change in the system which is necessary and good. Dahrendorf’s
attempt was to determine a systematic locus and a specific framework for a theory of conflict in
sociological analysis. He contends for two different kinds of struggles in an organisation. He calls them
“exogenous” and “endogenous” conflicts.

The endogenous conflict is the conflict that is generated with an organisation, system or a society. In
this, he agreed with Marx that internal conflict comes from the present social structure. He went
beyond the internal dynamics of conflict to allow for external factors, which he called exogenous
conflict. This also influences social change. In order words, exogenous conflict is brought upon or into a
system from the outside. The theory asserts that certain conflicts are based on certain social structural
arrangements and hence are bound to arise whenever such structural arrangements are given.

Furthermore, the dichotomy of social roles within imperatively coordinated groups, and the division into
positive and negative dominance riles are fails of social structure. Here are the assumptions for the
structural arrangement which could lead to conflict as Dahrendorf presents in his conflict theory model:

In every imperatively coordinated group, the carriers of positive (status quo) and the negative (change
of status quo) dominant roles determined two quasi-groups with opposite latent interest.

The bearers of positive and negative dominant roles organise themselves into groups with manifest
interests unless certain empirically variable conditions intervene.

Interest groups which originate in this manner are in constant conflict concerned with the preservation
or change in the status quo.

The conflict among interest groups in the sense of this model leads to changes in the structure of the
social relations in question through changes in the dominant relations.

Assumption and Role of Theories.

1. Assumptions on Conflict
Assumption on Ethnicity and Conflict

According to Person, Novak, and Gleason (1982:1), the word “ethnic” was derived via Latin from the
Greek ethnos, which means “nation or race”. Ethnicity has been viewed since the earliest times in terms
of a group setting associated with the idea of nationhood. But in recent years, the instrumentalists’ view
of ethnicity and ethnic conflicts in Africa and the rest of the world hold that “ethnicity is not a natural
cultural residue but a consciously crafted ideological creation”, ethnic conflicts result from the
manipulations of the (radical) elite who incite and distort ethnic/nationalist consciousness into an
instrument to pursue their personal ambitions.

The problem with the theory despite the fact that it contains some validity is that, it almost ignores
completely the core motives and elements in ethnic conflicts such as the roles of fear and group
psychology and importance of symbolic controversies which are often less comprehensible to the
“outsider”.

Thomson (2000:58) defines an ethnic group as “a community of people who have the conviction that
they have a common identity and common fate based on issues of origin, kinship, ties, traditions,
cultural uniqueness, a shared history and possibly a shared language.”

Toland (1993:3) basically agrees with Thomson in her conception of an ethnic group, but takes it one
step further by adding a sense of longing on the individual level: “…(ethnicity is) the sense of people-
hood held by members of a group sharing a common culture and history within a society.”

Bamass argues the assumption “ethnicity and nationalism are not ‘givens’, but are social and political
constructions. They are the creations of elites, who draw upon distorted and sometimes fabricated
materials from the cultures of the groups they wish to represent in order to protect their wellbeing or
existence or to gain political and economic advantage for their groups as well as for themselves… this
process invariably involves competition and conflict for political power, economic benefits, and social
status between the political elite, class, and leadership groups both within and among different ethnic
categories” (Kruger 1993: 11).

In the light of the discussion above, it is important to note that mere differences in values or regional
development, or between ethnic groups for that matter, do not as such promote ethnicity and ethnic
conflict, according to Kruger (1993:12). Quoting Brass, he states “… Ethnic self- consciousness, ethnically
based demands, and ethnic conflict can occur if there is some conflict either between indigenous and
external elites and authorities or between indigenous elites.”

Nevertheless, the assumption on ethnicity and conflict therefore, states that, “ethnic identity has a
symbolic dimension which makes conflict arising from it more intense than otherwise. Ethnicity has the
symbolic capability of defining for individual the totality of his existence including his hopes, fears and
sense of the future. Any action or thought that is perceived to undermine the ethnic group which
include those that diminish its status in the eyes of the members evokes very hostile and some times
violent response.” An aggressive and murderous ethnic militia man may even believe that his very
existence is threatened by the perceived injury to his ethnic group. Similarly, a poor villager believes that
a cabinet minister from his village represents his own interest and share of the national cake even
though he may never receive any personal material reward as a result of the appointment.

Assumption on Culture and Conflict

Culture simply means the sum-total of all human existence which comprises norms, values, traditions,
beliefs, customs, languages, patterns of behaviours, art music, food, mode of dressing and so on.
Cultures have been delineated along a number of dimensions by various writers. Glen Fisher, in an
interesting book called Mindsets and in his chapter in Weaver’s book (1998:140) characterises two kinds
of societies: those based on achievement and those on ascription. Those described as “achievement”
emphasise doing, in contrast to being, which describes “ascriptive” societies. The former value change
and action, whereas the latter value stability and harmony.

Weaver (1998:72-74) likens culture to an iceberg, in which only the tip is seen above the water line. The
part that is obvious is the external culture, which is explicitly learned, is conscious and more easily
changed. The external culture includes many of the elements that we normally think of as “culture”:
music, literature, drama, foods, dress, customs, and verbal communications. These are all aspects of
“behaviour”. External culture may also include some of our beliefs, such as religion and explicit ethnics.

These aspects of culture are all obvious to a newcomer. However, there is also an internal culture, which
is implicitly learned and difficult to change. That is the part which is below the waterline in the iceberg
analogy. It includes some of our beliefs, our values and thought patterns, attitudes, non-verbal
communication, and perceptions. Beliefs are interrelated and form “belief system”, which because they
are learnt early in life, are difficult to change. It is also difficult to perceive and fully understand the
internal culture of someone from a different group. Yet it is this part of culture that defines who we are
and what really is important to us. Because we are often unaware of these elements it is difficult to
articulate them to others, even to those whom we love. And we most unlikely to expose our inner-selves
to someone with whom we are in conflict.

Geert Hofstede in Weaver 1998:148-158 describes four dimensions by which he placed a number of
societies on graphs. Two are particularly relevant o conflict transformation (p.149):

Power distance – defines the extent to which the less powerful person in a society accepts inequality in
power and considers it normal. All societies are unequal, but some are more unequal than others.

Individualism – opposes collectivism (in the anthropological sense). Individualist cultures assume
individuals look primarily after their own interest and those of their immediate family. Collectivist
cultures assume that individuals – through birth and possibly later events – belong to one or more close
“in-groups” from which they cannot detach themselves. A collectivist society is tightly integrated; an
individualist society is loosely integrated.

Hofstede characterises American and Northern European societies as generally having low power
distance and high individualism. Many African and Latin American societies have large power distance
and low individualism. Some of the Southern European societies are in the middle with large power
distance and medium individualism.

John Paul Lederach, probably one of the best known theorists and practitioners in the field of conflict
transformation today, posits that “social conflict emerges and develops on the basis of the meaning and
interpretation people involved attach to action and events. Social meaning is lodged in the accumulated
knowledge, that is a person’s bank of knowledge” (1995:8). Conflict is related to meaning, meaning to
knowledge, and knowledge is rooted in culture. People act on the basis of the meaning that things have
for them. The symbolic interactionist, Herbert Blummer (1969) emphasises the importance of symbols
and meanings attach to them. Therefore, Ladarach’s assumptions (1995:9- 10) can simply be liberally
summarised as follows.

Social conflict is a natural, common experience present in all relationships and cultures.

Conflict is a socially constructed cultural event, people active participants in creating situations and
interactions they experience as conflict.

Conflict emerges through an interactive process based on the search for and creation of shared
meaning.
The interactive process is accomplished through and rooted in people’s perceptions, interpretations,
expressions, and intentions, each of which grows from the cycles back to their common sense
knowledge.

Meaning occurs as people locate themselves and social “things” such as situations, events, and actions
in their accumulated knowledge. A person’s common sense and accumulated experience and knowledge
are the primary basis of how he creates, understands and responds to conflict.

Culture is rooted in the shared knowledge and schemes created and used by a set of people for
perceiving interpreting, expressing and responding to social realities around them.

However the term “culture” is often linked with ethnicity, as both the external and internal cultures are
often determined by our ethnic groups, along with influences from the larger world through
socialisation, education, the media and exposure to a different way of thinking and behaviour. We talk
about “the culture of violence”, “the culture peace”, “the culture of poverty”, “the culture of
corruption”, “corporate culture” and so on as they pervade different societies in various or different
forms.

CONFLICT ANALYSIS.

Meaning/Definition of Conflict Analysis.

1. Meaning/Definition of Conflict Analysis

Meaning/Definition of Conflict Analysis

Conflict analysis is a critical review, interpretation and explanation of what is observed and recorded
about the conflict situation. Alternatively, conflict can be defined as a process by which the root causes,
dynamics, issues, and – other – fundamentals of conflict are examined, reviewed and unraveled through
the use of various mechanisms for proper and better – understanding of the conflict from several
perspectives.

Conflict analysis avails peace experts intervening in a conflict the opportunity of gathering necessary
data or information that will facilitate bringing together of parties in dispute and reveal a dependable,
reliable and effective direction on the choice of strategies and action to be adopted for a successful
intervention and termination of conflict.

Categories of Stakeholders

A stakeholder is defined as those men and women, group or parties who are directly or indirectly
involved in the conflict and have a significant stake in the outcome.

Primary Stakeholders

They are those whose goals are, or are perceived by them to be incompatible and who interact directly
in pursuit of their respective goals. They are the direct investors in the conflict.

Secondary Stakeholders

These categories are affected directly by the outcome of the conflict but do not feel to be directly
involved. As the conflict progresses, they may become primary and primary may become secondary.

Interested Stakeholders

These parties have an interest in the conflict. They stand to benefit from the outcomes whether
peaceful or conflictual. The difference between interested and secondary stakeholders is that the
interested stakeholders suffer no direct impact of the conflict in the short and medium term.

Criteria for Determining Primary Stakeholders

Determining where stakeholders should be put is both political and fluid. The following often
determines the decisions of interveners in selecting the stakeholders to engage.

Functional
This suggests those who directly wage the conflict. Their legitimacy on the negotiating table is their
capacity and ability to perpetuate the conflict. They are the embodiment of the conflict. Observers
believe they have the power to end the conflict.

Representativity

This is political aspect of stakeholders’ categorisation. Stakeholders are primary because they represent
a large number of people who are directly affected by the conflict. These people also have the means to
wage conflict or build peace.

Moral Authority

Primary stakeholders can also be determined because their moral authority carries the vision of post-
conflict society. These include religious leaders, civil society organisations including women’s
organisations and traditional leaders among others. Earlier, this category was only confined to the
secondary level.

Five Elements Required to Structure Analysis of Stakeholders

1. Relationship -What is the interaction between the stakeholders?

2. Agenda/Power -What are the agendas of key stakeholders for conflict and for peace?

3. Needs - What are the needs of the different stakeholders? Which needs are opposing and
overlapping?

4. Action -What actions are the different stakeholders undertaking to promote peace or conflict?

5. What is the cumulative power of actions for peace or conflict?

Conflict Mapping and Tracking.

1. Explainations on Conflict Mapping and Tracking

Conflict Mapping
Wehr (1979:18) describes conflict mapping or the first step in intervening to manage a particular
conflict. Conflict mapping can also be defined as graphical representation of the conflict in which the
conflicting parties are placed in relation to the situation on ground.

Maps are used for a variety of purposes to understand conflict situation better, to ascertain where
power lies, to examine conflict clearly from one viewpoint, to look for openings (way out) or new
strategies, to know where our allies or potential allies are placed, to find our own niche, to evaluate
what has been done and for many other reasons.

Conflict Tracking

Conflict tracking is the process, which involves monitoring, observing and recording the trend of change
and continuity in the conflict process. What to keep track of could include:

conflict parties include internal leadership struggles, varying prospect for military success and the
reading of general population to express support for a settlement; possible ways of re-defining goals and
finding alternative means of resolving differences including suggested step towards settlement and
eventual transformation; likely constraints on these, and how these might be overcome.

it is important for the person keeping track of the conflict to pay careful attention to the minutest
details about the issue and circumstances around him.

Conventions for Mapping Relationship

The following are the particular conventions we use in mapping relationships existing between or among
the stakeholders (parties) involved in a conflict situation.

The circles indicate parties to the situation. The size of the circle indicates power relations of the parties.

LANGUAGE BERRIES IN RESOLUTION AND CONFLICT.

Language–Based Barriers to Communication.

1. Language–Based Barriers to Communication

Language–Based Barriers to Communication

There are over 450 different languages in use everyday in Nigeria. The number includes dialects spoken
in various regions of the country. We must recognize that communication is a symbolic interaction rich
in subtlety. It will never be strictly concrete or objective and always carry the potential for
misunderstanding and conflict. Misunderstandings occur for numerous physical, mental and cultural
reasons. Ineffective use of language is one reason. Among the most common language-based barriers
to communication are bypassing, indiscrimination and polarization.

Meaning Can Be Misunderstood

What is said and what is heard and understood by the listener often differ. Such misunderstanding
between a sender and a receiver is called bypassing. How many times have you said to someone “But
that is not what I meant?”

Bypassing usually results from the false belief that each word has only one meaning and that words have
meaning in themselves; but a glimpse at our everyday language quickly illustrates that most words have
multiple uses and meanings. Words acquire many meanings because they change over time and are
used and understood differently in various cultures and regions and often, they reflect the knowledge
and situation of the user. Therefore, it is crucial as communicator and peace professionals to stay alert
to the fact that words can be interpreted differently by different people.

Some speakers deliberately introduce bypassing by using euphemisms or double speak to soften or
distort meanings. It is important to be aware of this while you interact with people. Politicians and
advertisers for instance sometimes will say one thing in order to get people to believe or accept
something else. As a listener, you should critically examine what is being said. Both speaking and
listening and conflict situation involve ethical considerations. Issues of conscience, that is what is right or
wrong and what is beneficial or harmful are everyone’s responsibility.

How to Reduce Bypassing.

1. Be Approachable. Encourage open and free communication. The most frequent barrier to effective
communication; and consequently dispute and conflict is the unwillingness to listen to others. Allow
others to question and paraphrase your messages and show respect for their enquiries; Being patient
and receptive is not always easy but the effort will ensure a clear exchange of information

2. Be Person–Minded, not Word-Minded. Think about words and their meanings, but you should also
consider the persons using the words and the meanings they might give to them. Constantly question
your own interpretation by asking such question as: “This is what the word mean to me, but what does
it mean to others?”

3.Query and Paraphrase. Ask questions and paraphrase your message or the meaning you have derived
from others message whenever there is a possibility for misunderstanding. Differences in background,
age, gender, perception may affect communication. If you are uncertain, ask others to explain and if it
is in a peace workshop you may ask the mediator to paraphrase. Restating a message in your own words
gives you and the other party or the sender a chance to check that you receive a similar message to
what was sent. As the importance and complexity of a message in conflict resolution situation is, so is
the need to ask questions and paraphrase.

4. Be Sensitive to Contexts. Consider the verbal and situational contexts in which communication
occurs. The meaning of a word can be more precisely interpreted by considering the words, sentences
and paragraphs that precede and follow it and the setting in which communication takes place.

Language Can Shape Our Attitudes.

Indiscrimination is the neglect of individual differences and the overemphasis of similarities. It is also a
form of perceptual set in which a person chooses to ignore differences and changes in events, things
and people. Language plays a significant role in our tendency to see similarities between things even
when they do not exist. Nouns that categorise that is teenager, divorce, student, professor, facilitator,
northerner, Niger Delta, government official, politician and so on, encourage us to focus on similarities.
Statements such as “politicians are crooks and students cheat in exam” may be interpreted to include all
politicians and all students, instead of some politicians and some students. They fail to distinguish
between individuals. Such generalization often results in stereotyping.

Stereotype is categorizing events objects and people without regard to unique individual characteristics.
Stereotypes are often negative but they may be positive, for example, all teachers are dedicated
professionals or all mediators are dedicated peace professionals or all environmentalists are concerned
citizens. Whether the stereotyping is negative or positive, the problem is the same. Individual qualities
are ignored. Stereotyping is quick and easy to do because it does not require analysis, investigation, or
thought. By precluding distinctions, stereotypes give us neat, oversimplified categories that facilitate our
evaluation of people, situations and events.

There are ways to reduce discrimination in our interaction. Indexing points out differences that
distinguish various members of a group and thus reduces indiscrimination. Indexing identifies the
specific person, idea, event or object to which a statement refers for instance, politicians are corrupt,
athletes are dumb or any statement that lumps people ideas, events, or objects into a single category
immediately ask, “which ones are you talking about?” No matter what people may think, not all
politicians are corrupt. Politician A is different from politician B, and politician B is different from
politician C. The same is true of athletes. They might belong to a class or group that has an identity and
whose members have similarities, but the group is composed of individuals, each different from the
other.

How to Use Language Effectively.

1. How to Use Language Effectively

How to Use Language Effectively

The ability to use language efficiently and effectively as peace students will require not good education
alone but, years of consistent practice. Although many variables will influence the effectiveness of
language use, five aspects of language according to Seiler (2005) merit special attention. They are
accuracy, vividness, immediacy, appropriateness and metaphor.

Use Accurate Language

Using accurate language is critical to speaking. Choosing a wrong word can distant your intended
message, misguide your receiver, and undermine your credibility. When you speak you need to ensure
that your goal should be precision. Do not leave room for misinterpretation. You should constantly ask
yourself “what do I want to say” and “what do I mean? And when necessary, consult a dictionary to be
sure you have chosen the correct word to express your message.

The more words you can use accurately, the more likely it is that you will find the one you need to make
your meaning clear. You must expand your vocabulary. Two of the best ways to do this are through
listening to others and reading. Pay attention to words that you do not understand. Whenever, you
come across an unfamiliar word, determine the context in which it is sued, and consult a dictionary to
find its meaning. Once you have acquired a new word, try to put it to use. Words that are not used are
typically forgotten. Expanding your vocabulary takes effort and time, but with practice, it can become
part of your daily routine.

A word of warning: As you develop your vocabulary, avoid the temptation to use long or little-known
words when short or common words would serve the purpose. Also be sure you know the shades of
meanings and connotations of new words. Before you use them, remember that words may have
different meanings for different people.

Sometimes a message is unclear because it is not structured effectively. Poor sentence and word usage
can wreak havoc on a statement’s clarity.

Use Vivid Language.

To communicate effectively, make your message animated and interesting. Direct fresh language given
in the active voice can bring a sense of excitement, urgency and forcefulness to what you say. Such
vividness tells your audience that they had better listen because what you have to say is important.

For example, suppose an NGO is trying to raise money for homeless Bakassi people, it could take one of
two approaches in seeking a donation from you: (i) present statistics to illustrate the number of people
who are believed to be homeless; and (2) present cases of actual individuals who are homeless,
including children and their families.

The first approach is rational, informative, abstract, and emotionally distance. The second approach is
emotional, urgent, concrete and forceful. The vividness of the second approach is likely at least to get
your attention and perhaps influence you to contribute.

According to social psychologists, vivid language affects us in several ways. It is more persuasive than a
flat, pallid presentation of information, because it is more memorable and has an emotional impact.
Vivid messages are more likely to create readily retained and recalled mental images. People tend to
listen more attentively to vivid messages than to mainspring or uninteresting messages.
Use of Immediate Language.

Verbal immediacy identifies and projects the speaker’s feelings and makes the message more relevant
to the listener. Verbal immediacy draws listeners in and involves them in the subject at hand. The
following statements illustrate different levels of verbal immediacy. The first sentence displays a high
immediacy level and the last displays a low immediacy level:

We certainly will enjoy the football game.

You and I will enjoy the football game.

I think you and I may enjoy football.

People often enjoy football games.

The first statement is directly related to the speaker, the listener, and the situation. It is assertive, and
the speaker makes a connection with the listener by using the word ‘we’. In each successive statement,
the speaker decreases the intensity of this association with the listener and the event. The language
becomes less immediate, more distant in tone.

Verbal immediacy also makes the speaker appear relaxed, confidence, competent and effective. Also,
receivers tend to view messages characterized by immediacy as similar to their own beliefs more readily
than those cast in language related to the speaker, topic, or receiver.

Use Appropriate Language.

Each time you speak, your listeners have specific expectations about the kind of language you will use.
Different kinds of language are appropriate to different situations. For instance, the language you would
use in addressing the student union president or leader in your school would be much more formal than
the language you would use when chatting with friends. You are not likely to call the president by a
nickname and would be equally unlikely to call a friend Dr or Mr. or Mrs. or Ms, except in jest.
Using language that is inappropriate for a given situation damages your credibility and your message
might be misunderstood or misinterpreted or disregarded. It is therefore crucial to assess each
speaking situation and adjust your language accordingly.

Use Metaphorical Language.

According to some language scholars, our way of looking at the world around us is fundamentally
metaphorical. Metaphors help us to structure what we think, how we perceived things, and what we do.
Metaphorical language pervades our everyday language and our thoughts. A metaphor is a figure of
speech in which a word or phrase relates one object or idea to another that is not commonly linked to it.
A successful use of this figurative expression makes an object or idea more clear and vivid.

Metaphorically language is culture bound, and most metaphors have meanings only within a specific
language community. If your receivers cannot identify with a particular metaphor you use, it will be
meaningless to them.

EARLY WARNING AND EARLY RESPONSE MECHANISM.

The Meaning of Early Warning.

1. The Meaning of Early Warning

The Meaning of Early Warning

The concept of early warning will be viewed from multi-dimensional perspectives as thus:

It is a warning at an early stage of an event or a set of circumstances that will have negative
consequence.

Early warning (EW) can also be defined as the collection, analysis and communication of the relevant
evidence and conclusions to the policy-makers to enable them make choices. Early warning is the
systematic collection and analysis of information coming from areas of crisis for the purpose of: (a)
anticipating the escalation of violent conflict; (b) the development of strategic responses to these crises;
and (c) the presentation of options to critical actors for purposes of decision-making and preventive
action. It involves any initiative that focuses on systematic data collection, analysis and/or formulation of
recommendations, including risk assessment and information sharing.

Early warning is a complex system of indicators to predict the probability that a crisis is likely to happen
so that preventive action can be taken on time. In sum, its task is (1) to collect and share information
on possible or impending humanitarian disasters or conflicts in other states; and (2) to sound an alarm.
Early warning is a complex set of indicators, which could be used to predict, with some degree of
probability, the type, turning and extent of disaster or conflict.

Early warning is also seen as a proactive process in which networks of various institutions undertake
systematic information collection and analysis together in a collective effort to generate information to
help prevent likely disaster or unfavourable events from occurring or to reduce their outcomes.

In addition, early warning system helps to provide the knowledge to identify impending risks, determine
their levels and potential impacts, both in terms of people and locations, and guide actions to avoid,
reduce or mitigate the effects of those risks when they occur.

Importance or Benefits of Early Warning.

* It is a crisis and disaster protection mechanism

* It promotes public-private partnership. It introduces and supports services at the local level that
directly enhance development

* It promotes increased development and application of scientific knowledge, including improved

science and technology information dissemination

* It advances community participation for its own sake

* It creates the potential for increased utilization of indigenous knowledge and values

* Effective early warning promotes improved environmental management and sustainable livelihood
that are harmonious with the environment

* It reveals the causes of conflict

* It gives room or enables us to monitor the development process of potentially violent conflict
continuously.

Security of vulnerable populations and endangered environments, therefore, the purpose of early
warning therefore is not to confidentially inform the concerned authority that a problem is developing,
but to create a national, regional and international will and momentum to do something about the
deteriorating situation. This implies that early warning should not only point to the problem but also
suggest action. Early warning can be concerned with military conflicts, military coups, environmental,
resources, political, economic, religious, family, conflicts, impending humanitarian disasters, such as
famine/starvation, drought, flow of refugees, genocide and host of others.

It thus therefore become imperative for the government, agencies, organizations, or policy makers to
show a disposition of one ready to act fast whenever such privileged information and patriotic
campaigns by stakeholders of an impending early warning indicators in order to avert any form of
disaster or destructive conflict.

Early Warning Indicators.

1. Early Warning Indicators

Early Warning Indicators

The dictionary definition refers to indicators as those things which are pointers to a given condition.
They may also be referred to as devices for exhibiting condition for the being time. The synonyms of
indicator include among others, display, index, gauge, synopsis, symbol, and so on. (Chambers
Dictionary, 1983:640; and The Collins Dictionary and Thesaurus 1988:511).

Among the things the analyst would cite to be indicators of conflict in Africa are armed forces and their
deployment; the extent of tension within and between communities and groups, the absence of
framework for resolving the conflict and/or where its existence is not recognized or respected by the
parties in conflict etc.

Types of Indicators.

The following are the various forms of early warning indicators.

1. Economic indicators: It reveals the need to provide information on potential shortages, production
problems, the bastardization of a nation’s currency, fiscal and revenue policies, the private sector and
other economic indices, the consequences of which may affect a larger proportion of the population of a
nation.

2. Environmental indicators: This is a sensitive issue because of the health hazards and pillage of arable
land in addition to ecological and marine problems such as gully erosions, environmental pollution (oil
spillage), and excavation of solid mineral, and so on. All these have brought some untold health hazards
to the indigenes, while those whose primary occupations are crops production (planting), animal rearing
and fish farming have been greatly affected.

3. Social indicators: This provides data on the alarming state of unemployment and underemployment
in several African countries. “A hungry man and an idle hand, is a devil’s workshop,” so goes the maxim.
Jobless youths in the society have posed a great threat to the country and peace in most societies. The
jobless youth could be used to perpetrate some social vices by the disgruntled elements in the society.

4. Political indicator: A regular assessment of the domestic political arena in various African countries
have revealed a lot of infringement on fundamental human rights of citizens by the ruling political class
ranging from political exclusion, unlawful arrest and detention of perceived political enemies, killing of
political rivals, election rigging and a host of others.

5. Security indicators: The capacity of gathering information on development within the armed forces,
the proliferation of arms and ammunition into official and non-official sectors of the society, the
politicisation of the military and the militarization of the civilian popular (ethnic militias), the
relationship between the military and the civil society.

6. Individual security/safety: An assessment of the role of crime, urban and rural violence, the causes of
insurrection and the militarization of the rural areas. The incessant killing, maiming of innocent citizens
by armed robbers, ritual killing, unnecessary killing of innocent citizens by policemen at
roadblocks/checkpoints in the course of trying to collect bribe. All these have engendered hatred,
frustration, intimidation, molestation and protest from aggrieved citizens, thereby taking laws into their
hands because of the inability of the state to protect and guarantee their safety and protection.

7. Rural indicators: Effective information gathering at the grassroot level helps to douse inter and intra
communal strife. The morass of conflict at border towns, villages, and in one country and the other,
demands that a constant watch must be kept on the rural areas using media channels to maintain
tranquility and peace.

8. Educational indicators: A continuous decline in the quality of education despite increase in the
standard is posing a great threat to the growth and development of our nation (Nigeria) and several
other African countries. As has been established, education is the bedrock or backbone of science and
technological advancement of any nation. And the higher the level of technology of a nation the greater
and faster is her human (labour) and economic growth and development. Poor educational funding and
low salary compared to what is obtainable in other African countries, talkless of western nations, have
forced most Nigerian academics to the western nations in search of greener pastures. This ugly
development still persists to the detriment of the present younger generation as well the future
generations.

9. Demographic indicators: This involves sudden demographic changes and displacement of people and
increasing territoriality of groups/peoples.

PEACEFUL METHOD OF CONFLICT RESOLUTION (I)

Peaceful Methods I

1. Conflict Resolution Techniques

Conflict Management

This refers to the process or an act geared towards reducing the negative and destructive capacity of
conflict through various means or measures and by working with and through the stakeholder (parties)
involved in a conflict. It entails the entire areas of handling conflicts positively at different stages, such as
those proactive efforts made to prevent conflicts, including conflict limitation, containment and
litigation. This term is sometimes used synonymously with “conflict regulation”. John Burton (1990)
refers to it as “conflict prevention,” which he sees as containment of conflict through steps introduced
to promote conditions in which collaborative and valued relationships control the behaviour of conflict
parties. The concept “conflict management” agrees to the fact that conflict is inevitable, but that not all
conflicts can always be resolved; therefore, what can be done in this type of situation is to manage and
regulate the conflict.

Conflict Transformation.

John Paul Lederach (1995) postulated this term. He sees conflict transformation as change. Conflict
transformation can be seen descriptively in the changes created by social conflict, and prescriptively in
the deliberate intervention by third parties to create change. Conflict transformation takes place at
different levels and has a number of dimensions. At the personal levels involves emotional, perceptual
and spiritual aspects of change desired for the individual.
It also affects relationships touching on communication between parties that needs to change to
positively affect poorly functioning communication change also needs to affect structures that generate
conflict through deprivation, exclusion and other forms of injustice. It also seeks to understand cultural
patterns and values of parties. In summary, conflict transformation recognizes the dialectical element of
conflict about the inevitability of change. Secondly, it recognizes the neutrality of conflict as such, and
that conflict can be either negative or positive, but can transform it into positive to maximize
opportunities.

Finally, there is the continuity element, meaning that parties and interveners continue to work on
problem areas to achieve continuous change.

Conflict Suppression.

This is a conflict situation, which portray the unwillingness or lukewarm attitude of more power parties,
or stronger interveners who has the ability to transform or manage a conflict situation, to take
necessary measures leading to the management or resolution of the conflict. Instead, they use
instruments of power or force to push away the issues under the carpet or to impose a solution that is
not sustainable and with which the parties are not satisfied. This usually takes place in unequal
relationships. A typical example is a situation whereby the state or government uses its coercive
apparatus to suppress opponents or conflicts which cannot be sustained because conflict can still
resurface at any time or with little provocation.

Peaceful Methods II

1. Other Means of Conflict Resolution

Enquiry

An enquiry as the name suggests is an examination of issues in order to establish facts that may be in
dispute. In a situation where the facts are properly ascertained and laid down, it would not be difficult to
arrive at a reasonable agreement or reach a settlement, which would be favourable and acceptable to
both parties.

This may necessitate necessary adjustment in accordance with the negotiation between the parties. It
requires give and take on the part of both parties. This method may be of significance with respect to
issues that can easily be solved through a calm analysis and consideration of historical facts. This
method may be utilised with respect to boundary dispute between states. For example, the United
Nations General Assembly by a Resolution adopted on 18 December 1967 upheld the utility of the
method of impartial fact finding as a method of peaceful settlement of issues. Member states were
advised to adopt this method. The UN General Assembly further asked the Secretary – General to
prepare a list of experts in this regard whose services could be used by agreement with respect to a
dispute.

In pursuance of the above, a hortatory Resolution on Peaceful Settlement of International dispute was
adopted by the General Assembly of the United Nations on 12 December 1974. The General Assembly
Later approved the Manila Declaration on the Peaceful Settlement of International Disputes in 1982. It
has the effect of superseding the Resolution made on 12 December 1974. The basic issues contained in
the Manila Declaration as put by Starke are as follows:

(a) That states should bear in mind that direct negotiations are a flexible and effective means of
peaceful settlement of disputes, and if they choose to resort to direct negotiation, they should negotiate
meaningfully;

(b) That states are enjoined to consider making greater use of the fact–finding capacity of the
Security Council in accordance with the United Nations Charter;

(c) That recourse to judicial settlement of legal disputes, particularly by way of referral to the
international court of Justice, should not be considered as an unfriendly act between states;

(d) That the Secretary – General of the United Nations should make full use of the provisions of
the Charter containing his special responsibilities, for example, bringing to the attention of the Security
Council any matter which in his opinion may threaten the maintenance of international peace and
security.

Good Office.

This is a method by which an individual, a state or an international organ, acting as a third party, may
assist in ensuring an amicable settlement of a dispute. The use of good offices has the effect of bringing
the disputing parties together and also ensures settlement in general terms. It does not involve actual
participation in the negotiation or the conduct of an inquiry that takes care of everything that is involved
in the dispute. Thus, what is required in good offices is the possibility of working out a solution with
respect to the dispute.

PEACEFUL METHOD OF CONFLICT RESOLUTION (II)

Peaceful Methods III

1. Conciliation and Others

Conciliation

The concept “conciliation” was defined by the International Law Institute in 1961 as:

A method for the settlement of international disputes of any nature according to which a commission
set up by the parties, either on a permanent basis or an ad hoc basis to deal with a dispute, proceeds to
the impartial examination of the dispute and attempts to define the terms of settlement susceptible of
being accepted by them or of according to the parties, with a view to its settlement, such aid as they
may have requested.

Judge Manly O. Hudson in 1944 defines ‘conciliation’ thus:

Conciliation…is a process of formulating proposals of settlement after an investigation of the facts and
an effort to reconcile opposing contentions, the parties to the dispute being left free to accept or reject
the proposals formulated.

The University of Peace sees conciliation this way:

The voluntary referral of a conflict to a neutral external party (in the form of an unofficial commission)
which either suggests a non-binding settlement or conduct explorations to facilitate more structures or
techniques of conflict resolution. The latter can include confidential discussions with the disputants or
assistance during a pre-negotiation phase (Miller, 2003:6-7).

Although conciliation can be linked to arbitration, but close to mediation, results of conciliation are not
binding on the parties as in arbitration. In conciliation, disputes are settled amicably with the use of
other states or impartial bodies of enquiry/advisory committees or third-party activity, which covers
intermediary efforts aimed at persuading the parties to a conflict to work towards a peaceful solution.

With respect to conciliation between states, it is usual to appoint the third parties on the basis of their
official function and not just on their own initiative. Heads of state or secretary general of the United
Nations may be appointed. Essentially, the parties to the dispute normally nominate one or two of their
nationals and agree on the number of impartial and independent nationals of other states in order to
provide a neutral majority.

The conciliator, who is appointed by the agreement of the parties investigates the facts in dispute and
suggests the way(s) out of it. The conciliator’s terms of settlement are usually referred to as
recommendations, which are not binding on the parties unlike the case of arbitration where awards are
made.

Mediation.

Mediation involves the use of or bringing a third party to intervene with respect to a conflict. It can also
be referred to as a facilitated negotiation. Miller (2002:23) sees mediation as the voluntary, informal,
non-binding process undertaken by an external party that fosters the settlement of differences or
demands between directly invested parties.

Miall, Ramsbotham and Woodhouse (1999:22) define mediation as “the intervention of a third party: it
is a voluntary process in which the parties retain control over the outcome (pure mediation), although it
may include positive and negative inducements (mediation with muscle)”.
Beer and Stief (1997:3) define mediation as: “any process for resolving disputes in which another person
helps the parties negotiate a settlement”.

Moore (1996:15) considers it to be the intervention in a negotiation or conflict of an acceptable third

party who has limited or no authoritative decision-making power but who assists the involved parties in
voluntarily reaching a mutually acceptable settlement of issues in dispute.

Mediation is an assistance rendered by a neutral third party (mediator) in helping the disputants or
parties in conflict reach a negotiated settlement of their problems unrestrained by evidential rules and
having admitted that they have a problem which they are both committed to solving, but in which the
mediator manages a negotiation process, but does not impose a solution on the parties.

Professor Christopher Moore notes some primary responsibility of a mediator which are thus:

helping to address the substantive issues in a conflict

establishing or strengthening relationships of trust and respect between the parties, and

terminating relationships in a manner that minimizes costs and psychological harm.

The role of the mediator is to create the enabling environment for the parties to carry out dialogue
sessions leading to the resolution of an existing or protracted conflict. The mediator facilitates effective
communication between parties with the aim of working on common themes and drawing to attention
to neglected points and is a confidant to the parties, as well as a reconciler.

The mediator also helps parties to identify and arrive at common grounds with a view to overcoming
their fears and satisfying their real needs. For a mediator to be able to enjoy the trust and confidence of
the parties to any conflict, he or she must be objective, neutral, balanced, supportive, non-judgmental
and astute in questioning, and try to drive the parties towards win-win as opposed to win-lose
outcomes.

Arbitration.
Arbitration is another type of third-party intervention in the conflict management, which entails
settlement of disputes through the use of arbitrators.

Arbitration can simply be defined as the use and assistance of a neutral third party in conflict, who
listens to evidence, put forward by parties in conflict, and later takes a decision which is expected to be
binding on the parties. The decision taken by an arbitrator is usually referred to as an award.

International arbitration is defined by the international law commission as a procedure for the
settlement of disputes between states by a binding award on the basis of law and as a result of an
undertaking voluntarily accepted; you will observe that definition of arbitration in international law is
significantly narrower than the common meaning of arbitration. Arbitration is similar to mediation, and
close to adjustment, but different from both. The crucial difference between judicial settlement and
arbitration is that, arbitration allows the parties to select the tribunal, whereas parties have no control
over the composition of a judicial body. In addition, in arbitration the parties may decide the law to be
applied.

Historically, arbitration began with procedures established in 1794 under the Jay Treaty between the
United States and United Kingdom for the settlement of bilateral disputes. It provided for the
establishment of three joint mixed commissions to which each state nominated an equal number of
members to settle some differences, which could not be settled in the course of negotiating the treaty.
In 1871 in an innovatory move, arbitration took place concerned to determine breaches of neutrality by
Britain during the American civil war.

The Hague Conference of 1899 on the Pacific Settlement of International Disputes led to the creation of
an institution known as the Permanent Court of Arbitration. Arbitration has the advantages of speed,
flexibility, confidentiality and better understanding than conventional adjudication.

Judicial Settlement or Legal Method of Dispute Resolution (Litigation)

1. Litigation

Litigation

Judicial or legal settlement of dispute is usually carried out by the court duly established and assigned in
this manner both at the state (local) level and international level. At the international level, it is usually
referred to as International Court of Justice (ICI). It is also called “The World Court”. It sits at The Peace
Palace, at The Hague.

1.Local or Internal Judicial Settlement

2. International Legal Dispute Resolution

The International Court of Justice is the judicial organ of the six principal organs of the United Nations. It
was first established and called Permanent Court of International Justice (PCIJ) after the first World War
in 1921. The Court was dissolved the with the League of Nations at the end of the Second World War in
1946.

The PCIJ, though not an organ of the League of Nations, its aim is to estabilish peace to preserve the
status quo, the ICJ was an integral part of the United Nations with the framers of the UN Charter
directing their efforts towards the establishment of an entirely new international society– a society
consistently moving towards progress; a fair society , more egalitarian, more universal; a society all of
whose members were to engage in an active and collective endeavour to usher in a full and lasting
peace.

All members of the United Nations are parties to the statute of the International Court of Justice. Article
93(2) of the charter allows non- member parties to appear before it or join. The duties of this court are:

1. To settle legal disputes which are submitted by states in line with international law and;

2. To give advisory opinions of legal questions referred to it by international organs or agencies, which
are duly authorized to do so.

The court is usually made up to 15 judges (Article 3). Five of the judges are elected every three years to
hold office for nine years (Article 13).

They are elected by majority votes of both the Security Council and the General Assembly sitting
independently of each other. Usually, not more than one judge of any nationality sits in the court.
Members of the bench represent the main forms of civilisation and the principal legal systems of the
world. In practice, four judges of the court are usually from Western Europe, one from the USA, two
from South America, two from Eastern Europe and six from Africa and Asia. The first permanent
members of the Security Council are always represented by a judge in the court.
Qualification for appointment is based on the highest requirements for the highest judicial office in the
relevant country. The judges are required to be knowledgeable or competent in international law and
through appointment by their home governments, they are required to be independent.

In the event of a state appearing before the court without its national on the bench of the International
Court, such a state (country) may appoint an ad hoc judge for the case as in the Nigeria / Cameroon
Boundary dispute before the International Court of Justice. These ad hoc judges have the nature of
arbitrators. It also lends credence to the idea that each of the judges of the court represents his country.
Article 36 (8), Article 38 and Article 39 (3) of the statute of the ICJ also attest to these claims.

GENDER ISSUES AND HUMANITARIAN INTERVENTION.

Definitions of Gender-related Concepts.

1. Introduction and Definitions

Gender mainstreaming provides us with one tool to ensure that the needs and experiences of women,
and men, girls and boys are taken into account in all activities of the United Nations. Several research
carried out by scholars in the field of peace and conflict resolution revealed that in conflict situations or
during war period, a number of atrocities were committed against women. It has also been proved that
women remain the greatest victims of armed conflicts. They are subjected to servitude, perpetual fear,
psychological imbalance, economic incapacitation, sexual slavery and gang rape. Women are basically
the ones at the receiving end in almost all the armed conflicts all over the world, such that they lose
their husbands and children become widows and childless mothers overnight. They also lose their
dignity and honour through sexual abuse; they lose their peace through disruption of the social system;
they are deprived of their social destiny through family breakup and degradation of community system,
resulting from armed conflicts.

1. Sex

The term “sex” refers to the biological characteristics of male and female. These characteristics are
congenital and their differences are limited to physiological reproductive functions.
2. Gender

This is the term used to denote the social characteristics assigned to men and women. These social
characteristics are constructed based on different factors, such as age, religion, national, ethnic and
social origin. They differ both within and between cultures and define identities, status, roles,
responsibilities and power relations among the members of any society or culture.

Gender is neither static nor innate, but evolves to respond to changes in the social, political, and cultural
environment. Gender is learnt through socialisation. Other definitions include the following:

i. Gender refers to the differential social roles that define women and men in a cultural context- and
to power relationships that perpetuate these roles.

ii. Gender refers to social attributes that are acquired or learnt during socialisation and define
activities, responsibilities, and needs connected to being male or female and not to biological identity
associated with masculinity and femininity.

iii. Gender is a socially constructed identity through which roles are assigned at different levels and
which can differ according to culture and can be changed by circumstances such as conflict.

3. Gender Mainstreaming

This refers to a strategy to strengthen gender equality through policy and resource allocation that reflect
the interests of both men and women.

4. Violence
This is a means of control and oppression that can include emotional, social or economic force, coercion
or pressure, as well as physical harm. It can be overt, in the form of a physical assault or threatening
someone with a weapon; it can also be covert, in the form of intimidation, threats, persecution,
deception or other forms of psychological or social pressure.

5. Abuse

This is the misuse of power through which the perpetrator gains control or advantage of the abused,
using and causing physical or psychological harm or inciting fear of the potential to harm. Abuse
prevents persons from making free decisions and forces them to behave against their will.

6. Coercion

Is forcing, or attempting to force, another person to engage in behaviours against his/her will by using
threats, verbal insistence, manipulation, deception, cultural expectations or economic power.

7. Consent

This is when a person makes an informed choice to agree freely and voluntarily to do something. The
phrase against her/his will is used to indicate an absence of informed consent. There is no consent when
agreement is obtained using threats, force or other forms of coercion, abduction, fraud, deception, or
misrepresentation.

8. Perpetrator

A perpetrator is a person, group, or institution that directly inflicts, supports, and condones violence or
other abuse against a person or a group of persons. Perpetrators are in a position of real or perceived
power, decision- making and/or authority and can thus exert control over their victims.

Definitions of Gender-related Concepts

2. Women and Armed Conflict

The Beijing Platform for Action recognized that peace was inextricably linked to equality between
women and men and development, and emphasized that women’s full involvement in all efforts for the
prevention and resolution of armed conflicts was essential for the promotion and maintenance of peace
and security. The Platform for Action set out six strategic objectives.

• Increase the participation of women in conflict resolution at decision-making levels and protect
women living in situations of armed and other conflicts or under foreign occupation;

• Reduce excessive military expenditures and control the availability of armaments;

• Promote non-violent forms of conflict resolution and reduce the incidence of human rights abuse in
conflict situations;

• Promote women's contribution to fostering a culture of peace;

• Provide protection, assistance and training to refugee women, other displaced women in need of
international protection and internally displaced women; and

• Provide assistance to the women of the colonies and non-self- governing territories.

Since the Fourth World Conference in 1995 there have been remarkable developments in terms of
expansion of the international normative and policy framework on issues related to women and armed
conflict, including in the United Nations Security Council. New issues, which were not specifically
addressed in the Platform for Action, have expanded the discourse and global implementation efforts
have become centred around a broader agenda on women, peace and security.

The Commission on the Status of Women has considered the theme of women and armed conflict on a
number of occasions. In 1998, the commission adopted agreed conclusions on women and armed
conflict that called for action in a number of areas, including: ensuring gender- sensitive justice; meeting
the specific needs of women affected by armed conflict; increasing the participation of women in
peacekeeping, peacebuilding, pre- and post-conflict decision-making; and addressing disarmament, illicit
arms trafficking, landmines and small arms.

In 2004, the commission adopted agreed conclusions on women’s equal participation in conflict
prevention, management and conflict resolution and in post-conflict peace-building. These recognised
that peace agreements provide a vehicle for the promotion of gender equality and that a gender-
sensitive constitutional and legal framework was necessary to ensure that women fully participate in
such processes. At its 52nd session in 2008, the Commission on the Status of Women reviewed
implementation of its agreed conclusions on “women’s equal participation in conflict prevention,
management and conflict resolution and in post-conflict peacebuilding” adopted in 2004. The review
revealed a number of gaps and challenges, including terms of representation and participation of
women in peace-processes and decision- making; prevention and response to sexual and gender-based
violence, monitoring and accountability, and funding.

The 23rd special session of the General Assembly entitled “Women 2000: Gender Equality, Development
and Peace for the 21st Century” reaffirmed the Platform for Action and called for the full participation of
women in decision-making at all levels in peace processes, peacekeeping and peacebuilding. It also
called for the protection of girls in armed conflict, especially the prohibition of forced recruitment.

In 2000, the United Nations Security Council passed the landmark resolution 1325 on women and peace
and security, the first resolution ever to address the impact of war on women, and women's
contributions to conflict resolution and sustainable peace. The resolution calls for women’s equal
participation with men and their full involvement in all efforts for the maintenance and promotion of
peace and security. It reaffirms the need to protect women and girls from human rights abuses,
including gender-based violence. The resolution calls for action to mainstream gender perspectives in
relation to conflict prevention, peace negotiations and the aftermath of conflicts.

Since its adoption in 2000, the Security Council has held annual open debates on progress in
implementing resolution 1325. Eight Security Council Presidential Statements provide further guidance
on ways and means to fully implement the resolution. The council has increasingly recognised the inter-
relationship between gender equality, empowerment of women and country-specific situations and
other thematic issues, such as protection of civilians, children in armed conflict, peace and security in
Africa, maintenance of international peace and security and security sector reform.

The work on the situation of children in armed conflict has contributed to a deeper understanding and
greater urgency on these issues, including through the development of a monitoring and reporting
mechanism established by the Security Council through its resolution 1612 (2005).

In the 2005 World Summit Outcome, the world’s leaders reaffirmed their commitment to the full and
effective implementation of Security Council Resolution 1325 (2000). They stressed the important role of
women in the prevention and resolution of conflicts and in peacebuilding and underlined the
importance of integrating a gender perspective and of women having the opportunity for equal
participation and full involvement in all efforts to maintain and promote peace and security, as well as
the need to increase their role in decision-making at all levels. Governments strongly condemned all
violations of the human rights of women and girls in situations of armed conflict and the use of sexual
exploitation, violence and abuse and committed themselves to elaborating and implementing strategies
to report on, prevent and punish gender-based violence.

As an outcome of the World Summit, the Peacebuilding Commission was established in June 2006 as an
advisory body of the General Assembly and the Security Council with the goal to marshal resources at
the disposal of the international community, and to advise and propose integrated strategies for post-
conflict recovery with a special focus on reconstruction, institution-building and sustainable
development in countries emerging from conflict. The founding resolutions of the Peacebuilding
Commission provide a mandate to mainstream a gender perspective in all aspects of its work. Gender
equality issues were identified as cross-cutting peace consolidation strategies in Burundi and Sierra
Leone – the first two countries on the commission’s agenda – and in relation to new countries under
consideration, Guinea-Bissau and the Central African Republic.

In June 2008, the Security Council held an open thematic debate on “women, peace and security: sexual
violence in situations of armed conflict” which culminated in the adoption of resolution 1820 (2008). In
this resolution, the Security Council reaffirmed its resolve to eliminate all forms of violence against
women, including by ending impunity. The council recognised sexual violence as a security problem
requiring a systematic security response. The resolution calls for a number of concrete actions and
measures aimed at eliminating sexual violence and addressing its impacts by the Secretary-General,
United Nations entities, Member States (including troop and police contributing countries), all parties to
armed conflict, regional and sub-regional bodies, and financial institutions. It also calls on the
Peacebuilding Commission to include strategies for addressing sexual violence in is work.