Conflict Resolution: Dynamics,

Process and Structure

Edited by
HO-WON JEONG
Institute for Conflict Analysis and Resolution
George Mason University, USA
First published 1999 by Ashgate Publishing

Reissued 2018 by Routledge

2 Park Square, Milton Park, Abingdon, Oxon, OX14 4RN
711 ThirdAvenue, New York, NY 10017

Routledge is an imprint of the Taylor & Francis Group, an informa business

Copyright © Ho-Won Jeong 1999

All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reprinted or reproduced or utilised
in any form or by any electronic, mechanical, or other means, now known or
hereafter invented, including photocopying and recording, or in any information
storage or retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publishers.

Notice:
Product or corporate names may be trademarks or registered trademarks, and are
used only for identification and explanation without intent to infringe.

Publisher's Note
The publisher has gone to great lengths to ensure the quality of this reprint but
points out that some imperfections in the original copies may be apparent.

Disclaimer
The publisher has made every effort to trace copyright holders and welcomes
correspondence from those they have been unable to contact.

A Library of Congress record exists under LC control number: 99073170

ISBN 13: 978-1-138-33485-4 (hbk)

ISBN 13: 978-1-138-33488-5 (pbk)
ISBN 13: 978-0-429-44414-2 (ebk)
Contents

Foreword by Anatol Rapoport vii

Preface x
Contributors xiii

PART I INTRODUCTION

1 Research on Conflict Resolution

Ho- Won Jeong 3

P a r t n CONFLICT DYNAMICS

2 The Anatomy of De-Escalation

Christopher M itchell 37

3 Identity Formation and Transformation

Ho- Won Jeong and Tarja Vdyrynen 59

P art ID PROCESS OF RECONCILIATION

4 Social-Psychological Processes
in Interactive Conflict Analysis and Reconciliation
Ronald J. Fisher 81

5 Paths to Varieties of Intercommunal Reconciliation

Louis Kriesberg 105

6 Breaking the Cycle of Violence:

Three Zones of Social Reconstruction
Malvern Lumsden 131

v
vi Conflict Resolution

PartIV STRUCTURAL TRANSFORMATION

7 Structural Forces in Conflict and Conflict Resolution

in Democratic Society
E. Franklin Dukes 155

8 Conflict Resolution and the Structural Sources of Conflict

Richard E. Rubenstein 173

Bibliography 197

Index 215
Foreword

Conflict resolution emerged as a distinct discipline in social science in

the late 1950’s. Undoubtedly the main impetus was the rapidly
spreading realization that war, once regarded as a normal phase in
relationship between states, became in a very real sense a threat to the
survival of humanity. Accordingly investigations of ‘causes of wars’
rapidly grew in volume and breadth. These, of course, varied widely
over time. There was a time when wars were fought primarily for
territory; there were eras of religious wars, dynastic wars, colonial wars
ignited by competition for markets, wars for spheres of influence, and so
on. In sum, there were issues about which wars were fought. In this
context one could speak of conflict resolution, admittedly mostly in the
crude sense: to the victor went the spoils.
In the decades between the two world wars, Lewis F. Richardson
paved a new path for the study of war. He developed mathematical
models of arms races. Specifically, growth of armaments of one state
stimulates growth in another. Military supremacy, formerly regarded as
a means to an end, became an end in itself. In this situation one could
not speak meaningfully about conflict resolution, since there were no
issues to resolve any more than in a boxing match.
The recent Forty Year so called ‘Cold War’ between the U.S.
and the U.S.S.R. could be called a ‘Richardsonian’ war, a contest without
issues. Issues, such as ‘democracy’ vs. ‘totalitarianism’ or ‘social
justice’ vs. ‘imperialism’ were invented, of course, to justify the nuclear
arms race. Clearly, however, these issues could not be settled by any
known techniques of conflict resolution, such as negotiations,
compromise, improvement of communication, mediation, conciliation, or
the like. Consequently, much peace research as well as peace education
and peace action changed the focus of concern. Instead of investigating
the various causes o f wars, their political, economic and psychological
underpinnings, attention was turned to war as an institution, which, like
an organism, exists by virtue of having become adapted to its
environment and has developed effective ‘defence mechanisms’,
enabling it to resist interventions threatening its existence. In

Vll
viii Conflict Resolution

contemporary anti-war literature, The Bulletin o f Atomic Scientists is

almost entirely devoted to the investigation of this phenomenon.
There was another important reason why techniques of conflict
resolution could not be effectively applied in the Cold War. The
supposed enemies, that is, the populations o f the two superpowers very
seldom, if ever, came in contact as people. There were, to be sure,
proposals to reduce the supposed enmity by arranging cultural
exchanges, people to people contacts, and the like. However, the major
correlate of war of the pre-nuclear, pre-automation age, namely hatred of
the enemy, induced by ‘patriotism’, simply dissipated. In short, war was
dehumanized, and consequently, attempts to prevent or stop it by getting
people to see each other as people became irrelevant. The scientist,
working on ‘improvement’ of nuclear weapons and their delivery, may
have calculated the extent of destruction to be achieved, including
‘collateral’ (genocidal) damage, but he was seldom, if ever, motivated by
traditional hatred of the ‘enemy’. The ‘enemy’ did not exist for him as
‘people’. He was more concerned with mathematical physics or, perhaps,
with cost-benefit analysis.
With the end of the Cold War, the situation changed radically.
The danger of a nuclear holocaust, though never dissipated, receded.
War as lethal conflict between states over economic, political, or
ideological issues or as simply as the inevitable result of a monstrous
arms race left center stage of history. Instead, a different type of war
erupted, war o f people against people with all the attendant
psychopathology. Even though they fought mostly with weapons of past
centuries, it became no less lethal than pre-nuclear age wars between
‘civilized’ states.
Well over a hundred million persons were killed since the end
of World War II. Most significantly, well over half o f the victims were
civilians of all ages and both sexes. In some o f these wars o f an entirely
new type, up to 90% of the victims were civilians. Moreover, almost all
these wars were not between states or nations but within states formed
after the dissolution of the colonial system: interethnic, intertribal, or
interclass wars.
This drastic change of the character o f war, especially renewal
of its powerful psychological underpinnings, has raised problems o f
conflict resolution to unprecedented prominence. During the half
century of impending nuclear catastrophe, one could well assert that it is
not necessary to hate anybody in order to kill everybody. Hatred as a
 Foreword ix

major component of violence had become irrelevant during the decades

of nuclear threat. It is easier to kill a fellow human being with a gun than
with a knife, still easier with a land mine or a howitzer, where the victim
is not seen, or from above the clouds, and absurdly easy sitting deep
underground and pressing appropriate levers when certain signals appear
on a screen. But now people killing people know that they are killing
them and think or have been brain-washed to think that their victims
deserve to be killed or must be killed to insure their own survival.
A review o f this volume reveals the emphasis placed on these
hitherto de-emphasized origins of organized violence, for example,
identity crises; ways of understanding them by analyzing inter-group
dynamics; and ways of dealing with them through de-escalation and
inter-communal reconciliation. The present volume deserves the full
attention of peace researchers, peace educators, and peace activists.

Anatol Rapoport

March 1999
Preface
Demand for new knowledge reflects intellectual responses to chaos and
crisis created by the malfunctioning system. This book project is based
on the recognition that identity based conflict will continue to remain a
serious challenge to human civilisation in the twenty-first century. As,
John W. Burton mentioned in his 1996 article published in International
Journal o f Peace Studies, conflict resolution needs to be approached
from civilisational crisis perspectives.
The field of conflict resolution has been driven by an intellectual
endeavour which looks for practical solutions to social violence and
institutional failures. While innovative approaches have been introduced
over the last several decades, adequate conceptual understanding of human
behaviour and social structures relevant to conflict analysis and resolution
has yet to be further developed. Especially, strategies and processes for
conflict resolution have not been fully theorised compared with research on
the causes of conflict (e.g., relative deprivation, political mobilisation,
social revolution, class relations).
Readers will be convinced that the approaches suggested by
various authors in this volume encompass reality better than a narrowly
defined research focus of conflict management or dispute settlement
paradigms which isolate interpersonal and inter-group dynamics from the
large social process and structure. The volume examines ways in which
adversarial relationships can be transformed and reconciled in diverse
settings. The main focus of this book is therefore the dynamics, processes
and structural conditions for conflict resolution, and the causes of conflict
and the processes of escalation are dealt with only in the context of their
relationship to de-escalation, problem solving and reconciliation.
In recent years, the areas of reconciliation and reconstruction have
drawn new attention. They build connections between traditionally defined
practice of conflict resolution and peace building. The shared
understanding among the contributors to this volume is that conceptual
work in the field has to expand to embrace multi-dimensional aspects of
conflict resolution such as reconciliation and structural transformation.
In further developing the field, research questions need to focus on
both theoretical issues and practical applications. This book is intended to
suggest conceptual tools of inquiry for informed investigation. While the

x
 Preface xi

volume aims at theoretical development of the field, practitioners will also

benefit from the conceptual explanation of a conflict resolution process.
Although this book does not survey a comprehensive list of third party
intervention skills or methods, most contributors illustrate the role of certain
practices in changing conflict dynamics for resolution and reconciliation.
In fact, it is clear in several chapters that strategies for resolution have to
rely on the analysis of the role which primary and third parties can play in
the escalation and de-escalation of conflict as well as its social, political
context.
This book is the outcome of a collective intellectual endeavour
among well recognised scholar practitioners. I am most grateful to the
contributors who agreed with the need for this new book and kindly
provided their cutting edge research papers. Despite their very busy
schedules, the authors positively responded to the requests for revisions as
well as demonstrating their cooperation with deadlines. In particular,
several authors also generously offered valuable comments on other
chapters. This collaborative process has helped the development of an
integrative framework for this edited volume. I also greatly appreciate the
insightful foreword by Anatal Rapoport, one of the most distinguished
scholars in the social sciences.
This book project has been helped by the talent and devotion of
young researchers and practitioners who are associated with the Institute for
Conflict Analysis and Resolution (ICAR), George Mason University.
Benenike Carstarphen’s thoughtful comments led to important revisions in
several chapters. Victor Robinson, Alex Scheinman and William Sanford
offered critical insight in the editorial process. Emily Fitzsimmons’ superb
job on research and copy editing gave a coherent style to this book. Tatiana
Orlova has also contributed to the final stage of copy editing.
This work has benefited from my association with ICAR. The
Institute has provided a rich intellectual environment for new thought. The
personal encouragement of Christopher Mitchell, Richard Rubenstein,
Sandy Cheldelin, Dennis Sandole and Michelle LeBaron has been
particularly helpful. In addition, it has been a privilege and rewarding
experience to work with Tamra Pearson d’Estree, Wallace Warfield, Frank
Blechman, Daniel Druckman, Jannie Botes and Kevin Clements.
Special thanks need to be expressed for my mentor Chadwick F.
Alger to whom the origin of my interest in the field is traced back. John W.
Burton, one of the founders of the field, has always been intellectually
stimulating and has been a source of innovative thinking. Mary Clark,
xii Conflict Resolution

Professor Emeritus of Conflict Resolution, has been an enthusiastic

supporter and friend. Finally, this book could have never been completed
without the patience and support of Mary and Nimmy.
In the hope that this book will contribute to education, research and
practice of our students in creating a better world, I wish to dedicate the
volume to the future generation o f conflict resolvers.

Ho-Won Jeong

December 1998
Contributors

E. Franklin Dukes is Associate Director of the Institute for Environmental

Negotiation at the University o f Virginia. The areas of his research,
training and teaching include the design of a dispute resolution system,
public participation processes, mediation, facilitation and consensus
building. He has worked on projects involving environment and land use,
community development, education, and health. He is the author of
Resolving Public Conflict: Transforming Community and Governance
(1996). He also co-authored Conflict: Practices in Management,
Settlement and Resolution (1990) and co-edited Conflict: Readings in
Management and Resolution (1990), both with John W. Burton.

Ronald J. Fisher is Professor of Psychology and Founding Coordinator o f

the Applied Social Psychology Graduate Program at the University of
Saskatchewan, Saskatoon, Canada. His primary interest is in third party
interventions directed toward protracted social conflicts at the intergroup
and international levels. Dr. Fisher’s books include Social Psychology: An
Applied Approach (1982), The Social Psychology o f Intergroup and
International Conflict Resolution (1990), and Interactive Conflict
Resolution (1997). In addition to numerous chapters and articles in
psychology journals, he has published in many of the leading
interdisciplinary journals, including the Journal o f Conflict Resolution,
Negotiation Journal, International Journal o f Conflict Management,
Journal o f Social Issues, Journal o f Peace Research, Peace and Change,
and Political Psychology.

Ho-Won Jeong is on the Faculty of the Institute for Conflict Analysis

and Resolution, George Mason University. His primary research areas
range from structural sources of conflict and macro theories on conflict
to development and conflict. Dr. Jeong is the editor of the New Agenda
fo r Peace Research (1999) and the author of Peace and Conflict Studies:
An Introduction (1999) as well as many journal articles. He is also the

xiu
xiv Conflict Resolution

editor of two journals, International Journal o f Peace Studies (published

in association with the International Peace Research Association’s
Commissions) and Peace and Conflict Studies (sponsored by the
Network of Peace and Conflict Studies).

Louis Kriesberg is Professor Emeritus of Sociology and Maxwell

Professor Emeritus of Social Conflict Studies at Syracuse University. He
was the founding Director of the Program on the Analysis and Resolution
of Conflicts (1986-1994). His research covers conflict de-escalation and
resolution, international organizations, mediation and peacemaking in
relations between states and between communal groups within countries.
He has provided consultation or training regarding conflict resolution in
many organizational settings, including the United States Institute of
Peace and the International Peace Academy. His recent books include
Constructive Conflicts; From Escalation to Resolution (1998),
International Conflict Resolution: The U.S.-USSR and Middle East Cases
(1992), Timing the De-Escalation o f International Conflicts (ed., 1991),
Intractable Conflicts and their Transformation (ed., 1989) and Social
Conflicts (1973, 1982). In addition, he has published over 80 articles and
book chapters.

M alvern Lumsden was Senior Research Fellow at the International Peace

Research Institute, Oslo (PRIO) from 1994 to 1997 and a researcher at the
Stockholm International Peace Institute (SIPRI) from 1972 to 1985. He
also served as a co-editor of Journal o f Peace Research. As a trained
dance movement therapist, Dr. Lumsden has worked with psychologists
and community mental health personnel in Israel and the West Bank,
Serbia, Macedonia and Russia. His publications are Web Wisdom:
Creating a Culture o f Peace (forthcoming) and Peacebuilding in
Macedonia: Searching fo r Common Ground in Civil Society (1997) as
well as Antipersonnel Weapons (1978).

C hristopher Mitchell is the Drucie French Cumbie Professor of

Conflict Analysis and Resolution at George Mason University. As a
consultant and facilitator, he has worked on conflicts in Northern
Ireland, Spain, Cyprus, Transcaucasia, the Middle East and Africa. His
research interests include international mediation and peacemaking
processes, the causes, dynamics and resolution of major ethno-
 Contributors xv

nationalist conflicts. Among his numerous publications are Handbook o f

Conflict Resolution (1996), New Approaches to International M ediation
(1988) and The Structure o f International Conflict {1981).

Richard E. Rubenstein is Professor of Conflict Resolution and Public

Affairs at George Mason University and former Director of the Institute
for Conflict Analysis of Resolution, George Mason University. His books
include When Jesus Became God: the Arian Controversy and the
Resolution o f Religious Conflict (1999), Comrade Valentime (1994),
Alchemists o f Revolution: Terrorism in the M odem World (1987), and Left
Turn: Origins o f the Next American Revolution (1973).

T arja Vayrynen is Research Fellow at Tampere Peace Research

Institute, Finland. Her current research interest lies in ethnic conflict,
theories of conflict resolution and discourse analysis. She has been
consulted by various research institutes, and has been invited to many
workshops and international conferences. Dr. Vayrynen's articles have
been published in several peace and conflict studies journals.
Part I
Introduction
1 Research on
Conflict Resolution
HO-WON JEONG

Conflict can be described as a contentious process of interpersonal or

inter-group interaction that takes place within a larger social context. As
sources of grievances are often associated with structural injustice, most
serious conflicts encompass various types of social problems reflected in
inter-group relations. Thus inter-group conflict is often imbedded in a
political framework, and its meaning can be socially interpreted and
constructed.
Conflict entails material bases of social life as well as psychological.
While changes in enemy perceptions are necessaiy for collaborative
problem solving, building a new relationship would have to go beyond
removing misperceptions of adversaries. Conflict resolution is ingrained
in the analysis of inter-group dynamics as well as the process and outcome
of negotiating different values and incompatible interests.
Resolution of serious social conflicts means more than finding
solutions to contentious issues. Enduring and mutually acceptable
outcomes will not be attained without taking into account power
imbalances and inequitable social and economic relations. Self-esteem
and identity as well as physical well-being are key elements to be
considered in conflict resolution and peace building. The nature o f
relations between adversaries needs to be examined in terms of looking for
transformative possibilities. In rebuilding communal relations, long-term
hostile relationships have to be overcome to prevent future occurrences o f
iolent conflict.
Understanding a large map of conflict formation and transformation
is crucial for finding resolution strategies. Diverse dimensions o f conflict
dynamics can be illuminated in terms of the nature o f structural
transformation as well as the processes for changing psychological
relations between adversaries. In the study of conflict resolution, process
has often been considered separate from content. Satisfactory outcomes to

3
4 Conflict Resolution

disputants mostly understood in psychological terms are assumed to be

obtained by a fair process. What needs to be further investigated in the
analysis of social conflict is how group processes are linked to structural
conditions. Inter-group relations are constrained by a superimposed
political structure as well as by their own internal dynamics.
This volume is intended to enhance our understanding of
psychological and structural conditions for conflict resolution in a variety
of ways. More specifically, it sheds light on diverse phenomena, ranging
from group dynamics for de-escalation to structural transformation of an
adversarial social system. Many authors in the book consider that
réconciliation is an essential part of a conflict resolution process. A new
relationship would not be naturally created by an official agreement
reached at formal negotiation settings. Moves taken for de-escalation may
well be extended to the successful implementation of agreements.

Theoretical Traditions

According to realpolitik, conflict can be effectively controlled and

managed by the use of force or the threat of punishment or retaliation.
The maintenance of stable relations depends on law and order. The
emphasis on authoritative and legal procedures does not leave much room
for understanding deep causes of problems which generate social conflict.
In response to deterrence approaches, new practices of dealing with
conflict have been developed since the 1960s. A group of scholar-
practitioners organised informal facilitation workshops for adversaries
involved in intractable ethnic conflicts in Cyprus, Palestine and other
places (Burton, 1996). In the domestic arena, many community centres
have been established to solve differences between neighbours in a non­
authoritarian manner (Scimecca, 1992).
Conflict resolution is considered a movement toward creating
cooperative relationships (Sandole, 1993). Though conflict has been
mostly like an uncontrolled fight throughout human history, we have
begun to observe a transition toward a more rule governed, contractual
form of competition. Conflict would eventually take verbal arguments in
which the opponent’s positions are examined for persuasion (Rapport,
I960).1 Enthusiasm with the research and practice of conflict resolution
has, in part, reflected concerns with prevention of violence. It is based on
 Research on Conflict Resolution 5

the belief that differences between opponents can be handled in a non-

adversarial manner. The solution should be found through negotiated
agreements rather than resort to violent tactics. Conflict can be resolved
since it is not generated by aggressive human nature but rather
unsatisfactory social relations (Clark, 1998).
While serious efforts were made to develop a general theoretical
framework, research on conflict resolution has been influenced by diverse
intellectual traditions based on different assumptions about the sources and
dynamics of conflict. Some pay more attention to a social-psychological
process while others focus on institutional and structural conditions. The
analysis of both inter-group and intra-group dynamics is important in
understanding the outcome of interaction between adversaries (Coser,
1956). Different modes of behaviour are explained by communication
patterns, attitudes toward adversaries, cognitive processes and problem
solving strategies (Deutsch, 1973; Mitchell, 1981a; Rubin, et al., 1994).
The roots o f social conflict are associated with the struggle for
maintaining or challenging a dominant power status (Dahrendorf, 1957),
frustration generated by relative deprivation (Gurr, 1970), repression of
basic needs (Burton, 1982) and differences in cultural norms and values
(Avruch, et al., 1991; LeBaron, 1997). The re-negotiation of existing
relationships is an essential part of conflict resolution in that economic
disparities and political discrimination generate resentment and grievances
of subordinate groups. Different values and interests can be made more
compatible through new institutional and social arrangements.
During the early development of academic research on conflict
management, serious attention was paid to the dynamics of conflict
relationships as well as a human decision making process. Efforts were
made to establish a coherent body of knowledge on conflict behavior by
those who pursue scientific approaches to theory building. In the belief
that theories must offer causal explanation on the basis of regularities and
correlation, characteristics of social systems were studied to look for a
general theory on the causes of violent behaviour.2 The conditions for
maintaining an equilibrium state and factors affecting its stability are
important for understanding unstable relations between actors.
Psychological and social dimensions o f conflict behaviour were
investigated in generating an interdisciplinary theory (Harty and Modell,
1991, p. 731). Perceived and actual threats are caused by a lack of trust
and misinterpretation of intentions. Behavioural science methods also
6 Conflict Resolution

helped examine motivational and perceptional aspects of human decision

making in crisis management. Policy making choices were studied to
understand the dynamics of international conflict as inter-state wars, arms
races and threats of a nuclear war were dominant concerns.
The impact of various aspects of crisis decision making on the course
of conflict has been explained by a cognitive model. Situations with high
threats cause stress to decision makers, leading to cognitive biases
(Hermann, 1969; Holsti, 1972). Both the limited ability to consider
various options and the misrepresentation or distortion of data can be
factors which contribute to the escalation of conflict. Group dynamics are
affected by stereotyped images of enemies and the dehumanisation of
competing out-groups. Collective misjudgement and risk taking
behaviour result from a small group decision making environment. A
tendency to seek conformity encourages a risky course of action in crisis
situations.
Conflict decision making has also been studied in a rational choice
paradigm. A decision on the termination of violent conflict depends on a
cost-benefit analysis of the balance between the expected utility of
continuing to fight and the expected utility of ending war. The stakes of
war and the probability of victory as well as the cost of continued warfare
are important factors in considering the termination of war. To end war,
both sides have to realise that settlement is less costly than continued
fighting. In many instances, rational choice theories tend to assume a
unitary actor model that does not incorporate internal divisions in the
analysis of a specific outcome. Views based on different values are not
easily integrated into a cost-benefit calculation.
Game theory models offer a rigorous method that predicts decision
making behaviour and the outcomes of conflict in a highly specific
situation. Pay-off matrices, which are predetermined by a set of inviolate
rules, influence the selection of strategies. The expectations of actors
about the outcome are associated with certain choices. Players do not
radically deviate from predictable courses of action in that they are not in a
position to change the pay-off matrices. The patterns of actors’ behaviour
and strategies are therefore explained by the choices faced by them.
In the Prisoner’s Dilemma game, players tend to adopt a tit-for-tat
strategy. Given a norm of reciprocity, one player’s move to maximise
one’s own gains at the sacrifice of others would lead the other player to
choose defection since unconditional cooperation in this situation
 Research on Conflict Resolution 7

generates the worst outcome. In mixed motive game situations where

achieving unilateral gains is a dominant strategy for each player, mutual
defection produces a less desirable outcome than mutual cooperation. The
conditions for stable cooperation would be created if future encounters
between the same players were regarded as significant enough for
defection to be rendered an unbeneficial move (Axelrod, 1984).
Conflict resolution can be achieved if the process of bargaining leads
to agreements that produce the joint apportionment of gains or losses.
However, the outcome in game theory analysis does not arise from
redefinition of substantive goals or reduction of animosities. Since the
control of the situation is in the hand of more than one player, the strategic
positions in structural features of the game itself are key concerns in
decision making. Given that the rules of a game specify the moves and
their alternatives available to players in a sequence of decisions,
psychological characteristics of players are not significant in determining
the outcome. A rational player makes choices calculated to minimise
losses and maximise gains under the constraints of given situations
(Rapoport, 1970).
In interest based conflict, game theory approaches may be helpful in
analysing the structure of bargaining situations. Due to some of its
simplistic and unrealistic assumptions about human behaviour, however,
game theories have difficulty being applied to real world problems in that
preferences of actors are not always clear as conflict evolves. Doubts have
also been raised about their applicability to complex, multicultural conflict
settings. Motivations behind preference formation are more complex than
utility maximisation especially in ethnic and racial conflicts often
characterised by different cultural norms or antagonistic ideologies and
structures (Stone, 1992, p. 91). In particular, given that most deep-seated
conflicts are based on irrational fear, game theory models have limitations
on the analysis of behaviour of ethno-political groups. In interpreting
human intentions, moreover, game theories ignore inter-subjective
understandings of different value systems and the role of unmet basic
needs.
Resolving conflicts that include such dimensions as class, culture and
ethnicity often requires negotiation of incompatible values as well as
material interests. Conflict escalation and resolution can be understood by
cross-cultural perspectives that suggest different assumptions about social
behaviour. ‘Scripts that persons may follow for conflict resolution are
8 Conflict Resolution

accordingly defined within a given culture of conflict’ (Fry and

Bjorkqvist, p. 4). Therefore, processes of conflict resolution arise from
complex systems of meaning.
Culture as a construct of shared meaning is more than traditions and
values. The structure of meaning shapes our ability to develop perceptions
about other people and think about the world. Indigenous understandings
of being and action are employed in producing and interpreting social
behaviour (Avruch, 1993, p. 132). Collective sentiments are more easily
represented as diverse sets of understandings about the outside world.
Conflict originates in different conceptions of social life that affect
behavioural manifestations.
Conflict resolution strategies have to reflect the social world
fragmented into a multitude of cultural traditions and knowledge bases
since ‘cultural meaning influences self-identity, approaches to articulating
issues, and expectations regarding the forms of agreement’ (LeBaron,
1998, p. 43). Thus culturally sensitive conflict resolution mediates
different social worlds, interprets alien cultures, and advocates particular
moral visions through its efforts to reveal meanings attached to conflict by
individuals and groups. Indigenous approaches to conflict resolution are
contrasted with a dominant middle class Western dispute resolution model
whose conceptions of the person prescribe the control of emotion, rational
behavior and logical calculations. The theory of rational negotiation
models helps maintain the politics of hegemony by giving disprivilege to a
particular type of discourse (Avruch, 1991, pp. 4-5).
Not only because culture changes with a context but also because
people do not share the same assumptions about conflict processes,
conflict resolution needs to be considered in terms of the unique patterns
of relations based on culture. At the same time, it is also argued that
recurring cultural patterns and underlying principles can be generalised by
identifying particular cultural settings and institutions that influence the
internalisation of beliefs and attitudes (Fry and Bjorkqvist, 1997, p. 5).
Cultural patterns serve as an unquestioned scheme of reference which
characterises a social group at a specific time in history. Differences in
cultural norms are associated with particular patterns of interactions
between adversaries.
Power relations as well as opposing psychological attributes and
differences in cultural meanings play an important role in a conflict
process. The distribution of power between groups is an important
 Research on Conflict Resolution 9

element which affects the process and outcome of a social conflict as well
as the parties’ approaches to the conflict (Blalock, 1989). From a
Weberian perspective, power can be conceptualised as ‘the ability of one
group to control or significantly influence the actions of another group,
even against their interests and wishes’ (Stone, 1992, p. 99). It entails the
capacity to mobilise ‘resources that, if used, will change another party’s
future welfare’. Reward or punishment can be employed in affecting
another group's behaviour (Pruitt and Camevale, 1993, p. 130). Various
types of rewards, in general, help to build positive relationships while
threats tend to generate resentment and resistance as well as fear.
While other factors such as issue salience to parties and internal
resistance to compromised deals are important, power relations have a
significant impact on determining the types of settlement. Power
imbalance affects a range of behavioural options available to the parties.
In the sense that power needs to be understood in relational terms, the
context of exercising power is also crucial in analysing the impact of
power on behaviour. In power asymmetry, subordinate parties have less
options because more powerful parties can simply impose their will on
them. In an ethnic conflict, however, attempts to dominate tend to prolong
rather than resolve conflict in that power differences do not reduce the
determination of the oppressed group to achieve freedom and autonomy.
Whereas power asymmetry may allow a more powerful group to dominate
the relationship, it can increase the will of the subordinate group to resist
an unacceptable order.
The nature of social struggle is shaped by political realities. Some
consider coercive power as a critical starting point for the genesis of
human conflict. Groups in dominant positions are challenged by
subordinate groups that are dissatisfied with their underdog status
(Darhendorf, 1958). If the marginalised groups do not accept the existing
social structures, their system either has to be reformed, or the opposition
has to be oppressed by coercion. Power struggle can be expressed in a
manifest way with the mobilisation of resources by marginalized groups
and the initiation of organised resistance.
Power asymmetry exists in most serious conflicts, ranging from
industrial problems or competition for environmental resources to
communal relations. By ignoring the nature of power relations
superimposed on major social cleavages, a pluralistic society model
neglects the fact that political and economic power differences are
10 Conflict Resolution

translated into racial and ethnic tension (Stone, 1992, p. 98). Democracy
carries a normative meaning that a majority government provides a
legitimate rule, but it can be a source for social injustice if it undermines
the rights o f minority ethnic groups and marginalised classes (Burton,
1997).
Transformative possibilities could be illuminated by a strategic
resistance to existing power relations. From this perspective, conflict
should not be resolved in a way that merely overturns one dominant
system for another. The deconstruction of dominant power relations by
transforming social values and institutions may be seen as an ultimate
form of eliminating contentious relationships arising from discrimination
and exploitation.
In basic needs theories, the sources of intractable social conflicts are
found in unmet psychological and physical needs. Given that individuals
seek to fulfill a set of deep-seated needs, the motivational aspects of social
action are explained in terms of the dissatisfaction of human needs. Fears
in inter-group conflict situations are driven by perceived threats to identity
and security associated with the denial of ontological needs. Threats to the
fulfillment of basic needs or their actual nonfulfillment are powerfully
played out in serious international or ethnic conflict (Kelman, 1997, p.
195).
Many, if not most, deep-rooted conflicts involve human needs which
are universal across cultures and economic systems (Burton, 1990a).
Compared with culture and ideology, human needs cannot be altered, and
thus social, political and economic institutions have to be adjusted to the
demand for satisfaction of basic needs, but not vice versa (Ronen, 1999).
Treating class, ethnicity and other forms of social divisions as separate
phenomena in the analysis of motivations, behaviour, relationships and
structures diverts attention away from the essential characteristics and
causes of conflict (Burton, 1993).
Human needs cannot be satisfied in exploitative and unjust social
conditions. Given that a process for conflict resolution has to be geared
toward fulfilling basic needs, conflicts are unlikely to be resolved by
power based, coercive bargaining strategies. Marginalised groups do not
see any stake in cooperating with dominant groups if the solutions do not
guarantee their rights to self-identity, freedom, autonomy and physical
well-being. Sources of conflict can be eliminated by institutional and
other types of changes that are acceptable to all parties.
 Research on Conflict Resolution 11

In the absence of theories on human behavior and social institutions,

only subjective meanings would be attached to the concepts that are
important to research on conflict analysis and resolution. This subjectivity
can be eliminated by developing adequate theories on power relations
between dominant and subordinate groups (Burton, 1993). An in-depth
analysis of human behaviour and motivation in adversarial relationships is
essential for understanding how and why certain practices work. Most
importantly, research on conflict resolution ought to be promoted by a
holistic approach to examining human conflict. Specialisation and its
artificial constructs would not direct our attention to hidden behavioural
sources of conflict (Burton, 1996).
There have been some shared beliefs on the necessity and desirability
for generic theories which suggest that diverse types of conflict share the
same sources (Burton and Sandole, 1986). Communal disputes and
international war alike may be able to be explained by general analytical
frameworks and theories that reveal the structural causes o f adversarial
relationships. As illustrated in Richard Rubenstein’s chapter in this book,
for instance, problems in family relations are not isolated from social and
economic structures.
It has also long been suggested that conflict dynamics can be
generalised from one setting to another (Deutsch, 1973; Schelling, 1960).
Common patterns of behaviour are also observed from different levels of
analysis. The applications of findings in one arena to other arenas would
help expand the knowledge of the universal phenomena of conflict.
Despite a strong commitment to building a more integrated field, the
development of general theories on conflict resolution has been hampered
by a lack of an agreement on approaches to analysing the same
phenomena.
In the absence of universally accepted theories and concepts, research
on diverse types of conflict at various levels of complexities may have to
be assessed in terms of the relevance of its analytical criteria to the
empirical context of the object to be studied. While certain practices and
concepts can be universally applied across levels, types and settings,
underlying dynamics of conflict relations may not always be the same.
Because a social context differs for each conflict, for instance, an
imbedded power structure could have different significance in resolving a
specific type of conflict.
12 Conflict Resolution

Conceptual Issues

While the term conflict can be applied to a variety of situations, conflict

has traditionally been characterised by competition for resources, value
differences and adversarial relationships (Deutsch, 1973, pp. 15-17).
Incompatible material interests may culminate in adversarial inter-group
relations which are defined by hostility and threat. For latent conflict to
become manifest, however, the divergence of interests, motives and
attitudes has to be perceived by actors. In a struggle over claims to scarce
status, power and resources, opponents attempt to neutralize, injure or
eliminate their rivals (Coser, 1956, p. 8).
A conflictual relationship is generated by goal incompatibilities
stemming from the struggle to acquire resources or positions for the
satisfaction of needs. Thus, whether it involves either interperson or inter­
group relations, ‘the term “conflict” denotes an incompatibility of goals
between parties’ (Kruglanski, et al., 1993, p. 46). In a conflict situation in
which the goals of two groups cannot be met at the same time, the primary
parties' desired future outcomes are different (Mitchell, 1981a, p. 17).
As parties pursue different objectives, they are engaged in adversarial
activities. Incompatibility in means also lead to disagreement and tension
though it is more readily resolved than goal incompatibilities (Raven and
Kruglanski, 1970, p. 70). Competition and contest are inevitable in the
process of making decisions on the distribution of goods and resources.
One party’s action interferes with the other’s efforts to satisfy their needs
and interests. Conflict entails a reciprocal activity in the sense that its
dynamics consist of a sequence of action and reaction.
Conflict can be settled by force or by coercive bargaining. As
underlying values and interests are not seriously considered, the goals of
one or both parties remain unsatisfied. Especially if a settlement is
imposed on the parties, that can create conditions for temporary
acceptance of the outcome, but it deepens antagonistic relations. One
party may give in to the demand of another party without attitudinal
changes because of fear or threats. With a shift in the power balance,
manifest conflict can occur again to redress old issues that still produce
contention. In conflict settlement (as opposed to resolution), deeper
causes and relations are not examined in that relative degrees of power
determine the outcome of conflict (Burton, 1990a).
Unfavorable circumstances force changes in behaviour and strategies.
 Research on Conflict Resolution 13

Thus conflict settlement is ‘aimed primarily at altering conflict behavior

(giving up violent and coercive tactics) and then reaching a compromise
solution’ (Mitchell, 1981a, p. 275). Due to the fact that behavioral change
can take place without attitudinal changes, settlement does not require
modification of an adversarial relationship.
Obviously the notion of resolving conflict differs greatly from
standing ‘simply for an ending of violence or a precarious compromise
agreement supported by outside sanctions, either positive or negative’
(Mitchell, 1994a, p. 2). In conflict resolution, agreements have to be
reached voluntarily so that the outcome will be acceptable and self-
supported (Mitchell, 1981a, p. 276). Conflict resolution strategies may
focus on perceptional and attitudinal changes in order to create an
atmosphere for negotiations designed to reduce goal incompatibilities. A
resolution process suggests ‘a convergence in underlying attitudes’ as well
as the achievement of a change in behavior (Levinger and Rubin, 1994, p.
204). Each party accepts the other party as a legitimate, or at least
acceptable partner for dialogue. Improved communication coincides with
altered perceptions. New patterns of interaction can be internalised with
changes in mutual attitudes (Levinger and Rubin, 1994, p. 205).
If conflict is interpreted purely as a psychological process, clearing
up misperceptions and improving communications should be enough for
conflict resolution. Parties can misinterpret each other’s motivations due
to false impressions about their adversaries’ intentions. Efforts need to be
made to deal with internal psychological stress, cognitive problems as well
as a group process which reinforces stereotypical enemy images.
While behavioural and attitudinal changes are essential in reducing
tensions, resolution requires that the sources of a conflict situation be
eliminated (Mitchell, 1981a, p. 253). Solving a specific set of problems is
different, by its nature, from altering adversarial attitudes and behavior.
New attitudes toward each other do not always guarantee satisfactory
agreements which will be durable. In that sense, movement toward
conflict resolution would be better characterised in terms of the ‘efforts to
address basic goal compatibilities’ (Mitchell, 1994a, p. 7).
There are various ways to manage goal incompatibilities. When the
perceived difference is illusory or not based on real sources, the
incompatibility can be removed if each party knows that the other party
does not intend to obtain the same object. Conflict tends to disappear with
the realisation that both parties are not actually attempting to achieve the
14 Conflict Resolution

goal believed to be incompatible (Kruglanski, 1993, p. 52). Goal

incompatibilities would also be eliminated if the goal were no longer
perceived as attractive, and were abandoned easily at a later point. The
salience of goals is likely to be influenced by an increase in the costs
involved in obtaining them. The partial attainment of goals through their
subdivision may give rise to some satisfaction. Parties can jointly search
for mutually desirable solutions by pursuing a superordinate goal.
Integrative solutions, which are beneficial to both parties, strengthen
collaborative relationships (Rubin, et. al., 1994, p. 172).
The practice of conflict resolution anchored in a rational choice
approach ‘entails a special sort of cognitive task called problem solving,
leading to the discovery or creation of choices that mutually benefit all
parties to the conflict’. Efficient solutions to problems meet the formula
‘the greatest mutual or joint benefit to all parties’ (Avruch and Black,
1990, p. 223). A win-win solution can be found by problem solving
designed to explore a mutually acceptable agreement. Problem solving
lies in sorting out conflicting interests and exploring an optimal formula
which satisfies everyone. It may be achieved by increasing resources
available for the satisfaction of both parties’ needs, exchanging
concessions on matters with different priorities to each party or examining
underlying concerns with issues or a negotiation process (Pruitt and
Camevale, 1993, pp. 36-37).
Rational conflict management is based on the assumption that parties
know their best interests. When conflict arises from illusory grounds due
to misinterpretations of proposals or circumstances, clear communication
for better understanding of each other’s interests and intentions may be
able to eliminate problems. Conflict can be managed and controlled by
setting up rules and norms for competition which parties agree on. Third
parties help identify issues, control each party’s aspirations, remove
misunderstandings of each other’s goals, analyse interests, formulate
proposals and suggest alternatives.
The term ‘dispute’ is more suitable to characterise problems which
can be managed within an existing system through compromise or other
methods (Burton, 1990a, 1996). The existence of diverse interests in
postindustrial societies has reduced the chances for intense class based
conflict. Labor-management disputes in contractual relationships are
different from ethnic struggles or other identity based conflict. Dispute
resolution is based on agreement on the rules and norms that guide a
 Research on Conflict Resolution 15

process to solve differences stemming from the pursuit of competing

interests. Interest based bargaining is favoured over contests of rights and
power (Ury, et. al., 1988)
In this model, satisfaction and fairness naturally result from
efficiency of practice. It is thus conceived that a desirable outcome or
condition for conflict resolution is produced by a fair process. Negotiators
are assumed to have equal ability to bargain over their interests. Parties
are encouraged to choose strategies needed in the search for a formula to
maximise mutual interests. Emotion and anger have to be controlled for
rational calculations of objective interests.
Challenges for resolving deep-rooted conflict are different from
management problems within organisations and also from interpersonal
disputes. In intractable conflict, negotiation over material interests such as
land are often entangled with concerns over differences in values and
recognition of identities. Reaching mutual agreements on security and
other ontological issues is made more difficult in a conflict characterised
by an intense level of hostilities, deep polarisation of positions between
parties and a zero sum pursuit of goals.
In a long lasting conflict, it is difficult to know when resolution has
been achieved. Questions remain as to whether agreement on contentious
issues at hand is enough to build durable future relations. Depending on
the nature of issues and goals, a particular agreement might not be
sustained. The perceptions of a desirable outcome at an acceptable cost
vary for each party. In addition, any initial agreement on different aspects
of problems which have arisen from a broad conflict relationship is most
likely to be partial. The expected outcome of conflict resolution may turn
out to be not so satisfactory as the situations outside the control of the
parties have a negative impact on inter-group relations. With changing
circumstances and the necessity for adjustment, the implementation of
agreements demands renegotiation of the previously agreed terms.
Efforts to resolve conflict need to be assessed in terms of an outcome
as well as a process. Subsequently conflict resolution has to be geared
toward finding solutions to the structural causes of problems that are
responsible for contentious relationships. Conflictual processes could be
utilised for constructive and nonviolent change with efforts to transform
the dynamics and characteristics of an adversarial relationship. Under
certain circumstances, escalation may be considered a necessary step
16 Conflict Resolution

toward resolution. Negotiation for peaceful relationships would not be

effective without confronting the structural origins of problems.
The focus on the content of conflict leads to an emphasis on the
substantive issues relevant to understanding the source of conflict. As
suggested by Franklin Dukes’ chapter in this book, a transformative
practice requires a critical assessment of such societal problems as
alienation and disintegration. Conflict transformation as a process toward
resolution can be generated by social movements oriented toward
empowerment. In the practice of transformative conflict resolution,
progressive social movements are used to reconstitute and recreate a
democratic public domain (Dukes, 1993, p. 47).
Many psychological models, mostly concerned with individual
feelings, emotions and aspirations, see self-control and improvement in
communication as the main means of dealing with conflict. They tend to
separate process from substance by ignoring such questions as what kind
of outcome is acceptable under which circumstances. Conflict can play a
constructive and functional role if the process of understanding and
solving differences results in a better understanding of human problems.
Long-term relationships would not be improved without the elimination of
structural violence such as oppression and exploitation. Resolving class,
ethnic and other types of social conflict requires the satisfaction of basic
material, psychological and social needs (Burton, 1997; Kelman, 1990;
Mitchell and Banks, 1996).

Dynamics o f De-Escalation and Resolution

There are diverse ways conflict is reconstructed along shifts in power

differentials, patterns of communication, and intra- and inter-party
relations.3 Parties may choose different strategies and develop new
interpretations of situations as patterns of interaction between adversarial
groups evolve throughout the conflict cycle. Political as well as
psychological factors contribute to delays in the termination of hostilities.
The prospects for resolution are also affected by such factors as the role of
third parties.
In general, reduction in the intensity of one or more dimensions of
conflict behavior is associated with contraction in the extent of conflict
dynamics such as the number of issues and parties engaged in the struggle.
 Research on Conflict Resolution 17

Efforts made by one party to move toward reaching agreements would not
be effective without reciprocative moves from the other party. While
shifting power dynamics can bring about the adoption of new strategies, a
consistent move toward de-escalation is likely to follow the alteration of
perceptions. The realisation of mutual interdependence helps parties
consider conflict as a shared problem.
Movement toward conflict resolution is a complex multi-step
process. The process of resolving conflict can be complicated as multiple
parties exist with their diverse behavioral patterns along with issues often
embedded within each other. In addition, finding mutually acceptable
solutions is not easy due to the difficulty in altering enemy images and
misperceptions. As violence creates an inhospitable environment for
negotiation, victimisation of each other is a major obstacle toward de-
escalation and reconciliation.
It is a very difficult task to change the dynamics of conflict especially
when it is seen as a struggle over survival by adversaries. Negative inter­
group interaction entails an ontological character by denying each other’s
identity and security. Cognitive rigidity as well as such affective factors
as feelings of anger, fear and hatred have a negative impact on transition to
de-escalation. Intentions to harm the other party derives from
dehumanisation of the other party. To move from a contest of coercive
power to win-win solutions are, therefore, hard to obtain in a deep-rooted
conflict.
The opportunity for transformation of conflict dynamics could follow
a coercive struggle for unilateral advantages. The signs of de-escalation
might be found after the exchange of intense hostilities and violence
during the escalation. At the same time, however, conflict may not
proceed through a linear progression in that a momentum of de-escalation
can reverse its course back to renewed escalation.
Collaborative problem solving requires the control o f violence.
Since the use of threats is incompatible with building mutual trust, peace
enforcement is intended to stop violence before any kind of agreement is
achieved by a facilitation process. Crisis management or intervention
tools promote confidence building. Peacekeeping has been utilised as a
tension reduction mechanism before any negotiation takes place.
Contingent strategies vary along the conflict process. Depending on
the circumstances, a third party might play different roles in movement
toward conflict resolution (Keashly and Fisher, 1995). They can help
18 Conflict Resolution

straighten distorted facts, deliver a message or propose a negotiated

settlement. Facilitation helps eliminate misperceptions generated by a
lack of communication. When the agreement is tentative or the situation is
volitile, a third party can be engaged in enforcing rules or guaranteeing the
implementation of treaties.
At the stage of de-escalation, primary adversaries recognise the need
for talks, and they accept the legitimacy of their opponents as a negotiation
partner. A negotiated settlement is not possible without serious discussion
of major concerns raised by both sides. Decision making for de-escalation
may involve mutual concessions. In moving toward conflict resolution,
parties abandon contentious tactics to achieve unilateral gains and become
willing to accommodate each other’s needs.
A costly impasse will continue to exist without appropriate sets of
circumstances. Necessary conditions exist for actors to consider the
initiation of de-escalation (Kriesberg, 1987, p. 375).4 Movement toward
de-escalation comes at a certain moment with careful analysis of conflict
situations. Timing encompasses the ‘circumstances that are appropriate or
not appropriate for particular efforts’ (Kriesberg, 1991, p. 4). Ripe
moments represent ‘circumstances when the conflict is ready for an effort
to bring about a particular change’ (Mitchell, 1995, p. 38).
The notion of right timing is based on the assumption that if a
conciliatory gesture taken by one of the protagonists is made at
inappropriate times, it is counterproductive. A peace process would not
start until both parties acknowledge a stalemate and make efforts to move
toward de-escalation. There are conditions under which no matter what
steps are taken, one of the adversaries will not respond. Therefore,
ripeness requires ‘some readiness on the part of primary parties to de-
escalate conflict’ (Kriesberg, 1987, p. 376).
The readiness of a de-escalatory move arrives with the realisation of
the limited capacity to push for any gains as well as a difficulty in
obtaining concessions due to an adversary’s resistance. Indicators of a
ripe moment include the existence of a mutually damaging stalemate,
failure of efforts of both parties to impose unilateral solutions, recognition
of feasibility for bilateral solutions and favourable changes in power
balance for an underdog (Kleiboer, 1995, pp. 316-317).
The right timing may not coincide for both parties if each party has
different expectations of future outcomes. Ripeness is a necessary but not
sufficient circumstance for de-escalation. Before making any kind of
 Research on Conflict Resolution 19

moves, parties have to be able to recognize whether or not the adversaries

are ready to ‘move away from escalation or down from stalemate’
(Kriesberg, 1987, p. 375). The conditions for correct timing may be
brought about by different means of intervention designed for the
reduction of tensions. Intermediaries can persuade a reluctant party to
move to de-escalation by communicating the readiness of the other party.
Movement from escalation to de-escalation has multidimensional
aspects involving creation of new psychological relations, adoption o f
conciliatory strategies and behaviour, changes in power dynamics and
replacement of leaderships within primary parties. Motivation for
continued fighting is weakened with fatigue accompanied by increasing
costs, a lack of internal support for continuing conflict and external
pressure for ending hostilities (Blalock, 1989, p. 233). Psychological
exhaustion and economic devastation lead the parties to believe that the
high costs of continuing conflict overwhelm any gains to be achieved later.
The opportunities for de-escalation are provided by cooperation to prevent
mutual self-destruction.
A socio-psychological process of de-escalation focuses on cognitive
functions, information processing and image building. Protraction of
conflict entrapment generates mistrust, hatred, enemy perceptions and
feelings of victimisation. Self-perpetuating dynamics of conflict can be
reversed by the efforts to eliminate enemy images and stereotypes. The
existence of any past history of cooperation could be utilised to undermine
the belief that enemies are unified and unchangeable.
Mutual assurance for security is supported by abandoning enemy
images which sustain fears, anxiety and hostility. In a prolonged conflict
where stereotypes of the enemy and misunderstanding of its motives
justify the denial of the legitimacy of its claims, a shift from threats of
coercion to mutual cooperation may follow the efforts to overcome
dehumanisation with empathy. Eradicating psychological barriers of
suspicion and mistrust helps adversaries give up entrenched positions.
The views of political leaders and public opinions can be
reconfigured by social and cultural elites who have developed new
understandings of problems through informative facilitation sessions.
Changes in the perceptions of adversaries tend to be more easily achieved
within a small group setting. As illustrated in problem solving workshop
approaches, however, it is not easy to transfer psycho-dynamic changes in
a small group setting to a large social relationship. Beyond attitudinal
20 Conflict Resolution

changes, a social dimension needs to be added to the creation of a new

inter-group relationship. As the boundaries of identities can be socially
redefined, possibilities for identity reconstruction need to be investigated
in the context of negotiation of security and autonomy.
Steps for de-escalation can be signaled by the softening of
intransigent positions. Interpretation of the other party’s actual behavior in
terms of certain expectations about adversaries prevents the emergence of
new attitudes and beliefs. Joint efforts to redefine the conflict can be made
in a way to explore superordinate goals through the recognition of
common interests. A shift from competitive to cooperative interaction
contributes to building a positive relationship. The search for
compatibilities in goals as well as the mutual recognition of significance in
achieving these goals produces a collaborative process. Different views of
meaningful accommodations have to be shared in refraining the issues so
that the concerns of both parties can be met.
Prospects for de-escalation are hampered by ‘the intentional mutual
exchange of negative sanctions, or punitive behaviors, by two or more
parties’ (Blalock, 1989, p. 7). Modes of behaviour representing de-
escalation include the cessation of violent tactics. The use of coercion
would generate more mistrust, hatred and fear instead of persuading the
other party to adopt a more conciliatory strategy. The withdrawal of
negative sanctions as well as rewards are normally employed in an attempt
to initiate positive interaction. Negative psychological effects are
produced by coercive strategies while positive sanctions are designed to
deliver messages of compromise or reconciliation.
The communication of threats often ends up forcing an adversarial
party to respond with retaliatory counter-threats that generate a spiral of
mutual aggression. On the other hand, the promise of benefits creates an
atmosphere which allows the interchange of a variety of issues and
discussion of the options to be explored. Open communication may
accompany the exchange of rewards. However, intended actions are not
necessarily recognized as moves toward de-escalation by adversaries since
conciliatory overtures designed to improve relations following entrapment
may be ignored due to continuing suspicion and mistrust (Mitchell, 1991).
As mutual assurances about each other’s intentions are not clear,
modes of behavior, strategies and tactics are influenced by different
motivations. Depending on the circumstances, negative and positive
sanctions can play different roles in changing conflict dynamics. Threats
 Research on Conflict Resolution 21

and coercion may be followed by rewards, persuasion or withdrawal o f

negative sanctions. Dramatic use of contentious tactics may precede a
move toward de-escalation in an attempt to obtain maximum gains before
any negotiation takes place. As discussed in Mitchell’s chapter in this
book, the effectiveness of certain moves depends on how a conciliatory or
moderating course of action can be interpreted internally and by others. In
general, conciliatory gestures are gradually taken and would continue in
response to reciprocal moves of the other party. The dramatic changes in
the relationship are more likely to follow a series of initiatives in limited
boundaries.
Whereas confrontation may often be found before any meaningful
dialogue, the process of conflict resolution, by its nature, is geared toward
convincing each party to recognise different positions through various
communication means rather than imposing unacceptable conditions on its
adversaries. Threats and actual use of violence make future initiatives for
de-escalation more difficult.
The process for de-escalation also needs to be explained in terms of
both external and internal party relations. Transformation of conflict
dynamics involves not only psychological but also power relations. A
shift in the power balance helps reassess the costs arising from continuing
stalemates. Power imbalance in favour of the other party makes the
outcome less optimistic. New dynamics of power relations may be
brought about by outside pressure on the parties who refuse to negotiate.
In overcoming the opposition of a dominant party, weaker parties can also
be empowered by both technical assistance and moral support.
Situations with social injustice make resolving differences more
difficult. A subordinate group can refuse to accept the status quo and
continue to struggle until their demands are heard by a dominant group. If
political oppression and economic exploitation exist, escalation is often
necessary in order to transform the nature of conflict. In this situation,
changes in the attitude and negotiation positions of the dominant party are
an essential condition for conflict resolution.
The system of social relations within which adversaries interact can
be altered by nonviolent strategies intended to persuade the dominant
party to look at the sources of problems. Non-violent resistance is used to
alter power imbalanced situations through persuasion and pressure.
Marginalised parties may use nonviolent tactics to communicate its
intentions as well as educate and persuade adversaries. The capacity and
References
Achebe, C. (1994), Things Fall Apart, Anchor Books, New York.
Adams, D. (ed.) (1995), UNESCO and a Culture of Peace. Promoting a Global Movement.
UNESCO Culture of Peace Programme, Paris.
Africa South of the Sahara (1992), Europa Yearbooks, London.
Anderson, Benedict (1983), ‘Imagined Communities: Reflections on the Origins and Spread
of Nationalism’, London, Verso.
Antonovsky, A. (1987), ‘The Sense of Coherence: A Historical and Future Perspective’, Israel
Journal of Medical Sciences, vol. 32, pp. 170-178.
Appadurai, Arjun (1990), ‘Disjunctive and Difference in the Global Cultural Economy’,
Theory, Culture & Society, vol. 7, no. 2-3, pp. 295-310.
Arendt, H. (1969), On Violence. New York: Harcourt, Brace & World, Inc.
Arendt, H. (1965), On Revolution, Viking Press, New York.
Arendt, H. (1958), The Human Condition, University of Chicago Press, Chicago.
Ashworth, T. (1980), ‘Trench Warfare 1914-1918: The Live and Let Live System’, Holmes
and Meier, New York.
Avruch, K. and Black, P.W. (1990), ‘Ideas of Human Nature in Contemporary Conflict
Resolution Theory’, Negotiation Journal, vol. 7, pp. 221-228.
Avruch, K. (1991), ‘Introduction: Culture and Conflict Resolution’, in K. Avruch , P. Black ,
and J. A. Scimecca (eds), Conflict Resolution: Cross Cultural Perspectives, Greenwood
Press, Westport, pp. 1-18.
Avruch, K. and Black, P. (1993), ‘Conflict Resolution in Intercultural Settings: Problems and
Prospects’, in D.J.D. Sandole and H. van der Merwe (eds), pp. 131-145.
Axelrod, R. (1984), The Evolution of Cooperation, Basic Books, New York.
Azar, Edward E. (1990), ‘The Management of Protracted Social Conflict: Theory and Cases’,
Dartmouth, Aldershot.
Bakhtin, M. M. (1986), Speech Genres and Other Essays, Austin: University of Texas Press.
Bakhash, S. (1984), Reign of the Ayatollahs: Iran and the Islamic Revolution, Basic Books,
New York.
Baron, R.A. (1997), ‘Positive Effects of Conflict: Insights from Social Cognition’, in C.K.W. de
Dreu and E. Van de Vliert (eds), Using Conflict in Organizations, Sage Publications, London.
Barth, Fredrik (1969), (ed), Ethnic Groups and Boundaries, The Social Organization of
Culture Difference, Boston: Little, Brown and Company.
Batakovic, D.T. (1992), ‘Le Génocide dans l’État Indépendante Croate (1941–1945)’,
Hérodote, vol. 67, pp. 70-80.
Bauman, Zygmunt (1991) Modernity and Ambivalence, Ithaca, New York: Cornell University
Press.
Benhabib, Seyla (1992) Situating the Self, Cambridge: Polity Press.
Berger, P. and Luckmann, T. (1991), The Social Construction of Reality. A Treatise in the
Sociology of Knowledge, Penguin, London.
Berkowitz, N.H. (1994), ‘An Attributional Model of Conflict Escalation: Implications for
Training Lay People in Escalation Management’, Paper Presented at the Annual Scientific
Meeting of the International Society of Political Psychology, Santiago De Compostela.
Berlin, I. (1998), My Intellectual Path’, The New York Review of Books, pp. 53-60.
Bernstein, B. (1969). ‘The New Deal: The Conservative Achievements of Liberal Reform’, in
B. Bernstein (ed), Towards a New Past: Dissenting: Essays in American History, Vintage
Books, New York.
Bertalanffy, L. (1973), General System Theory, Penguin, Harmondsworth.
Black, C.E. (1966), The Dynamics of Modernization: A Study in Comparative History, Harper
and Row, New York.
Blalock, H. (1989), Power and Conflict: Toward a General Theory, Sage, London.
Boal, A. (1995), The Rainbow of Desire: The Boal Method of Theatre and Therapy, London
and New York.
Bonoma, T. (1976), Conflict, Escalation, and De-Escalation, Sage Publications, Beverly Hills.
Borris, E.R. (forthcoming), ‘The Healing Power of Forgiveness and the Resolution of
Protracted Conflicts’, Journal of Social Issues.
Brams, S.J. and Kilgour, D.M. (1987), ‘Winding Down if Pre-emption or Escalation Occurs’,
Journal of Conflict Resolution, vol. 31, no. 4, pp. 547-572.
Brass, P. (1991), Ethnicity and Nationalism: Theory and Comparison, Sage, New Delhi.
Brinton, C. (1956), The Anatomy of Revolution, Beacon Press, Boston.
Brown, M. (1993), (ed), Ethnic Conflict and International Security. Princeton University Press,
Pinceton
Burke, E. (1987), Reflections on the Revolution in France, Hackett Publishing Co.,
Indianapolis.
Burton, J.W. (1982), Dear Survivors, Frances Pinter, London.
Burton, J.W. (1987), Resolving Deep-Rooted Conflict: A Handbook, University Press of
America, Lanham.
Burton, J.W. (1990a), Conflict: Resolution and Provention, Macmillan, London.
Burton, J.W. (ed) (1990b), Conflict: Human Needs Theory, Macmillan, London.
Burton, J. W. (1993), ‘Conflict Resolution as a Political Philosophy’, in D.J.D. Sandole and H.
van der Merwe (eds), Conflict Resolution Theory and Practice: Integration and Application,
Manchester University Press, Manchester, pp. 55-64
Burton, J.W. (1996), ‘Civilization in Crisis: From Adversarial to Problem Solving Process’,
International Journal of Peace Studies, vol. 1, no. 1, pp. 5-24.
Burton, J.W. (1997), Violence Explained: The Sources of Conflict, Violence, and Crime and
Their Prevention, Manchester University Press, Manchester.
Burton, J.W. and Dukes, F. (1990), Conflict: Practices in Management, Settlement and
Resolution, Macmillan, London.
Burton, J.W. and Sandole, D.J.D. (1986), ‘Generic Theory: The Basis of Conflict Resolution’,
Negotiation Journal, vol. 2, no. 4.
Bush, R.A.B. and Folger, J.P. (1994), The Promise of Mediation, Jossey-Bass, San
Francisco.
Blitz, M.R. (1997), Chaos and Complexity. Implications for Psychological Theory and
Practice, Taylor and Francis, London/Washington.
Buzan, B. (1997) ‘Rethinking Security after the Cold War’, Cooperation and Conflict, vol. 32,
no. 1, pp. 5-28.
Cantril, H. (1965), The Pattern of Human Concerns, Rutgers University Press, New
Brunswick.
Campbell, D. (1993) Writing Security, University of Minnesota Press, Minneapolis.
Campbell, D. and Dillon, M. (1993), ‘The End of Philosophy and the End of International
Relations’, in D. Campbell and M. Dillon (eds), The Political Subject of Violence, Manchester
University Press, Manchester and New York, pp. 1-47.
Carlson, L.J. (1995), ‘A Theory of Escalation and International Conflict’, Journal of Conflict
Resolution, vol. 39, no. 3, pp. 511-534.
Chasin, R. and Herzig, M. (1993), ‘Creating Systemic Interventions for the Sociopolitical
Arena’, in B. Berger Gould and D. Hilleboe DeMuth (eds), The Global Family Therapist:
Integrating the Personal, Professional, and Political, Allyn and Bacon, Boston.
Chufrin, G.I. and Saunders, H.H. (1993), ‘A Public Peace Process’, Negotiation Journal, vol.
9, no. 3, pp. 155-177.
Clark, M. (1998), ‘Aggressivity and Violence: An Alternative Theory of Human Nature’, Peace
and Conflict Studies, vol. 5, no. 1, pp. 2-7.
Cobb, S. (1994), ‘A Narrative Perspective on Mediation: Toward the Materialization of the
‘Storytelling’ Metaphor’, in Joseph Folger and Tricia Jones (eds), New Directions in
Mediation, Thousand Oaks, London, New Delhi: Sage Publications, pp. 49-63.
Connolly, W. (1991), Identity/Difference: Democratic Negotiations of Political Paradox,
Ithaca, N.Y.: Cornell University Press.
Connolly, W. E. (1996), ‘Tocqueville, Territory, and Violence’, in Michael Shapiro and
Hayward Alker (eds), Challenging Boundaries: Global Flows, Territorial Identities, University
of Minnesota Press: Minneapolis, London, pp. 141-164.
Connor, W. (1972), ‘Nation-Building or Nation-Destroying?’, World Politics no. 24, pp. 319-
355.
Connor, W. (1994), Ethnonationalism: The Quest for Understanding, Princeton University
Press, Princeton.
Coser, L. (1956), The Functions of Social Conflict, The Free Press.
Dahrendorf, R. (1959), Class and Class Conflict in Industrial Society, Stanford University
Press, Stanford.
Deetz, S. (1994), ‘The New Politics of the Workplace: Ideology and Other Unobtrusive
Controls’, in H. W. Simons and M. Billig (eds), After Postmodernism: Reconstructing Ideology
Critique, Sage, London, pp. 172-199.
De Tocqueville, A. (1969), Democracy in America, Doubleday, New York (originally
published 1835).
Deutsch, M. (1973), The Resolution of Conflict, Yale University Press, New Haven.
Deutscher, I. (1994), Living with Ethnic and National Differences: Are There Policies That
Work?’ in Le Vile Congres International Des Etudes Du Sud-Est European, Athens.
Deutscher, I. (1984), Marxism, Wars and Revolutions: Essays from Four Decades, Verso,
London.
Doob, L. (1970), (ed), Resolving Conflict in Africa, The Fermeda Workshop, Yale University
Press: New Haven, London.
Dugan, M. (1996), ‘A Nested Model of Conflict’, Women in Leadership, vol. 1, no. 1, pp. 9-10.
Dukes, E. F. (1993), ‘Public Conflict Resolution: a Transformative Approach’, Negotiation
Journal, vol. 10, no. 1, pp. 45-57.
Dukes, E.F. (1996), Resolving Public Conflict: Transforming Community and Governance,
Manchester University Press, England, and St. Martin’s Press, New York.
Dunn, L. and Kriesberg, L. (forthcoming), Mediating Intermediaries: Expanding Roles of
Transnational Organisations’, in J. Bercovitch (ed), Studies in International Mediation:
Essays in Honour of Jeffrey Z. Rubin, Macmillian and St. Martin’s, London and New York.
Esman, M.J. (1990), ‘Economic Performance and Ethnic Conflict’, in J.V. Montreville (ed),
Conflict and Peacemaking in Multiethnic Societies, Lexington Books, Lexington, pp. 53-64.
Ellison, C. (1991), ‘Dispute Resolution and Democratic Theory’, in S. Nagel and M. Mills
(eds), Systematic Analysis in Dispute Resolution, Quorum Books, New York.
Eriksen, T. (1993), Ethnicity and Nationalism: Anthropological Perspectives, Pluto Press:
London.
Feldman, A. (1991), Formations of Violence, The Narrative of the Body and Political Terror in
Norther Ireland, The University of Chicago Press: Chicago and London.
Fisher, R.J. (1972), ‘Third Party Consultation: A Method for the Study and Resolution of
Conflict’, Journal of Conflict Resolution, vol. 16, no. 1, pp. 67-94.
Fisher, R.J. (1982), Social Psychology: An Applied Approach, St. Martin’s Press, New York.
Fisher, R.J. (1983), ‘Third Party Consultation as a Method of Intergroup Conflict Resolution:
A Review of Studies’, Journal of Conflict Resolution, vol. 27, no. 2, pp. 301-334.
Fisher, R.J. (1989), ‘Prenegotiation Problem-Solving Discussions: Enhancing the Potential
for Successful Negotiation’, in J.G. Stein (ed), Getting to the Table: The Process of
International Prenegotiation, Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore.
Fisher, R.J. (1990), The Social Psychology of Intergroup and International Conflict
Resolution, Springer-Verlag, New York.
Fisher, R.J. (1992), Peacebuilding for Cyprus: Report on a Conflict Analysis Workshop, June
1991, Canadian Institute for International Peace and Security, Ottawa.
Fisher, R.J. (1993), ‘Developing the Field of Interactive Conflict Resolution: Issues in
Training, Funding and Institutionalization’, Political Psychology, vol. 14, no. 1, pp. 123-138.
Fisher, R.J. (1997), Interactive Conflict Resolution, Syracuse University Press, Syracuse.
Fisher, R.J. and Keashly, L. (1991) ‘The Potential Complementarity of Mediation and
Consultation within a Contingency Model of Third Party Intervention’, Journal of Peace
Research, vol. 28, no. 1, pp. 29-42.
Fisher, R. and Ury, W. (1981), Getting to Yes: Negotiating Agreement Without Giving In,
Houghton Mifflin, Boston.
Foucault, M. (1972), The Archaeology of Knowledge, A. Sheridan (trans), Pantheon, New
York.
Foucault, M. (1977), Discipline and Punish: the Birth of Prison, Penguine, London.
Frankl, V. (1964), Man’s Search for Meaning (original title: Ein Psycholog erlebt das
Koncentrationslager), Hodder and Stoughton, London.
Fraser, N. (1989), Unruly Practices: Power, Discourse and Gender in Contemporary Social
Theory, University of Minnesota Press, Minneapolis.
Fredrickson, G.M. (1997), The Comparative Imagination, University of California Press,
Berkeley, Los Angeles, and London.
Friedmann, J. (1989), ‘The Dialectic of Reason’, International Journal of Urban and Regional
Research, vol. 3 no. 2, pp. 217-233.
Friedman, J. (1992), ‘Narcissim, Roots and Postmodemity: the Constitution of Selfhood in the
Global Crisis’, in S. Lash and J. Friedman (eds), Modernity and Identity, Blackwell, Oxford,
pp. 331-366.
Fry, D. and K. Björkqvist (1997), ‘Introduction: Conflict Resolution Themes’, in D. Fry and K.
Björkqvist (eds), Cultural Variation in Conflict Resolution: Alternative to Violence, Lawrence
Erlbaum Associates, Mahwah, pp. 3-8.
Galtung, J. (1975), Essays in Peace Research, Christian Ejlers, Copenhagen.
Galtung, J. (1976), ‘Three Approaches to Peace: Peacekeeping, Peacemaking and
Peacebuilding’, Peace, War and Defense, Christian Ejilers, Copenhagen.
Galtung, J. (1994), ‘Address to IPRA’, International Peace Research Association Annual
Conference, Malta.
Galtung, J. (1996), Peace by Peaceful Means. Peace and Conflict, Development and
Civilisation, International Peace Research Institute, Sage: London, Thousand Oaks: New
Delhi.
Garcia, E. (1993), (ed), Pilgram Voices: Citizens as Peacemakers, Ateneo de Manila
University Press, Manila.
Gardner, H. (1993), Frames of Mind. The Theory of Multiple Intelligences, Fontana, London.
Geertz, C. (1973), The Interpretation of Cultures: Selected Essays, Basic Books, New York.
Glass, J.M. (1993), Shattered Selves. Multiple Personality in a Postmodern World, Cornell
University Press, Ithaca and London.
Green, E.C. , and Wessells, M.G. (1997), Meeting the Psychosocial Needs of Children in
Angola, Mid-Term Evaluation of the Province-Based War Trauma Team Project, April 1997,
A Project of the Christian Children’s Fund, Richmond.
Gramsci, A. (1959), The Modern Prince and Other Writings, International Publishers, New
York.
Gurr, T. R. (1970), Why Men Rebel, Princeton University Press, Princeton.
Gurr, T.R. (1994), ‘Peoples Against States: Ethnopolitical Conflict and the Changing World
System’, International Studies Quarterly, vol. 38, no. 3, pp. 347-377.
Gurr, T. R. & Haxton, M. (1996), ‘Etnopolitical Conflict in the 1990s: Patterns and Trends’,
Unpublished Paper Presented at the ISA Meeting, San Diego.
Gusfield, J. R. (1996), ‘Primordialism and Nationality’, Society, vol. 33, January-February.
Gustafsson, L.H. , Lindkvist, A. , and Böhm, B. (1989), Krigens barn, Ellen Baalsrud (trans),
Kommuneforlaget, Oslo.
Habermas, J. (1987), ‘The Theory of Communicative Action’, Beacon Press, Boston.
Hampson, F.O. (1996), Nurturing Peace: Why Peace Settlements Succeed or Fail, United
States Institute of Peace Press, Washington, DC.
Harty, M. and Modell, J. (1991), ‘The First Conflict Resolution Movement, 1956-1971’,
Journal of Conflict Resolution, vol. 35, no. 4, pp. 720-758.
Havneskiöld, L. (1992), Daniel Sterns teorier om självutveckling - en introduktion, Almquist
and Wiksell, Stockholm.
Hechter, M. (1975), Internal Colonialism: The Celtic in British National Development 1536-
1966, Routledge and Kegan Paul, London.
Heisler, M. (1990), ‘Ethnicity and Ethnic Relations in the Modern West’, in J. Montville (ed),
Conflict and Peacemaking in Multiethnic Societies, Lexington Books, Lexington, pp.21-51.
Henderson, M. (1996), The Forgiveness Factor: Stories of Hope in a World of Conflict,
Grosvenor Books, London.
Hermann, C.F. (1969), Crisis in Foreign Policy: A Simulation Analysis, Bobbs Merrill, New
York.
Hermann, C.F. (1972a), ‘Some Issues in the Study of International Crisis?’ in C.F. Hermann
(ed), International Crises; Insights from Behavioural Research, Free Press, New York, pp. 3-
17.
Hermann, C.F. (1972b), ‘Editor’s Introduction: Chapter Ten’ in C.F. Hermann (ed),
International Crises; Insights from Behavioural Research, Free Press, New York, pp. 215-
216.
Hewstone, M. and Brown, R. (eds), (1986), Control and Conflict in Intergroup Encounters,
Basil Blackwell, Oxford.
Hoffmann-Axthelm, D. (1992), ‘Identity and Reality: the End of the Philosophical Immigration
Officer’, in S. Lash and J. Friedman (eds), Modernity and Identity, Blackwell, Oxford, pp. 196-
218.
Holsti, O. R. (1972), Crisis, Escalation, War, McGill University Press, Montreal.
Honwana, A.M. (1997), ‘Healing for Peace: Traditional Healers and Post-War Reconstruction
in Southern Mozambique’, Peace and Conflict: Journal of Peace Psychology, vol. 3, no 3, pp.
293-305.
Horowitz, D. (1985), Ethnic Groups in Conflict, California University Press, Berkeley, pp. 95-
228.
Irani, G.E. (1997), ‘Breaking the Cycle: Acknowledgement, Forgiveness, and Reconciliation
in Conflict Resolution’, Paper Presented at the United States Institute of Peace, Washington,
DC.
Jabri, V. (1996), Discourses on Violence: Conflict Analysis Reconsidered, Manchester
University Press, Manchester.
Jelinek, J. M. (1987), ‘Group Therapy with Vietnam Veterans and Other Trauma Victims’ in T.
Williams (ed), Post-Traumatic Stress Disorders: A Handbook for Clinicians, Disabled
American Veterans, Cincinnati, pp. 209-219.
Jeong, H. (1999a), ‘Peace Building in Divided Societies’, in S. Byme , (eds), Conflict in
Divided Societies: Theory and Applications, Kumarian Press.
Jeong, H. (1999b), ‘Conflict Management and Resolution’, in L. Kurtz (ed), Encyclopedia of
Violence, Peace and Conflict, vol. 1.
Johnston, D. and Sampson, C. (1994), (ed), Religion, The Missing Dimension of Statecraft,
Oxford University Press, Oxford.
Jones, E.E. and Nisbett, R.E. (1972), ‘The Actor and the Observer: Divergent Perceptions of
the Causes of Behavior’, in E.E. Jones , D.E. Kanouse , H.H. Kelley , R.E. Nisbett , S. Valins
and B. Weiner , (eds), Attribution: Perceiving the Causes of Behavior, General Learning
Press, Morristown.
Kahn, H. (1965), On Escalation: Metaphors and Scenarios, Praeger, New York.
Kalsched, D. (1996), The Inner World of Trauma. Archetypal Defenses of the Personal Spirit,
Routledge, London and New York.
Keashly, L. and Fisher, J. R. (1996), ‘A Contingency Perspective on Conflict Intervention:
Theoretical and Practical Considerations’, in I. Bercovitch (ed), Resolving International
Conflict, Lynne Rienner, Boulder, pp. 235-261.
Kellner, Douglas (1992), ‘Popular Culture and the Construction of Postmodern Identities’, in
S. Lash and J. Friedman (eds), Modernity and Identity, Blackwell, Oxford, pp. 141-177.
Kelman, H.C. (1963), ‘The Role of the Group in the Induction of Therapeutic Change’,
International Journal of Group Psychotherapy, vol.13, pp. 399-432.
Kelman, H.C. (1972), ‘The Problem-Solving Workshop in Conflict Resolution’, in R.L. Merritt
(ed), Communication in International Politics, University of Illinois Press, Urbana.
Kelman, H.C. (1973), ‘Violence without Moral Restraint: Reflections on the Dehumanization
of Victims and Victimizes’, Journal of Social Issues, vol. 29, no. 4, pp. 25-61.
Kelman, H.C. (1979), ‘An Interactional Approach to Conflict Resolution and its Application to
Israeli-Palestinian Relations’, International Interactions, vol. 6, no. 2, pp. 99-122.
Kelman, H.C. (1986), ‘Interactive Problem Solving: A Social-Psychological Approach to
Conflict Resolution’, in W. Klassen (ed), Dialogue Toward Inter-Faith Understanding,
Ecumenical Institute for Theological Research, Jerusalem.
Kelman, H.C. (1990), ‘Interactive Problem-Solving: A Social-Psychological Approach to
Conflict Resolution’, in J. Burton and F. Dukes (eds), Conflict: Readings in Management and
Resolution, The Conflict Series, St. Martin’s Press, New York.
Kelman, H.C. (1991), ‘Interactive Problem Solving: The Uses and Limits of a Therapeutic
Model for the Resolution of International Conflicts’, in V.D. Volkan , J.V. Montville and D.A.
Julius (eds), The Psychodynamics of International Relationships. Volume II: Unofficial
Diplomacy at Work, Lexington Books, Lexington.
Kelman, H.C. (1992), ‘Informal Mediation by the Scholar-Practitioner’, in J. Bercovitch and J.
Rubin (eds), Mediation in International Relations: Multiple Approaches to Conflict
Management, St. Martin’s Press, New York.
Kelman, H.C. (1995), ‘Contributions of an Unofficial Conflict Resolution Effort to the Israeli-
Palestinian Breakthrough’, Negotiation Journal, vol. 11, no. 1, pp. 19-27.
Kelman, H.C. (1997), ‘Social-Psychological Dimensions of International Conflict’, in I.W.
Zartman and J.L. Rasmussen (eds), Peacemaking in International Conflict, US Institute of
Peace Press, Washington, D.C., pp. 191-238.
Kemmis, D. (1990), Community and the Politics of Place, University of Oklahoma Press,
Norman.
Kettering Foundation (1991), Citizens and Politics: A View from Main Street America,
Harwood Group, Dayton.
Kleiboer, M. and Hart, Paul’t (1995), Time to Talk?: Multiple Perspectives on Timing of
International Mediation’, Cooperation and Conflict, vol. 30, no. 4, pp. 307-348.
Kourvetaris, G. (1997), Political Sociology: Structure and Process, Allyn & Bacon, Boston.
Kraybill, R. (1988), ‘From Head to Heart: The Cycle of Reconciliation’, Conciliation Quarterly,
vol. 7, no. 4, pp. 2-38.
Kriesberg, L. (1960), German Businessmen and Union Leaders and the Schuman Plan’,
Social Sciences, vol. 35, pp. 114-121.
Kriesberg, L. (1982), ‘Social Conflict Theories and Conflict Resolution’, Peace and Change,
vol. 8, no. 2, pp. 3-17.
Kriesberg, L. (1984), Policy Continuity and Change’, Social Problems, vol. 32, pp. 89-102.
Kriesberg, L. (1987), ‘Timing and the Initiation of De-Escalation Moves’, Negotiation Journal,
vol. 4, pp. 375-383.
Kriesberg, L. (1989), ‘Transforming Conflicts in the Middle East and Central Europe’, in L.
Kriesberg , T.A. Northrup , and S.J. Thorson (eds), Intractable Conflicts and Their
Transformation, Syracuse University Press, Syracuse, pp. 109-131.
Kriesberg, L. (1992), International Conflict Resolution: The US-USSR and Middle East
Cases, Yale University Press, New Haven.
Kriesberg, L. (1996), ‘Coordinating Intermediary Peace Efforts’, Negotiation Journal vol. 12,
pp. 341-352.
Kriesberg, L. (1997a), Towards Constructive Struggle, Syracuse University, Mimeo.
Kriesberg, L. (1997b), ‘Paths to Varieties of Inter-Communal Reconciliation’, Paper
Presented at the Annual Scientific Meeting of the International Society of Political
Psychology, Krakow.
Kriesberg, L. (1997c), Preventing and Resolving Communal Conflicts’, in D. James and P.J.
Carment (eds), Wars in the Midst of Peace, University of Pittsburgh Press, Pittsburgh, pp.
232-251.
Kriesberg, L. (1998a), ‘Coexistence and Reconciliation of Communal Conflicts’, in E. Weiner
(ed), Handbook on Coexistence, Continuum Press, New York, pp. 182-198.
Kriesberg, L. (1998b), Constructive Conflicts: From Escalation to Resolution, Rowman &
Littlefield, Lanham.
Kritz, N.J. (1995), (ed), Transitional Justice, United States Institute of Peace Press,
Washington, D.C.
Kruglanski, A. W. , (1993), ‘A Social Cognitive Theory of Conflict’, in K.S. Larsen (ed),
Conflict and Social Psychology, Sage, London, pp. 45-56.
Laclau, E. (1994), ‘Introduction’, in E. Laclau (ed), The Making of Political Identities, Verso,
London, New York, pp. 1-10.
Laclau, E. (1996), ‘Universalism, Particularism, and the Question of Identity’, in E. Wilmsen
and P. McAllister (eds), The Politics of Difference, University Chicago Press, Chicago,
London, pp. 45-58.
Laclau, E. and Zac, L. (1994), ‘Minding the Gap: The Subject of Politics’, in E. Laclau (ed),
The Making of Political Identities, Verso, London, New York, pp. 11-39.
Laclau, E. , (1996), ‘Unversalism, Particularism, and the Question of Identity’, in E. Wilmsen ,
and P. McAllister , The Politics of Difference: Ethnic Premises in a World of Power, The
University of Chicago Press, Chicago, pp. 45-58.
Lapidus, G.W. (1992), From Democratization to Disintegration: The Impact of Peristroika on
the National Question’, in G.W. Lapidus and V. Zslavsky (eds), with P. Goldman , From
Union to Commonwealth: Nationalism and Separatism in the Soviet Republics, Cambridge
University Press, Cambridge.
Lasch, C. (1977), ‘Haven in a Heartless World: The Family Besieged’, Basic Books, New
York.
Lather, P. (1994), ‘Staying Dumb? Feminist Research and Pedagogy With/in the
Postmodern’, in H.W. Simons and M. Billig (eds), After Postmodernism: Reconstructing
Ideology Critique, Sage, London, pp. 101-132.
Laue, J. and McCormick, G. (1978), ‘The Ethics of Intervention in Community Disputes’, in B.
Kelman and Warwick (eds), The Ethics of Social Intervention, Halsted Press, Washington,
D.C.
Lavik, N.J. , Nygård, M. , Sveaass, N. and Fannemel, E. (1994), (eds), Pain and Survival,
Scandinavian University Press, Oslo.
LeBaron, M. (1998), ‘Mediation and Multicultural Reality’, Peace and Conflict Studies, vol. 5,
no. 1, pp. 41-55.
Lederach, J. P. (1989), ‘In Pursuit of Dialogue’, Conciliation Quarterly, vol. 8 no. 3, pp. 12-14.
Lederach, J. P. (1995), Preparing for Peace: Conflict Transformation Across Cultures,
Syracuse University Press, New York.
Lederach, J.P. (1997), Building Peace: Sustainable Reconciliation in Divided Societies,
United States Institute of Peace, Washington, DC.
Levinger, G. and Rubin, J.Z. (1994), ‘Bridges and Barriers to a More General Theory of
Conflict’, Negotiation Journal, vol. 11, pp. 201-215.
Levi-Strauss, C. (1963), Structural Anthropology, Basic Books, New York.
Licklider, R. (1995), ‘The Consequences of Negotiated Settlements in Civil Wars, 1945-
1993’, American Political Science Review, vol. 89, pp. 681-690.
Liebmann, M. (1996), Arts Approaches to Conflict, Jessica Kingsley, London and Bristol.
Lifton, R.J. (1973), Home from the War. Vietnam Veterans: Neither Victims Nor
Executioners, Simon and Schuster, New York.
Lumsden, M. (1969), ‘The Vietnamese People and Impact of War’, Studies in Progress,
Institute for Peace and Conflict Research, Copenhagen, vol. 3, pp. 1-128.
Lumsden, M. (1975), ‘Conventional War’ and Human Ecology’, Ambio, vol. 4, no. 5-6, pp.
223-228.
Lumsden, M. (1979), ‘Legions of the Dead (Death in War)’, in K. Simpson , (eds), The
Mysteries of Life and Death. An Illustrated Investigation into the Incredible World of Death,
Salamander Books, London, pp. 174-185.
Lumsden, M. (1997), ‘Breaking the Cycle of Violence’, Journal of Peace Research, vol. 34,
no. 4, pp. 377-383.
Lumsden, M. (1997), Peacebuilding in Macedonia. Searching for Common Ground in Civil
Society, PRIO Report 2/97, International Peace Research Institute, Oslo.
Lumsden, M. and Wolfe, R. (1996), ‘Evolution of the Problem-Solving Workshops: An
Introduction to Social-psychological Approaches to Conflict Resolution. Annotated
bibliography’, Peace and Conflict: Journal of Peace Psychology, vol. 2, no. 1, pp. 37-67.
Machel, G. (1996), Impact of Armed Conflict on Children. Report of the Expert of the
Secretary-General, Ms. Graça Machel, submitted pursuant to General Assembly resolution
48/157, A/51/306, United Nations, New York.
McLellan, D. (1977), (ed), Karl Marx: Selected Writings, Oxford University Press, Oxford.
Mannheim, K. (1985), Ideology and Utopia: An introduction to the Sociology of Knowledge, L.
Warth and E. Shils (trans), Harcourt Brace, San Diego.
Mansfield, S. (1980), The Gestalts of War, Dial Press, New York.
Marcus, G. (1992), ‘Past, Present and Emergent Identities: Requirements for Ethnographies
of Late Twentieth-Century Modernity’, in S. Lash and J. Friedman (eds), Modernity and
Identity, Blackwell, Oxford, pp. 309-330
Mayor, F. (1995), The New Page, UNESCO/Dartmouth Publishing, Paris, Aldershot,
Brookfield.
McClelland, C.A. (1972), ‘The Beginning, Duration and Abatement of International Crises’, in
C.F. Hermann (ed), International Crises: Insights from Behavioural Research, Free Press,
New York, pp. 83-105.
McGarry, J. and O’Leary, B. (1993), (eds), The Politics of Ethnic Conflict, Routledge, London
and New York.
McGarry, J. and O’Leary, B. (1993), ‘Introduction. The macro-political regulation of ethnic
conflict’, in J. McGarry and B. O’Leary (eds), The Politics of Ethnic Conflict Regulation,
Routledge, London, New York, pp. 1-39.
Mead, G. H. (1934), Mind, Self and Society, University of Chicago Press, Chicago.
Midgely, R.J. (1998), ‘Guests Outstaying Their Welcome: The National Peace Accord and
the Demise of the Peace Committees’, ICAR Occasional Paper no. 12, Institute for Conflict
Analysis and Resolution, George Mason University, Fairfax.
Miller, J. G. (1978), Living Systems, McGraw-Hill, New York.
Mindell, A. (1995), Sitting in the Fire. Large Group Transformation Using Conflict and
Diversity, Lao Tse Press, Portland.
Mitchell, C.R. (1981a), The Structure of International Conflict, Macmillan, London.
Mitchell, C.R. (1981b), Peacemaking and the Consultant’s Role, Gower Publishing,
Westmead.
Mitchell, C.R. (1991), ‘A Willingess to Talk: Conciliatory Gestures and De-Escalation’,
Negotiation Journal, vol. 8, pp. 405-429.
Mitchell, C.R. (1994a), ‘Conflict as a Resolvable Problem’, Paper Presented at the
International Educational Seminar on Conflict Resolution, Athens.
Mitchell, C.R. (1994b), ‘Conflict Research’, in A.J.R. Groom and M. Light , Contemporary
International Relations: A Guide to Theory, Frances Pinter, London, pp. 128-141.
Mitchell, C.R. (1995), ‘The Right Moment: Notes on Four Models of “Ripeness”, Paradigms,
vol. 9, no. 2, pp. 38-52.
Mitchell, C. and Banks, M. (1996), Handbook of Conflict Resolution: The Analytical Problem-
Solving Approach, Pinter, London.
Monroe, K. R. (1995), ‘Psychology and Rational Actor Theory’, Political Psychology, vol. 16,
no. 1, pp. 1-21.
Montville, J.V. (1987), ‘The Arrow and the Olive Branch: The Case for Track Two Diplomacy’,
in J.W. McDonald and D.B. Bendahmane (eds), Conflict Resolution: Track Two Diplomacy,
Foreign Service Institute, Department of State, Washington, DC.
Montville, J. (ed) (1990), Conflict and Peacemaking in Multiethnic Societies. Lexington
Books, Lexington.
Montville, J.V. (1991), ‘Psychoanalytic Enlightenment and the Greening of Diplomacy’, in
V.D. Volkan , J.V. Montville and D.A. Julius (eds), The Psychodynamics of International
Relationships. Volume II: Unofficial Diplomats at Work, Lexington Books, Lexington.
Montville, J.V. (1993), ‘The Healing Function in Political Conflict Resolution’, in D.J.D.
Sandole and H. van der Merwe (eds), Conflict Resolution Theory and Practice: Integration
and Application, Manchester University Press, Manchester, pp. 112-128.
Montville, J.V. (1995), ‘Complicated Mourning and Mobilization for Nationalism’, in J. Braun
(ed), Social Pathology in Comparative Perspective, Praeger, New York.
Montville, J.V. (1998), ‘Reconciliation as Realpolitik: Facing the Burdens of History in Political
Conflict Resolution’ Unpublished Manuscript.
Moore, B. (1966), The Social Origins of Dictatorship and Democracy, Beacon Press, Boston.
Mouffe, C. (1994), For a Politics of Nomadic Identity’, in G. Robertson Travellers’ Tales:
Narratives of Home and Displacement, Routledge, London, pp. 105-113.
Nevin, J.A. (1996), ‘War Initiation and Selection by Consequences’, Journal of Peace
Research, vol. 33, no. 1, pp. 99-108.
Newcombe, K. , Raima, J.D. , and Aston, A.R. (1978), ‘The Metabolism of a City: The Case
of Hong Kong’, Ambio, vol. 7, no. 1, pp. 3-15.
Palme, C. (1995), Lång väg tillbaka för krigets sårade själar [Long road back for war
wounded souls] Dagens Nyheter [Stockholm], 31 January, pp. A9.
Pettigrew, T.F. (1979), ‘The Ultimate Attribution Error: Extending Allport’s Cognitive Analysis
of Prejudice’, Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, vol. 5, no. 4, pp. 461-476.
Pine, F. (1990), Drive, Ego, Object, and Self Basic Books/Harper Collins, New York.
Prince, R. (1985), The Legacy of the Holocaust. Psychohistorical Themes in the Second
Generation, UMI Research Press, Ann Arbor.
Pruitt, D. and Rubin, J.Z. (1986), Social Conflict: Escalation, Stalemate and Settlement,
Random House, New York.
Pruitt, D. and Camevale, P. J. (1993), Negotiation in Social Conflict, Brooks/Cole Publishing
Company, Pacific Grove.
Putnam, R. D. (1993), ‘The Prosperous Community: Social Capital and Public Life’, The
American Prospect, vol. 13, pp. 35-42.
Quinney, R. (1977), Class, State and Crime: On the Theory and Practice of Criminal Justice,
David McKay Co., New York.
Rapoport, A. (1960), Fights, Games, and Debates, The University of Michigan Press, Ann
Arbor.
Rapoport, A. (1970), ‘Conflict Resolution in the Light of Game Theory and Beyond’, in P.
Swingle (ed), The Structure of Conflict, Academic Press, New York, pp. 1-44.
Rapoport, A. (ed.) (1974), Game Theory as a Theory of Conflict Resolution, D. Reidel
Publishing Company, Dordrecht.
Raven, B.H. and Kruglanski, A.W. (1970), ‘Conflict and Power’, in P. Swingle (ed.), The
Structure of Conflict, Academic Press, New York, pp. 69-110.
Reynolds, P. (1989), ‘Children of Tribulation. The Need to Heal and the Means to Heal War
Trauma’, Paper Presented at the Fourth International Workshop - Ethnography of Childhood,
Victoria Falls.
Reyntjens, F. (1995), Burundi: Breaking the Cycle of Violence, Report No. 95/1, Minority
Rights Group, London.
Robbins, A. (1980), Expressive Therapy: A Creative Arts Approach to Depth-Oriented
Treatment, Human Science Press, New York.
Ronen, D. (1998), ‘Can There Be a Just Resolution of Conflict’, Peace and Conflict Studies,
vol. 5, no. 1, pp. 8-25.
Ronen, D. (1999), ‘Human Needs and the State’, in H. Jeong (ed), The New Agenda for
Peace Research, Ashgate, Aldershot, pp. 263-290.
Roosens, Eugeen (1989), Creating Ethnicity: The Process of Etnogenesis, Sage
Publications, London.
Rosenau, J. (1990), Turbulence in World Politics: A Theory of Change and Continuity,
Princeton University Press, Princeton.
Rothman, J. (1993), ‘Unofficial Talks Yielded Mideast Peace’, The Philadelphia Inquirer,
September 14.
Rubenstein, R. E. (1973), Left Turn: Origins of the Next American Revolution, Little, Brown,
Boston.
Rubenstein, R.E. (1991), ‘Lessons of the Persian Gulf War’, ICAR Working Paper no. 10,
Institute for Conflict Analysis and Resolution, George Mason University, Fairfax.
Rubenstein, R.E. (1992), ‘Dispute Resolution on the Eastern Frontier: Questions for Modern
Missionaries’, Negotiation Journal, July, vol. 8, pp. 205-213.
Rubenstein, R.E. (1993), ‘The Resolution of Class Conflict’ in D.J.D. Sandole and H. van der
Merwe (eds), Conflict Resolution Theory and Practice, University of Manchester Press,
Manchester, pp. 146-157.
Rubin, J.Z. , Pruitt, D.G. and Kim, S.H. (1994), Social Conflict: Escalation, Stalemate and
Settlement (2nd. ed.), McGraw-Hill, New York.
Rudolph, L.I. and Hoeber, S. (1984), The Modernity of Tradition: Political Development in
India, University of Chicago Press, Chicago.
Ryan, Stephen (1990), Ethnic Conflict and International Relations, Aldershot, Dartmouth.
Ryback, T.W. (1996-97), Dateline Sudentland: Hostages to History’, Foreign Policy, no. 105,
pp. 162-178.
Sandole, D.J.D. (1993), ‘Generic Theory and Practice in Conflict Resolution’, in D.J.D.
Sandole and H. van der Merwe (eds), Conflict Resolution Theory and Practice, Manchester
University Press, pp. 1-54.
Sandole, D.J.D. (1998), ‘A Comprehensive Mapping of Conflict and Conflict Resolution: A
Three Pillar Approach’, Peace and Conflict Studies, vol. 5, no. 2.
Schelling, T.C. (1960), The Strategy of Conflict, Harvard University Press, 1960.
Schindler, C. and Lapid, G. (1989), The Great Turning, Bear and Co. Publishing, Santa Fe.
Schram, S. (1969), The Political Thought of Mao Tse-tung, Praeger, New York.
Schulte-Sasse, J. and Schulte-Sasse, L. (1991), ‘War, Otherness, and Illusionary
Identifications with the State’ Cultural Critique, no. 9, pp. 67-95.
Schütz, A. (1964), Collected Papers II, Studies in Social Theory, Martinus Nijhoff, The
Hague.
Schwartz, R.D. (1989), ‘Arab-Jewish Dialogue in the United States: Toward Track II
Tractability’, in L. Kriesberg , T.A. Northrup , and S.J. Thompson (eds), Intractable Conflicts
and Their Transformation, Syracuse University Press, Syracuse, pp. 180-209.
Scimecca, J. A. (1991), ‘Conflict Resolution in the United States: The Emergence of a
Profession’, in K. Averuch , P. Black , and J. A. Scimecca (eds), Conflict Resolution: Cross
Cultural Perspectives, Greenwood Press, Westport, pp. 19-40
Seidman, S. (1994), ‘Introduction’, in S. Seidman (ed), The Postmodern Turn: New
Perspectives on Social Theory, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp. 1-26
Shapiro, M. (1996), ‘Introduction to Part’ in M. Shapiro and H. Alker (eds), Challenging
Boundaries: Global Flows, Territorial Identities, University of Minnesota Press, Minneapolis,
pp. 259-260.
Silver, S. and Wilson, J. (1988), ‘Native American Healing and Purification Rituals of War
Stress’, in J. Wilson , J. Harrel , and B. Kahana (eds), Human Adaptation to Extreme Stress,
Plenum, New York.
Skocpol, T. (1979), States and Social Revolution: A Comparative Analysis of France, Russia,
and China, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Smedes, L.B. (1984), Forgive and Forget: Healing the Hurts We Dont Deserve, Harper and
Row, New York.
Smith, J. , Chatfield, C. and Pagnucco, R. (1997), (eds), Transnational Social Movements
and Global Politics: Solidarity Beyond the State, Syracuse University Press, Syracuse.
Sollenberg, M. and Wallensteen, P. (1996), ‘Major Armed Conflicts’, SIPRI Yearbook:
Armaments, Disarmament and International Security, Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp.
15-30.
Sparks, A. (1995), Tomorrow is Another Country, Hill and Wang, New York.
Staub, E. (1989), ‘The Roots of Evil. The Origins of Genocide and Other Group Violence’,
Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Stem, D.N. (1985), The Interpersonal World of the Infant, Basic Books, New York.
Stoll, R. (1977), ‘An Attempt to Scale Major Power Disputes: 1815-1965’, Paper Presented at
the International Studies Association Conference, St Louis.
Stone, J. (1992), ‘Power, Ethnicity and Conflict Resolution’, Studies in Law, Politics and
Society, vol. 12, pp. 89-105.
Straker, G. (1992), Faces in the Revolution. The Psychological Effects of Violence on
Township Youth in South Africa, David Philip/Ohio University Press, Cape Town and Athens,
OH.
Strom, A. (1974), Krig og Helse, Aschehoug, Oslo.
Tavuchis, N. (1991), Mea Culpa: A Sociology of Apology and Reconciliation, Stanford
University Press, Stanford.
Tilly, C. (1978), From Mobilization to Revolution, Random House, New York.
Trotsky, L. (1971), The Permanent Revolution and Results and Prospects, Pathfinder Press,
New York.
Trotsky, L. (1972), The Revolution Betrayed, Pathfinder Press, New York.
Ulman, R.B. and Brothers, D.B. (1988), The Shattered Self: A Psychoanalytic Study of
Trauma, Analytic Press, Hillsdale.
UNICEF (1993), Cirque de la paix. Un projet d’education pour la paix pour les enfants and
les jeunes, UNICEF Mozambique, Maputo.
Urlanis, B. (1971), Wars and Population, Progress, Moscow.
van der Merwe, H. (1989), Pursuing Justice and Peace in South Africa, Routledge, London
and New York.
Ury, W. L. (1998), Getting Disputes Resolved, Jossey-Bass Publishers, San Francisco.
van der Merwe, H. and Johnson, T. J. (1997), ‘Restitution in South Africa: the Accomodation
of an Afrikaner Ethnic Minority’, International Journal of Peace Studies, vol. 2, no. 2, pp. 37-
48.
Väyrynen, R. (1999), ‘From Conflict Resolution to Conflict Transformation’, in H. Jeong (ed.),
The New Agenda for Peace Research, Ashgate, Aldershot, pp. 137-162.
Volkan, V.D. (1988), The Need to Have Enemies and Allies: From Clinical Practice to
International Relationships, Jason Aronson, Northvale.
Volkan, V. D. (1990), ‘Psychoanalytic Aspects of Ethnic Conflict’, in J. Montville (ed), Conflict
and Peacemaking in Multiethnic Societies, Lexington Books, Lexington, pp. 81-92.
Volkan, V.D. (1991), ‘Official and Unofficial Diplomacy: An Overview’, in V.D. Volkan , J.V.
Montville and D.A. Julius (eds) (1991), The Psychodynamics of International Relationships,
Volume II: Unofficial Diplomacy at Work, Lexington Books, Lexington.
Volkan, V. & Itzkowtz, N. (1994), Turks and Greeks, Neighbours in Conflict, Huntington, The
Eothen Press.
Volkan, V.D. (1997), Bloodlines: From Ethnic Pride to Ethnic Terrorism, Farrar, Straus, and
Giroux, New York.
Waever, O. (1993), Identity, Migration and the New Security Agenda in Europe, Pinter,
London.
Walker, R. B. J. (1993), Inside/outside: international relations as political theory, Cambridge
University Press, Cambridge.
Wallensteen, P. and Sollenberg, M. (1995), ‘After the Cold War: Emerging Patterns of Armed
Conflict 1989-94’, Journal of Peace Research, vol. 32, no.3, pp. 345-360.
Wallensteen, P. and Sollenberg, M. (1997), ‘Armed Conflicts, Conflict Termination and Peace
Agreements: 1989-96’, Journal of Peace Research, vol. 34, no. 3, pp. 339-358.
Weiner, E. (1998), (ed), The Handbook of Interethnic Coexistence, Continuum, New York.
WEIS Survey Handbook and Codebook , (1986), Technical Report no. 1, University of
Southern California, Los Angeles.
Wessells, M.G. (1998), ‘Children, Armed Conflict, and Peace: Methodological, Ethical, and
Psychosocial Challenges’, Journal of Peace Research (in press).
West, C. (1993), Race Matters, Beacon Press, Boston.
Westing, A. H. (1980), Warfare in a Fragile World Military Impact on the Human
Environment, Taylor and Francis, London.
White, R.K. (1984), Fearful Warriors: A Psychological Profile of U.S. - Soviet Relations, The
Free Press, New York.
Williams, R.M. (1977), Mutual Accommodation: Ethnic Conflict and Cooperation, University
of Minnesota Press, Minneapolis.
Williams, T. (1987), (ed), Post-traumatic Stress Disorders: A Handbook for Clinicians,
Disabled American Veterans, Cincinnati.
Wilmsen, E. N. (1996), ‘Introduction: Premises of Power in Ethnic Politics’, in E.N. Wilmsen
and P. McAllister , The Politics of Difference: Ethnic Premises in a World of Power, Chicago,
The University of Chicago Press, Chicago, pp. 1-24
Winnicott, D.W. (1988), Playing and Reality, Penguin, London.
Winter, D.G. (1993a), ‘Leader appeal, Leader Performance, and the Motive profiles of
Leaders and Followers: A Study of American Presidents and Elections’, Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, vol. 52, no. 1, pp. 196-202. Reprinted in N. J. Kressel
(ed), Political Psychology. Classic and Contemporary Readings, Paragon House, New York,
pp. 138-153.
Winter, D.G. (1993b), ‘Personality and Leadership in the Gulf War’, in S.A. Renshon (ed),
The Political Psychology of the Gulf War, University of Pittsburgh Press, Pittsburgh, pp. 107-
117.