![]() |
International Online Training Program On Intractable Conflict |
Conflict Research Consortium, University of Colorado, USA |
THIS PAGE PROVIDES LINKS TO DETAIL FILES ONLY
Force-based strategies assume that an opponents will quickly submit to demands of opponents thereby providing a quick route to victory. While force may succeed over the short term, it often generates a powerful backlash or retaliation, as people hate to be forced to do things against their will. This is especially true when victims of force believe that the use of force was illegitimate. In this situations, the losing party is likely to try to build up their own forcing power in hopes of challenging the victor at the earliest possible opportunity. The result is likely to be a long-term intensification of the conflict, rather than resolution. more detailed description, including information on Legal Force. Political Force.Violent Force. Non-Violent Direct Action. Economic Force. examples strategies for limiting this problem. closely related problems. For more information about this problem "click" on the title.
Possible ways of treating this problem include the following. Click on each topic for more information.
Often disputants respond to force-based threats with counter threats rather than submission. Such threats and counter threats can result in intense efforts by both parties to increase their ability to use force against the other. In military situations, this is called an "arms race." Similar dynamics can arise with legal, political, or other types of force as well. more detailed description, including information on Legal Force. Political Force.Violent Force. Non-Violent Direct Action. Economic Force. examples strategies for limiting this problem. closely related problems. For more information about this problem "click" on the title.
Possible ways of treating this problem include the following. Click on each topic for more information.
The costs of using force-based threats increases dramatically when the opponent responds to a threat with defiance rather than submission. This forces the threatening party to carry out the threat or admit that it was all a meaningless bluff. Carrying out a threat is likely to result in an expensive, destructive, and rapidly escalating confrontation, while withdrawing the threat is likely to undermine a party's ability to use threat and force-based strategies in the future. For more information about this problem "click" on the title.
Possible ways of treating this problem include the following. Click on each topic for more information.
There are many different types of force, each with their own advantages and disadvantages. In order to be assured of the best possible strategy, the disputants need to examine the full range of available options, including non-traditional options (such as non-violent resistance), which are often highly promising, even though they are less frequently used. Non-traditional options can be especially important to disempowered and oppressed groups that may not recognize the powers of force that they have available for protecting their interests. For more information about this problem "click" on the title.
Possible ways of treating this problem include the following. Click on each topic for more information.
Disputants may also fail to understand their opponent's force-based options. This makes it very difficult to predict how opponents will respond to one's initiatives. 6030. For more information about this problem "click" on the title.
Possible ways of treating this problem include the following. Click on each topic for more information.
Disputants often take the worst possible view of their opponents' intentions and strategies. They may assume, for instance, that their opponent will quickly turn to violence or other form of force, and thus they feel they must be prepared to resist, no matter what happens. This often leads disputants to take more forceful actions of their own. Opponents are, however, likely to interpret these actions as unnecessarily aggressive, and use them to justify their own worst-case planning. In addition, disputants sometimes assume that all of their opponents approach the conflict in the same way. If one group of extremists, for example, gets a lot of coverage in the press, it is often assumed that all of one's opponents are equally extreme. Usually, however, there is a great deal of variation in the motivations of a group of advocates. A failure to employ different strategies for individuals with different characteristics is likely to significantly reduce one's effectiveness. For more information about this problem "click" on the title.
Possible ways of treating this problem include the following. Click on each topic for more information.
Parties often decide to pursue force-based strategies based on optimistic assumptions about the likely costs and probability of success. Leaders often encourage their supporters to make optimistic assumptions as a way of building support for a particular strategy. However, this process may lead the disputants to greatly underestimate the costs and risks of force, resulting in a poor choice of confrontation strategies. . For more information about this problem "click" on the title.
Possible ways of treating this problem include the following. Click on each topic for more information.
Faced with a difficult conflict, disputants sometimes overlook the possibility of using negotiation or persuasion to improve the situation, relying instead on force. This is especially likely to occurs when force has already been used by the other side. In this case, the most common reaction is to respond with force. However, this type of response is likely to escalate the situation, while other options might protect your interests just as well, without making matters worse.6569, 6573, 7269. For more information about this problem "click" on the title.
Possible ways of treating this problem include the following. Click on each topic for more information.
Disputants often incorrectly assume that there is no alternative to pursuing force-based strategies to the point of ultimate victory or defeat--in spite of the enormous costs involved. . For more information about this problem "click" on the title.
Possible ways of treating this problem include the following. Click on each topic for more information.
The legitimacy of force (especially violent force) can be reduced if it is perceived that more force than is necessary is being used. Such illegitimate use of force is likely to be viewed with widespread condemnation. . For more information about this problem "click" on the title.
Possible ways of treating this problem include the following. Click on each topic for more information.
When particular groups have enough power to dominate others, they often use that power to exploit less powerful groups in ways which are widely regarded as unfair. Within democratic systems, this process is sometimes referred to as the tyranny of the majority. For more information about this problem "click" on the title.
Possible ways of treating this problem include the following. Click on each topic for more information.
{ OLD TITLE No Military Solution}Although military options are often the first thought about in situations of intergroup or interstate violence, often military solutions are not actually possible. Real solutions must come, rather, from social, political, and economic changes, not military campaigns.
If you are being threatened, you face a number of choices. These include ignoring the threat, complying with the demand, defying the threat, making a counter-threat or perhaps withdrawing from the situation. All of these choices have risks and costs. For more information about this problem "click" on the title.
Possible ways of treating this problem include the following. Click on each topic for more information.
Victims of violence or force are often in a very weak situation, though they may actually have more power than they realize. Fear of continued violence and/or the desire for retaliation can easily inhibit effective responses. INSERT. For more information about this problem "click" on the title.
Possible ways of treating this problem include the following. Click on each topic for more information.
Sometimes, when one makes a threat, the target challenges the threatening party to go ahead and carry out the threat. This is much more difficult, expensive, and risky than simply making the threat in the first place. However, if you do not follow through on the threat, you will have lost a great deal of credibility. For more information about this problem "click" on the title.
Possible ways of treating this problem include the following. Click on each topic for more information.
As gruesome and destructive as war is, internationally-accepted limits on behavior in war have been established for hundreds of years. When these limits are violated, the entire world community is faced with a dilemma about how to respond. For more information about this problem "click" on the title.
Possible ways of treating this problem include the following. Click on each topic for more information.
The nations involved in a war face another set of dilemmas after the war is over regarding the treatment of war criminals. Should they be prosecuted or given amnesty? Both approaches have benefits--and costs For more information about this problem "click" on the title.
Possible ways of treating this problem include the following. Click on each topic for more information.
In this situation, a disputant believes that persuasive efforts are pointless because the most visible opponents seem completely unpersuadable. In reality, an opponent's supporters are likely to include a large number of more moderate and persuadable individuals. Even the partial conversion of some of these individuals can do much to reduce the intensity of the opposition. : For more information about this problem "click" on the title.
Possible ways of treating this problem include the following. Click on each topic for more information.
Often disputants fail to take advantage of opportunities for persuasion because they do not consider this to be a significant source of power.For more information about this problem "click" on the title.
Possible ways of treating this problem include the following. Click on each topic for more information.
Disputants who do not understand the values, interests, and needs of their opponents are unlikely to be able to craft effective persuasive approaches. . For more information about this problem "click" on the title.
Possible ways of treating this problem include the following. Click on each topic for more information.
Often the parties' attempts at "persuasion" are little more than selfishly-motivated demands for their opponents to comply with their demands. This is likely to arouse further opposition, not compliance. For more information about this problem "click" on the title.
Possible ways of treating this problem include the following. Click on each topic for more information.
Efforts to persuade people to do "the right thing" are complicated by differing value systems. Religious and cultural groups have different and often contradictory images what is right and wrong, or good and evil--which can make it very difficult to agree on what is the "right thing" to do. For more information about this problem "click" on the title.
Possible ways of treating this problem include the following. Click on each topic for more information.
In order to be effective, persuasive appeals must be viewed as legitimate. This requires that the individual or group making the appeal must, itself, be viewed as legitimate. For more information about this problem "click" on the title.
Possible ways of treating this problem include the following. Click on each topic for more information.
While not essential to conflict resolution, when parties to a conflict trust each other, their ability to resolve the conflict successfully is greatly increased. The opposite is also true, however. When parties distrust each other--as they often do after a protracted conflict--it can be very hard to come to any agreements, because both sides will fear that the other side cannot be trusted to keep its promises. . For more information about this problem "click" on the title.
Possible ways of treating this problem include the following. Click on each topic for more information.
Prejudice and discrimination are one very common problem in societies with different racial, ethnic, or national groups. While common, such problems undermine the sense of commonality and community among the citizens, making conflict more likely and constructive confrontation more difficult. ; For more information about this problem "click" on the title.
Possible ways of treating this problem include the following. Click on each topic for more information.
Most societies have existing institutions or social structures which are used (and accepted) as legitimate means of resolving conflicts. When these structures or process are destroyed or fail to work as intended, the ability of the society to manage its conflicts successfully is damaged. Nye* For more information about this problem "click" on the title.
Possible ways of treating this problem include the following. Click on each topic for more information.
All societies and groups are held together, at least to some extent, by social bonds. When these bonds are strong, the people involved in the society (or group or family unit) identify as part of that unit and feel allegiance to it. Severe conflict, however, can break down these bonds to the point that all sense of community or belonging is lost. In this case the ability to use integrative power to alter the course of the conflict is very limited. 4152; Nye For more information about this problem "click" on the title.
Possible ways of treating this problem include the following. Click on each topic for more information.
Opportunities for a resolving a dispute by voluntary agreement are limited by the parties' alternatives to that agreement. This is because disputants will usually not accept any agreement that is worse for them than the outcome which they think they can obtain in another way. For example, if a negotiated agreement requires compromises that they think they can avoid with a show of force, force will likely be used instead of negotiation Sometimes, however, parties have unreasonable expectations of what they stand to achieve from either negotiation or the continuation of the conflict. If they think they can win more by continuing the conflict than is possible in any circumstance, they may continue to pursue the conflict, even when it will actually do them more harm than good. For more information about this problem "click" on the title.
Possible ways of treating this problem include the following. Click on each topic for more information.
In many cases potential participants in agreement- based dispute resolution processes are asked to abandon their forced- based options as a pre-condition for participation. While this is something that less powerful parties are likely to favor, more powerful parties are likely to refuse to participate under such conditions. . 6569. For more information about this problem "click" on the title.
Possible ways of treating this problem include the following. Click on each topic for more information.
Sometimes, disputants might be willing to negotiate, but there is no forum in which negotiation might be pursued. INSERTFor more information about this problem "click" on the title.
Possible ways of treating this problem include the following. Click on each topic for more information.
When parties distrust each other--as they often do after a protracted conflict--it can be very hard to come to any agreements, because both sides will fear that the other side cannot be trusted to keep its promises. For more information about this problem "click" on the title.
Possible ways of treating this problem include the following. Click on each topic for more information.
Opportunities for mutually beneficial agreement are sometimes lost because the parties feel that the other side would win too much and that they would not win enough. For more information about this problem "click" on the title.
Possible ways of treating this problem include the following. Click on each topic for more information.
Sometimes disputants will refuse to consider any type of mutually beneficial agreement or relationship until the core intractable issues have been resolved. Usually, they hope that withholding normal relations will pressure an opponent into making concessions. While this strategy may be effective at times, it also blocks the relationship- building activities which can provide a basis for constructively addressing the core issues.A similar problem is that disputants may be unwilling to pursue a short-term agreement and partial victory, because they fear that such an approach would undermine their long- term prospects of pursuing their goals. For more information about this problem "click" on the title.
Possible ways of treating this problem include the following. Click on each topic for more information.
Parties sometimes attempt to negotiate an agreement when one or more key parties is not ready. Usually this is because one or more disputants believe that they have some other (usually force-based) option which will yield a better outcome than anything they could get from negotiation. While this disputant may come to negotiations (just in case they are wrong), they will probably not pursue the negotiations in earnest, and will still rely on their alternative force-based strategy to get what they want. For more information about this problem "click" on the title.
Possible ways of treating this problem include the following. Click on each topic for more information.
The opposite problem occurs when disputants do not recognize that a conflict is "ripe" for negotiation. They may be so entrenched in their confrontational strategy that they may ignore situations when negotiation would be likely successful. ; For more information about this problem "click" on the title.
Possible ways of treating this problem include the following. Click on each topic for more information.
Typically efforts to transform intractable relationships and negotiate dispute settlements take place in carefully facilitated small group settings. However, these conflicts generally involve large segments of the population far more people than could ever be involved in such small group processes. This means that participants in small group processes must be able to "scale-up" their experiences or risk being disowned by their constituents. ;For more information about this problem "click" on the title.
Possible ways of treating this problem include the following. Click on each topic for more information.
Refusal to Negotiate Another important obstacle in successful negotiation is the common refusal of the parties to come to the negotiating table. In some cases this refusal to negotiate results from the parties' fear that they will be forced to accept unwanted compromises. In other case the parties believe that negotiations are a waste of time since they will require substantial resource commitments and are doomed to failure. For more information about this problem "click" on the title.
Possible ways of treating this problem include the following. Click on each topic for more information.
Parties to a protracted, escalated conflict may be so angry with each other that they will not pursue or accept a mutually beneficial agreement, because they do not want to do anything that will help their opponent. For more information about this problem "click" on the title.
Possible ways of treating this problem include the following. Click on each topic for more information.
Negotiation is a social process in which training and experience increases effectiveness. This may place less experienced parties at a considerable disadvantage when they negotiate with more experienced parties. ; . For more information about this problem "click" on the title.
Possible ways of treating this problem include the following. Click on each topic for more information.
When people try to negotiate non-negotiable issues--and fail--they often lose faith in the negotiation process completely. This sometimes makes them unwilling to try negotiation for anything, even when it is likely to work. For more information about this problem "click" on the title.
Possible ways of treating this problem include the following. Click on each topic for more information.
Sometimes negotiation is attempted, but the procedures used are so flawed that it cannot succeed, even when the potential for a win-win outcome exists.For more information about this problem "click" on the title.
Possible ways of treating this problem include the following. Click on each topic for more information.
Mediators often argue that in mediation, the parties all have equal power. However, this is seldom true. If one disputant has much more power than another in the outside world, this will be true at the negotiating table as well. Although an agreement may still be reached, it is likely to mirror the outside power distribution of the parties. This is true outside of negotiation as well, as higher-power parties tend to prevail in most decision making systems. For more information about this problem "click" on the title.
Possible ways of treating this problem include the following. Click on each topic for more information.
If negotiation or mediation is undertaken with the wrong parties at the negotiating table, the results will not be successful. Typical problems are that the people at the table do not really represent the constituencies or groups that they are supposed to represent, or they do not have decision making authority, or even links to it. Another problem is that critical parties are missing from the table--either because they were not invited, or because they chose not to come. Either way, this is likely to cause problems later on when a decision is reached which does not represent the interests of all the concerned or affected groups. ; ; For more information about this problem "click" on the title.
Possible ways of treating this problem include the following. Click on each topic for more information.
Sometime negotiation will be started with a third party mediator, but that mediator lacks the ability or credibility to work effectively with all of the parties. If parties do not trust the mediator's fairness, they are likely to withdraw from the negotiation. For more information about this problem "click" on the title.
Possible ways of treating this problem include the following. Click on each topic for more information.
If mediation is tried and fails because of poor timing, poor process, or a poor mediator, disputants may be unwilling to try it again, even when conditions are better. 6318 For more information about this problem "click" on the title.
Possible ways of treating this problem include the following. Click on each topic for more information.
Copyright ©1998 Conflict Research Consortium -- Contact: crc@colorado.edu