121. Conflict Resolution Revisited: Peaceful Resolution, Mediation and Responsibility to Protect
- Author:
- Seán O'Regan
- Publication Date:
- 01-2016
- Content Type:
- Journal Article
- Journal:
- All Azimuth: A Journal of Foreign Policy and Peace
- Institution:
- Center for Foreign Policy and Peace Research
- Abstract:
- Alan Tidwell, the author of Conflict Resolved? A Critical Assessment of Conflict Resolution,[1] wrote in the preface “Not all conflicts can or should be resolved; frankly there are some conflicts I do not wish to resolve – I want to win them.”[2] This is a real challenge to every person who aspires to be a peacemaker, and challenges, as Tidwell intended, the notion of peace at whatever cost. Tidwell argues that that while morally inspired positive peacemaking is a “good thing,”[3] it can lack a sense of proportion, ignoring justice, right and wrong and deep-seated reasons for grievance. Similarly, evangelical theorists “propagate the value of conflict resolution at all costs”[4] and in the process lose a sense of reality about what can realistically be achieved. The increased adoption by states of early warning, conflict prevention and conflict resolution policies is often based on notions of positive peacemaking and inspired by evangelical theorists. Latterly mediation has been added to the arsenal of state-led conflict resolution tools. This commentary will explore the limitations of mediation in relations between states, consider the implications for conflict resolution practice and advocate a principled international response to conflicts, including, if necessary, the need to win them.
- Topic:
- Conflict Resolution, Responsibility to Protect (R2P), and Mediation
- Political Geography:
- Global Focus