Theory of Conflict Resolution - Essay Example

Theory of Conflict Resolution Author Institutional affiliation Introduction Peace can be defined as a situation that lacks violence. Under such a scenario, interpersonal and international relations exist naturally. Peace ensures that equality is established in social, economic and political affairs (Matyók, Senehi & Byrne, 2011). On the other hand, conflict resolution is the process that is involved in resolving conflict in order to bring conflict into an end. Thus, conflict resolution entails any process that may result to conflict reduction. Conflict resolution may involve procedures like conflict management; the parties in conflict may continue with the conflict but adopt tactics that are less extreme (Bercovitch & Jackson, 2009). Parties in conflict reach an agreement on issues that need to be settled; these issues could be the underlying causes of conflict (Matyók, Senehi & Byrne, 2011). When conflict is brought to an end, the situation can be termed as peaceful. This is because in the case of conflict, violence is prevalent in which the weaker party is oppressed or denied justice. This paper will establish the relationship between peace and conflict resolution and determine whether there are cases when justice require the use of lethal force and the reason for this. Thesis This paper will establish the relationship between peace and conflict resolution. The paper will as well determine why justice requires the use of lethal. Argument I Peace involves understanding the nature of conflict and violence in order to bring a social change that will transform conflict nonviolently (Condliffe, 2008). The aim of conflict resolution is to seek the root cause of injustice and oppression, seeking nonviolent social change and stressing why each individual should tell the truth in order to come up with practical problem solving technique (Matyók, Senehi & Byrne, 2011). The process of conflict resolution should be interdisciplinary and should take a holistic approach in establishing the relationship between social and personal change. In understanding the relationship between peace and conflict resolution, it is important to understand what conflict is. According to Worchel & Simpson, (1998) conflict occurs when two or more parties disagree on their interests, in such a case the interests are considered as not being compatible. This results to the parties expressing hostile altitudes leading to the parties pursing their interest through means that may damage the other party. The parties involved in conflict may be as small as a group or a country as well as individuals. Studies indicate that most of the conflicts that the world has encountered today are as a result of divergent interests in resources, power, identity, value and status (Condliffe, 2008). Conflict can either be violent or nonviolent. When conflicts are handled peacefully, violence can easily be eliminated and this may lead to a positive change. Peace can be realized easily in the society when the parties’ needs are identified and accommodated (Bercovitch & Jackson, 2009). For instance, when the needs of the minorities are recognized and better served. This would ensure that their voices are heard are heard and thus their needs are addressed accordingly. There exist regulated mechanisms that are employed to pursue competing interests in cases of peaceful conflicts (Condliffe, 2008). There are various factors that regulate conflict: constitution, judicial system, family and clan structure, religious codes, debate and discourse among others. These mechanisms can be informal like for the cases of customs and social mores. Alternatively, they can be formal or institutionalized like for the case of a nation’s constitution. Peaceful elections are example of ways in which elections can be peacefully addressed. By having an effective electoral body that can facilitate peaceful and fair election, people can have the opportunity to have candidates of their preferred choice. As a matter of fact, research shows that only one percent of potential conflicts in sub-Saharan Africa and former Soviet Union result from violent conflict; rebellion, civil war and inter-communal conflict (Bercovitch & Jackson, 2009). On the other hand, violent conflict is expected when parties disagree on the best way to address their competing interest. In such a scenario, the parties attempt to dominate or to some extent destroy the other party’s ability to pursue and satisfy their own interest. With the prevalence of a lot of violence around the world, one can try to imagine that violent conflict is natural (Bercovitch & Jackson, 2009). Another assumption from this notion is that human beings are naturally aggressive and that wars and violent conflicts are inevitable. The truth of the matter is that violence does not always occur even when opinions and interest differ; it is thus worth to note that violence is not inevitable (Ramsbotham, Miall & Woodhouse, 2011). Conflict resolution involves the participation of a third party who is either called by the disputant party or may introduce himself since he perceives the conflict annoying the society. There are two forms of third party involvement either through arbitration or mediation. Arbitration involves the third party listening to both sides and makes decision which can be advisory or binding (Condliffe, 2008). In mediation, the third party assists the conflicting party in mediation talks. When the conflict becomes severe such as the disputants experience difficulties in talking to each other, the mediator settles or cease the fire. There are cases when disputants cannot meet each, the mediator acts as an intermediary by bringing them together and shuttle between them (Ramsbotham, Miall & Woodhouse, 2011). In other instances, there is need to have two chains of intermediaries when the mediation becomes difficult. In such a case, each intermediary meet each of the sides since it may be difficult for a single intermediary to communicate with both sides effectively. According to scholars like Gaulting, there is a framework for handling conflicts (Ramsbotham, Miall & Woodhouse, 2011). This is a negative and positive peace framework which is commonly used. When one talks of negative peace, he or she refers to the absence of direct violence. In a scenario when we have an absence of indirect and structural violence that is when we say we have positive peace. When one talks about peach and conflict resolution, there are many models of peace. One of the concepts is that peace is not unnatural but natural social condition as opposed to war which is unnatural. This is a premise that quite a number of peace and conflict practitioners subscribe to (Matyók, Senehi & Byrne, 2011). This is a model of peace which guides decision makers to reach a consensus and avoid war/conflicts. The other proposition is that which regards violence as sinful or unskillful. The proponents of this model argue that by the virtue of violence being unskillful and sinful, it should not one encouraged. On the other hand, what should be cultivated is non-violence which to them is skillful and virtuous. This is a view which appeals to many religious groups especially the traditional ones. Examples of these traditions include the Indian religion and philosophy, Buddhism, Hinduism, some sections of Islam, and Mennonites (Ramsbotham, Miall & Woodhouse, 2011). Some scholars such as John Galtung assert that the best way to define peace is to define violence (Matyók, Senehi & Byrne, 2011). This proposition presents a normative aim of preventing, managing and limiting as well as overcoming violence. Such forms of violence include overt violence, structural violence, cultural violence as well as ethnic cleansing. Mediation is a process which is both new and old. It is new in terms of its emergence in the legal area and old in terms of its universality application. The onset of the process is credited to the western world from where it spread to other parts of the world. The civil law has been a guiding principle in the mediation process. The implementation of the mediation process requires goodwill from warring parties (Matyók, Senehi & Byrne, 2011). It is the prerogative of both parties to ensure that they uphold the principle of mutual respect and trust. Antithesis However, there are instances where the enforcement of the mediation outcome requires lethal measure. There are extents to which one needs to strike a balance between regulating mediators and the mediation practice. This is aimed at reflecting the balance between flexibility and diversity, on one hand and consistency, on the other (Matyók, Senehi & Byrne, 2011). Argument Conflict in the society is an anticipated aspect. Conflict expresses the differing values, beliefs and interests that come as a result of social changes arising from inheritance. The approach to dealing with conflict is based on people’s choice to meet and solve their differences. According to Bercovitch & Jackson (2009), our need for survival is hard coded into our brains and when danger arises the two readily available options are fight or flight. There are cases when the need to use force to quell conflicts arises; however, there are also scenarios when the application of force is best avoided. The decision to use lethal or less-lethal force to resolve conflicts should be well thought out first to prevent repercussions (Ramsbotham, Miall & Woodhouse, 2011). Below are some of scenarios where the use of lethal force is justifiable. According to Ramsbotham, Miall & Woodhouse (2011), the exercise of might upon or toward somebody else is permissible when the person threatened trusts that such might is of immediate importance for the intention of self defense. It is equally justifiable to use lethal force to protect yourself in the case that your assailant is using unlawful lethal force. According to Ramsbotham, Miall & Woodhouse (2011) unlawful force is the force applied against a person without the person’s permission such that it is considered as illegal or criminal. When unlawful force is applied on someone, it is his or her right to use self defense as the mechanism for protection. It can also be said to be the right of an individual to protect against dangerously endangered unlawful force expected (Condliffe, 2008). When an individual is threatened, he or she is entitled to use force to as self defense tool. The force used in self defense though should not be considerably greater than the force used to threaten the said individual. If for some reason the kind of force used by an individual in self defense is not instantaneously essential for the defense or if the quantity of power applied by the defendant is not level in its strength, then the exercise of such force cannot be said to be self defense (Ramsbotham, Miall & Woodhouse, 2011). In such a scenario, the use of deadly force should be used as last resort otherwise the victim might end up being the aggressor in the court of law especially if the would-be attacker was retreating. There are a variety of levels of might that one may apply in self protection to turn away unlawful mischief. When a situation arises that necessitates the need for self defense, like getting robbed when withdrawing money from an ATM machine. In such a case, the individual may use a degree of force that they feel is necessary for self defense even if is lethal force. Otherwise, if there is no substantial danger of any serious body harm, then the defendant may resort to non-deadly force. According to Bercovitch & Jackson (2009), deadly force can be termed as force that one applies with the aim to cause considerable risk of leading to death or severe bodily harm. Use of deadly force may be justified but is unacceptable if the person in danger realistically believes that such force is essential for the protection against serious bodily harm or even death. Serious bodily harm is the one that poses substantial risk to death or one that causes or may cause severe permanent mutilation or which causes an extended loss of the function of any bodily member or organ (Ramsbotham, Miall & Woodhouse, 2011). For example, if one were to purposely try to stab another person with a knife then that would be a case in point of deadly force. But a simple intimidation with a knife, however, intended only to create the casualty in danger suppose that the attacker may utilize the knife if have to be is not a model of lethal force. A response in self defense by the use of a firearm is not justifiable in this case. Since law enforcement officers are entrusted with enforcing the law and maintaining order, they are regularly placed in conditions where they must endeavor to direct or control an otherwise free citizen.  The encounter may lead to an actual arrest or just a brief incarceration for questioning, these infringement are often undesirable (Bercovitch & Jackson, 2009).  It is not uncommon for such violations to rights of movement to be resisted by the citizens that are involved.  In the event that this happens, law enforcement officers more or less need to use aggressive means to manage and perhaps arrest the people in question (Ramsbotham, Miall & Woodhouse, 2011).  Conventionally, law enforcement officers have had inadequate technology that they can utilize.  Further than hand to hand defensive combat tactics, law enforcement officers could make use of striking instruments batons or they could use a firearm. Practically fighting with a suspect, and possibly using a striking implement to defend yourself such as a baton or a nightstick, has the potential of inflicting serious bodily harm.  Injury’s varying from scratches, sprains to serious contusions and broken bones are regularly the outcome (Ramsbotham, Miall & Woodhouse, 2011).  These injuries often leave scars that may remain for days on end.  Periodically medical attention may be required; this may result in time off from a gainful employment or activity involved by the citizen. These circumstances frequently lead to complaints that the degree of force used was too high, this may lead to legal action. The means may have justified the end but the force to the end may have been more than necessary. It is widely considered that a house is a man’s castle and that he is supposed to stand his ground to protect his castle. Therefore, if an intruder or a trespasser gains unauthorized access to your property, then you have the right to get rid of him by humane means but not by the use of deadly force (Ramsbotham, Miall & Woodhouse, 2011). In the event that you have a reasonable belief that the intruder plans on causing bodily harm or a sexual assault or an impending illegal intrusion then using deadly or lethal force to protect your family and or property may be justified. However, in the case of an attempted robbery or theft, it is widely expected that one should utilize all other rational means of preventing the felony before the use of lethal force (Bercovitch & Jackson, 2009). Conclusion This paper has established that there is a relationship between peace and conflict resolution. When there is a conflict, injustice and oppression are expected for the weaker disputants. As such, lethal force may be used as the way to justice. The right to life is universal. It is not selective be it the victim or the aggressor. Maintenance of law and order inevitably leads or some form of conflict and occasionally necessitates the use of lethal force for self defense and in defense of others. As a result, it can be concluded that at times, there are justifiable reasons for the use of lethal force. References Bercovitch, J & Jackson, R. (2009). Conflict resolution in the twenty-first century: principles, methods, and approaches. New York: University of Michigan Press. Condliffe, P. (2008). Conflict management: a practical guide.  3rd ed. LexisNexis Butterworths: Chatswood, N.S.W.  Matyók, T., Senehi, J. & Byrne, S. (2011). Critical Issues in Peace and Conflict Studies: Theory, Practice, and Pedagogy. New York: Lexington Books. Ramsbotham, O., Miall, H. & Woodhouse, T. (2011). Contemporary conflict resolution: The prevention, management and transformation of deadly conflicts. (3rd edition). Malden, MA: Polity Press. Worchel, S. & Simpson, J. (1998). Conflict between groups and persons. Chicago: Nelson Hall. Read More