Conflict Resolution Concepts and Definitions - Essay Example

Conflict Resolution Concepts and Definitions Peace Enforcement Peace enforcement is best explained and defined on three major premises. These are the existence of peace, the involvement of outside party and the use of mild force (Blank, 2003). In the first place, it is important to note that as global entities, the welfare of nations and countries is the common good and concern of not just the individual countries involved but that of the entire world community. To this exist, the need for there to be peace in a particular country is not a situation that is always left to individual countries alone to handle. It is for this reason that there are different bodies and organization such as the United Nations and European Union who are charged with ensuring that there is neighborliness among all member countries and that major issues that has to do with the peace and economic stability of a nation becomes the concern of all member nations (Doyle, 2001). Again, considering the cost of resolving issues of national conflicts of different kinds, it has always been the concern of these organizations to ensure that peace is rather maintained than brokered. What this means is that member states always want to ensure that the peace that exists in a particular country continues to exist and so they will not wait for conflict to break before seeking intervention. This is where peace enforcement plays very instrumental role because unlike peacekeeping that is centered on the need to resolve conflicts and bring about peace, peace enforcement actually seeks to ensure that there is the continual existence of peace. Another element of peace enforcement that stands out from other force of peace deals such as peacemaking and peacekeeping is that there is often the involvement of third parties. These third parties are considered to be entities who are neutral in whatever issue that might be the cause of chaos and confusion in a nation. It would be observed that in the recent events of violence in Syria, the United Nations started making advances at ensuring peace right at the nurturing stages of the violence. This was done by constituting the United Nations Peace Envoy to Syria. Though some analysts have said that the approach could be more combative to force the Syrian government to bring about peace by cutting that country out of the world league and leaving them to their plight, the fact that there were third party involvement specially designated outside the country involved makes the process peace enforcement. Finally, it would be noted that though there were a number of sanctions placed on Syria, the extent where very strong combative military intervention would be used was absented (Gill, 2003). This concept of using mild force in Syria also constitutes a major component of peace enforcement. Trans-National Justice The meaning of Trans-national justice may be reechoing in the construction of the word itself. This is because the very core principle behind trans-national justice is the desire of nation to seek justice. Therefore, the fact that the desire and mission comes from within a nation itself makes the process of justice a trans-national approach (Giragosian and McDermott, 2003). Having said this, it would be important to distinguish trans-national justice from other forms of justice to make the concept stand out clearer. One of the very first distinctions that can be drawn is the fact that a nation that seeks trans-national justice often (if not always) does so after a perceived political crises in that nation where acts of human rights abuses led to the denial of justice of many people in that country. In effect, trans-national justice is sought at the peak of rebuilding a nation that has been thorn apart in the past. Because of this, trans-national justice is often seen as a new beginning after an undesired ending. For almost all cases and approaches of trans-national justice, there are key and peculiar implications that stand out; major among which includes the fact that the process of seeking justice is not always limited to judicial justice. This means that there could be non-judicial approaches to seeking justice. In most cases, countries have resorted to the use of National Reconciliation Commissions to achieve non-judicial justice where a commission is set to invite people who might have been thought to be either victims or perpetuators of acts of injustice to appear and give their accounts (Huasheng, 2004). As the accounts of these people are heard, efforts are made to bring about peace, forgiveness and reconciliation among factions involved in the acts of injustice. Further, the nation also makes attempts to settle victims by compensating them with some amounts of money to make up for whatever losses they might have incurred. In most national jurisdictions where the focus is to end military rule and institute democratic system of governance, trans-national justice has always been prescribed as the first and best way out to start (Huntington, 2008). To this end, these nations have always been advised to possess a conception of social justice and not necessarily a notion of criminal justice. This is because criminal justice has been thought to have a rather long and winding procedure in its achievement. The Liberal Peace Theory As a theory, liberal peace theory remains an abstraction that continues to be explored by realism (Dubnov, 2009). It however holds the fundamental conception and alliance to the idea that liberal countries and nations ought not to rise against each other in terms of war. With such a general belief that it is wrong for democratic nations and for that matter liberal countries to be at war against each other, the question that one asks is what constitutes war and what constitutes democracy (Foreign Policy Pursued by Kazakhstan, 2004). The question also becomes posed if the liberal peace theory could ever be made a reality as there have been instance in world history where liberal countries have risen against each other in war. In answering this question, the first idea that comes to mind is the fact that democracy or a democratic nation is defined by the practices that a particular country involves itself in and not necessarily by whether or not that country professes to be a democratic country. For example if country ‘A’ claims to be a democratic nation but leaders of that country always finds means of imposing power on the populace without giving them a fair opportunity to select their own leaders, that country seizes to be recognized as a democratic nation (Georgiev, 2001). In effect, another genuine democratic nation may be provoked to insist for the right thing to be done: thereby leading to acts of war between those two democratic nations. In an attempt to avoiding the unforeseeable acts of war among countries, there have often been a number of approaches and strategies that they have adopted to make the idea of liberal peace theory a reality. In most instances, experts have advised the institution of different forms of trade exchanges among countries or nations. Having noted that most international organizations are focused on economic development, it is just right to assume that international trade is an effective way of establishing national cohesion among countries. It is not for nothing therefore that most countries have taken to free trade policies to consolidate the kind of friendship that exists between them. It is however interesting to note that there are some countries (especially global economic giants) that use trade as a form of war against fellow democratic nations. This is done by imposing trade sanction on less vibrant countries that may be breaching different forms of democratic principles. Positive and Negative Peace On the surface of it, peace would be thought of as a good thing and so thinking of positive or negative peace would seem absurd. However, Galtung (1996) gives such vivid explanation to peace such that it brings out a clear notion as to how and why there could be positive and negative peace. In the first place, peace is explained as the absence of violence (Galtung, 1996). In effect, there could still be conflict whiles peace is achieved in the midst of that conflict because there is the absence of violence. Generally, such a scenario is an advantageous one since it ensures and assures the people that their safety and security could at least be sustained. But until such a time that there is the total eradication of conflict and violence together and avenues made to replace the existing violence with the restoration and rejuvenation of relationships and reconciliation, there cannot be said to be positive peace. Positive peace therefore comes in the midst of both violence and conflict. Positive peace also comes when not just violence but also conflict ceases. Again, positive peace must be said to be achieved only if the people involved have found a way of substituting their violence and conflict (Interfax Kazakhstan, 2000). In several scenarios of after war settlements, there have been eruptions of violence right after the settlement. The cause of such a situation emanates from the fact that the mere absence of violence has been seen as sufficient by peace brokers. However, what these peace brokers refuse to understand is that the mere absence of violence only constitutes negative peace and not positive peace. When the actual conflicts are thus left to continue to brood among the people, people who feel bitter about the process of settlement or the denial of justice are often tempted to start up violence again. It is for this reason that all forms of peace resolutions that looks at the need to establish justice and reconciliation have always been fallen on as the best and most appropriate way of settling peace. In conclusion, peace seekers are always advised to seek to reconciliation among natives (ITAR-TASS, 2000). REFERENCE LIST “Foreign Policy Pursued by Kazakhstan,” http://www.president.kz/main/, accessed March 2004. Blank, S. “Central Asia’s Strategic Revolution,” Asia Times Online, August 24, 2003. Doyle, M, W., “War Making, Peace Making, and the United Nations” in Turbulent Peace, United States Institute of Peace Press, 2001. Dubnov, A., “Best Wishes for CIS Security,” in Former Soviet Union 15 Nations: Policy and Security, January 2009. Galtung J (2007). Negative versus Positive Peace. Accessed July 27, 2012 from http://www.irenees.net/en/fiches/notions/fiche-notions-186.html Georgiev, V., “That Same Altynbaev: Kazakhstan’s New Defense Minister Has Already Once Directed the Country’s Armed Forces,” Nezavisimaia gazeta, December 20, 2001. Gill, B., “From Concerns to Confidence: China’s Evolving Regional Security Strategy,” George Washington University, December 5-6, 2003. Giragosian, R. and McDermott, R. N., “US Military Engagement in Central Asia: “Great Game” or “Great Gain?” November 2003. Huasheng, Z., “Can China, Russia, and the United States Cooperate in Central Asia?” PRC Scholar Views Prospects for Sino-Russian-US Cooperation in Central Asia, Beijing, Zhanlue Yu Guanli, in Chinese, March 1, 2004, No. 2. Huntington, S. P., 2008 “The Soldier and the State,” The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, Cambridge, London, England. Interfax Kazakhstan (Almaty), April 1, 2000, in SU/3805 G/3, April 3, 2000. Joint Communiqué of Foreign Ministers of the Shanghai Five Countries, ITAR-TASS (Moscow), July 4, 2000, in SU/3805 G/1, July 6, 2000. Read More