Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Resolving violent conflicts
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Many theorists have tried to explain how any why conflicts end. Some theories have proven to be more successful than others. It is difficult to create a theory that applies to all conflicts because each conflict is different. Conflicts can be ethnic and religious based or they can be about resources and territories. William Zartman advocates a theory of ripeness and mutually hurting stalemates to explain how and why conflict have ended. Throughout this essay his theory will be analyze through the conflicts in Northern Ireland, Cambodia and the Oslo agreement. Through these three conflicts the strengths and weaknesses of ripeness theory can be seen
Zartmans theory states that when a conflict is ripe it is ready to be negotiated. A ripe moment is described as when both parties of the conflict are ready to negotiate. In that moment the parties are willing to agree to a settlement that has been there the whole time, but only now it attractive to them (Zartman, 2001). Ripe moments rely on the occurrence of a mutually hurting stalemate. This occurs when both parties are in a position in the conflict where they cannot escalate to victory and this deadlock is painful to both parties (Zartman, 2001). The main condition of a mutually hurting stalemate is when both parties in conflict realize that they cannot achieve their goals by continuing violence and it is extremely costly to continue (Ramsbotham, 2011). Mutually hurting stalemates occur when there is a approaching, past or currently avoided catastrophic moment (Zartman, 2001). This catastrophic moment is the deciding factor if action will take place, if nothing is done at this moment than the situation will get worse (Zartman, 2001). Mutually hurting stalemates are based on a cost...
... middle of paper ...
...shown in the global level (Amer, 2007). Ripeness can be used to explain the inner- Cambodian level of the conflict. Once it reaches a regional and global level ripeness cannot be used to explain those negotiations.
Ripeness and readiness are good theory’s to explain why conflicts ends. They both show how multiple factors come into play to end a conflict. “Ripeness is not sudden, but rather a complex process of transformations in the situation, shifts in public attitudes and new perceptions and visions among decision-makers” (Rambotham, 2011: 180). The Oslo negotiations and the peace process are good examples of the readiness theory and its ease explaining the resolution of these conflicts. The Cambodian conflict poses more difficulty being explained through ripeness. When conflicts are multilateral poses a challenge to readiness theory. Adapting readiness theory
War termination and the decision of when to negotiate peace are rarely effectively planned before a war. The Russo-Japanese War is one of a few historical exceptions. The Russo-Japanese War provides three enduring lessons about war termination in a conflict fought for limited aims. First, the most effective war termination plans are created before the war. Second, continued military and political pressure can effectively improve your position to negotiate peace. Third, common interests and compromise are required for durable peace.
After reading “The Most Dangerous Game” by Richard Connell. I have decided that the character that holds the most power was “General Zaroff”. I came to this conclusion based on the fact that he knew what was going to happen from the start. “General Zaroff” also held intimate knowledge of the island, a home base to receive medical treatment, backup from a bodyguard, a canine unit, and superior firepower.
...Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD) during the Cold War Era. In order to keep the violence from escalating, both sides had to withdraw, and neither side would have an advantage.
By December 1914 the First World War had reached a dilemma on the western front that neither the triple entente nor the triple alliance had expected. The war had reached a stalemate, a state where both sides are so evenly balanced that neither can breakthrough against the enemy. The advances in Technology played a big role in creating the stalemate through strong defensive weaponry such as Machine Guns and Artillery, this caused ‘trench warfare’ (BOOK 48). Trench war is when troops from both sides are protected from the enemy’s firepower through trenches. Many advances in technology also attempted to break the stalemate throughout the war with tanks, gas and aircraft, these however failed. Eventually the stalemate was broken through a combination of improved technology, new strategies and the blockading of the German ports.
Ung (2000) mentions that the Cambodian genocide is a product of a perfect agrarian vision that can be built by eliminating Western influence. More specifically, the Angkar perceives peasants and farmers as “model citizens” because many have not left the village and were not subjected to Western influence (Ung 2000:57). Moreover, the Khmer Rouge emphasized the ethnic cleansing of individuals from other races who were not considered “true Khmer” and represented a “source of evil, corruption, [and] poison” (Ung 2000:92). Lastly, the ideology centered on obtaining lost territory was based on a “time when Kampuchea was a large empire with territories” (Ung 2000:78). In essence, Ung successfully demonstrates that multiple causes encouraged the Cambodian
Clarence Mai Mrs. Chaid ERWC 12 February, 2014 Peace Through Strength No matter how oxymoronic it seems, I strongly agree with the phrase “The only way to prepare for peace is to be prepared for war”. I feel that this relates back to the adage that “the best defense is a good offense”. For me, I view the Cold War as proof that the weapons of war can also be used as instruments of peace. To start off, one of the key ideas behind the tense, yet somewhat stable peace between the Soviet Union and the United States during the second half of the 20th century was the concept of Mutually Assured Destruction, or MAD.
International organizations such as NATO and the UN are essential not only for global peace, but also as a place where middle powers can exert their influence. It is understandable that since the inception of such organizations that many crises have been averted, resolved, or dealt with in some way thro...
The limits that a ‘just’ war places on the use of aggression between states for both states
Rosato, S. (2003). The flawed logic of the democratic peace theory. The American Political Science Review, 97(4), 585–602.
Pruitt, Dean G, and Sung Hee Kim. Social Conflict: Escalation, Stalemate, and Settlement. 3rd ed. 2004. New York: McGraw-Hill Higher Education, 2004.
An alternative model of peacebuilding would be an approach that is built upon community initiatives, similar to transformative peacebuilding. It is important that each situation is evaluated and the best suited institutions and structures are established. This means that in some situations the structures of politics, economics, justice and governance will not conform to the formulaic liberal model. Bottom up initiatives allow for engagement with local institutions, customs and norms (Newman,et Al.,2009,46). Furthermore, a transformative peacebuilding approach would empathize addressing the underlying sources of violence in each post- conflict community. This alternative model of peacebuilding would also promote growth oriented adjustment policies
An idea that pervades the contemporary realm of international political thought is the ‘liberal democratic peace’ (LDP) theory. This theory is based upon the major tenet that democratic states do not engage in warfare with one another, and for thus reason generates and sustains a harmonious political environment. The democratic peace theory certainly has its merits – provisioning strong evidence in defense to its many critiques (Kegley & Raymond 1994; Layne 1994; Rosato 2003). However, it is also not a theory without minor flaws that undermine its hypothesis (Dafoe, Oneal & Russett 2013; International Studies Association 2005; Kumar 1994). In spite of these otherwise excusable flaws, the process of democratization should be considered a plausible mechanism for the promotion of peace and security throughout the global order.
M. E. McGuinness (Eds.), Words Over War: Mediation and Arbitration to Prevent Deadly Conflict (pp. 293-320). New York: Rowman and Littlefield Publishers, Inc.
The author of The Most Dangerous Game uses a specific structure that attempts to emphasize tension throughout the story. My personal belief is that the author accomplishes this feat, and does an excellent job at this. Tension was important in this particular story because it forces the reader to stay involved, analyze the events that occur when they occur, and then make inferences about the future and the events within it. The writer displays the importance of tension in his story by including several events where tension plays a key role. An example occurs between Zaroff and Rainsford when Zaroff proposes the idea of his new “game.” Rainsford disagrees with the idea, which then creates tension between the two men. This tension would last throughout
How do the terms or implementation of treaties determine peace or conflict decades later? Efforts to build a just and lasting peace are complicated not only because past grievances must be addressed, but future interests must be anticipated-even when such future interests were not identified as the cause of war in the first place. Edward Teller, discussing the Manhattan Project, observed, "No endeavor which is worthwhile is simple in prospect; if it is right, it will be simple in retrospect."2 Only if a nation perceives that continuing observance of the treaty will sustain the state over a long period of time and in changing circumstances, the peace and security promised by the treaty will endure. Machiavelli observed that ". . . fear of loss of the State by a prince or republic will overcome both gratitude and treaties."3