Since the end of the Cold War, new international challenges have arisen. States face threats to their security and well being, such as terrorism and intrastate conflict. While international conflict once consisted of major global wars that pitted the world’s most powerful nations against each other, now we see states attempting to resolve conflict before the situation escalates. War is costly in many ways and can leave a country in ruin and its people physically and psychologically wounded. States use different conflict management and resolution techniques to bring an end to deadly combat or prevent combat from occurring.
Bargaining is a tool that is widely used in international relations. It is used to hopefully prevent two actors from engaging in war. Bargaining is defined as the negotiation of the terms of an agreement. The two sides first make demands. If they do not like the details of the demands, either side can reject them and eventually both sides will come to an agreement. Bargaining always involves interdependent actions because the decisions that are made by one actor will almost always depend on the likely or actual decisions of the other actor (Van Der Windt, 2011). Since successful bargaining can prevent war, it can be said that war is the result of failed bargaining.
In Rationalist Explanations of War, James D. Fearon suggests that war is a “costly lottery” where both sides must decide if going to war is worth the losses they will incur (Fearon, Rationalist explanations for war , 1995). The bargaining theory states that there is always a range, called the bargaining range, in which it would benefit two actors to negotiate rather than going to war. The bargaining range is determined by “the relative power of bot...
... middle of paper ...
...ions and problems that emerge in the world. In 2012, the UN released a report on “strengthening the role of mediation in peaceful dispute settlement” (UN, 2013). Secretary General Ban Ki-Moon expressed that mediation had been very effective in solving disputes and conflict in all regions and that more resources would be needed to “sustain the Organization’s broadening range of initiatives” (UN, 2013).
Since the current system ad hoc system of mediation is unorganized, it would benefit the world as a whole to establish an institution that focuses solely on mediation. According to Gregg and Diehl, “peacekeeping missions also began as largely ad hoc operations” (Greig & Diehl, 2012). With that in mind, it is easy to see how mediation as a conflict management tool has the potential to work hand in hand with peacekeeping to maintain international peace and security.
The purpose of this essay is to inform on the similarities and differences between systemic and domestic causes of war. According to World Politics by Jeffry Frieden, David Lake, and Kenneth Schultz, systemic causes deal with states that are unitary actors and their interactions with one another. It can deal with a state’s position within international organizations and also their relationships with other states. In contract, domestic causes of war pertain specifically to what goes on internally and factors within a state that may lead to war. Wars that occur between two or more states due to systemic and domestic causes are referred to as interstate wars.
First, in the long run the negative effects of a military international intervention, even if against oppressive governments, could actually outweigh the positive ones. Moreover, coercive policy could, in fact, aggravate a conflict by providing grounds for long lasting hostility, aggression, or ev...
Negotiation is a fundamental process used in resolving conflicts, making business deals, and in managing working relationships with others. Negotiations occur for two reasons: (1) to resolve a problem or dispute between parties, or (2) to create something new that neither party could do on its own.
Lewicki, J. R., Barry, B., & Saunders, M. D. (2011). Essentials of negotiation (5th ed.). New York, NY: McGraw Hill. ISBN-13: 9780073530369
Despite a failed attempt for reelection, due to what many felt was an ineffective presidency, President Carter regrouped and focused his efforts. Instead of relaxing and vacationing his way into retirement, he set forth with a grandiose vision. He assembled a team and formed the Carter Center with a visionary goal, “work to build sustainable peace in emerging democracies and to prevent and resolve conflicts” (The Carter Center, 2014). Drawing from his early years as a Naval Officer and from his Presidency, his astute knowledge of global diversity: knowledge and experience with foreign cultures, coalition partners, and foreign nationals, put him in the perfect position to be an international mediator (Thomas N. Barnes Center, 2012).
... H. (1997). Some Determinants of the Oslo Breakthrough. In International Negotiation, 2, 2, 183-194.
War, in all its forms, is tragic. International law was created to establish some basis of rules to abide by—including war—and states have signed on to such a contract. The actions of states in this ever globalizing world are difficult to be controlled. The source of international law operates through the hands of the United Nations. The enforcement of the law occurs through reciprocity, collective action, and a display of international norms (Goldstein, p. 254). War in fact has been given a justification, though it is arguable whether or not the basis of the idea is correct. Wars can be just under certain conditions.
M. E. McGuinness (Eds.), Words Over War: Mediation and Arbitration to Prevent Deadly Conflict (pp. 293-320). New York: Rowman and Littlefield Publishers, Inc.
Engagement in peaceful and violent interactions, as well as the conflicts consequent from the, has changed greatly in the modern world. With the vast advancement in technology, our ability to communicate over long distances with various media devices has improved the ability to conduct peaceful conversations. This in itself decreases the chances of violence as all party members involved in a conflict of some sort are able to access and correspond with one another, if they so choose, without jumping the gun and heading straight into a violent solution. However, weapon technology develops simultaneously with modern technology, resulting in extreme weapons of mass destruction such as nuclear weapons and the fact that these weapons are so easily accessible enables violent interactions. Both the “Conflict Resolution” and “Nonviolence” paradigms have not been able to keep up with the development of modern technology and are therefore not applicable in some instances. While the “Conflict Resolution” paradigm maintains its applicability for most situations, the “Nonviolence” paradigm becomes obsolete in regards to the nuclear weapons that play such a large role in modern day conflicts. Nevertheless, both paradigms are useful tools in international peacemaking – methods such as negotiation from the “Conflict Resolution” paradigm are independent from the type of conflict involved. Similarly, the “Nonviolence” paradigm has methods e.g. the creation of peace movements, which are applicable to all conflicts regardless of their nature. This shows that while they might be limited in some aspects, the “Conflict Resolution” and “Nonviolence” paradigms are still useful in conflicts nowadays and contribute tools to international peacemaking even tho...
Whenever war occurs, be it interstate or intrastate, many civilians die unnecessarily. Therefore, as a rational person, ideally, the bargaining model should be utilized to overcome conflict. However, there are many reasons why this can be a failure if both parties do not disclose all the leverage or advantages they have against the other party. It is also hard to estimate whether a particular country is serious about an action or playing bluff. Like poker, there are so many strategies to the game that one can only make a conjecture. Revealing the strongest card can put the player at loss if other players create a counter strategy but by not revealing, there would be an underestimation or overestimation of the probable
Poitras, J. (2007). The Paradox of Accepting One's Share of Responsibility in Mediation. Negotiation Journal, 23(3), 267-282. Retrieved January 23, 2012, from ABI/INFORM Global. (Document ID: 1313496891).
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...
Whenever world politics is mentioned, the state that appears to be at the apex of affairs is the United States of America, although some will argue that it isn’t. It is paramount we know that the international system is shaped by certain defining events that has lead to some significant changes, particularly those connected with different chapters of violence. Certainly, the world wars of the twentieth century and the more recent war on terror must be included as defining moments. The warning of brute force on a potentially large scale also highlights the vigorousness of the cold war period, which dominated world politics within an interval of four decades. The practice of international relations (IR) was introduced out of a need to discuss the causes of war and the different conditions for calm in the wake of the first world war, and it is relevant we know that this has remained a crucial focus ever since. However, violence is not the only factor capable of causing interruption in the international system. Economic elements also have a remarkable impact. The great depression that happened in the 1920s, and the global financial crises of the contemporary period can be used as examples. Another concurrent problem concerns the environment, with the human climate being one among different number of important concerns for the continuing future of humankind and the planet in general.
IOs and states play a critical role in maintaining world peace and security. The United Nations (UN), in particular, is the centerpiece of global governance with respect to the maintenance of world peace. The UN provides general guidelines for all the states on how to solve potential conflicts and maintain international o...
Anderson, M. B. (1999). Do no harm: How aid can support peace—or war. London, England: Lynne Rienner Publishers