Jigsaw Puzzle:
Conceptual Clarity of Defining Conflict
Francisco Rojas-Aravena / Manish Thapa
•
We live in a troubled world. War and violence are expressed in different
regions of the world in diverse modalities and their consequences are
thousands of deaths and millions of refugees and displaced people. Wars
and conflicts nowadays are diverse in character: traditional, non-traditional, asymmetric, hybrid, etc. They are expressed from nuclear tensions to terrorist acts of “lone wolves”. The end of the Cold War opened
a major new stage in the international system. A stage in which emerging
conflicts that were latent under the framework of bipolar conflict, these
include ethnic conflicts, religious conflicts, territorial conflicts, new nationalist expressions, extremisms of different types and the reemergence
of border disputes, that happen in both land and maritime borders.
•
There is no acceptable definition of armed conflict or war. During the
first and second world war and up to 1989, the world was undergoing
basically through interstate conflicts. The end of the cold war changed
the entire dynamics as all of the sudden we started seeing the rise of the
new phenomenon of intrastate conflict. Then on 9/11 attack in United
States transformed the whole level of conflict into next dimension what
we know as “terrorism”. Today the new geopolitics introduces a different
dimension of the interstate wars, with the participation of “private military enterprise”. In addition, other expression is the “hybrid war”, that
means traditional and asymmetric at the same time.
•
This paper attempts to summarize the various concepts of armed conflict
and seek to clarify and operationalize the context on which such definition of armed conflict/war emerged. This greater conceptual clarity will
enable us a better understanding of the factors that influence their emergence, an analysis of scenarios and consequences of each one of them.
Ideas for peace
Number 2 – June 2016
Ideas for peace
www.upeace.org/ideasforpeace
Jigsaw Puzzle:
Conceptual Clarity of Defining Conflict
Francisco Rojas-Aravena: Dr. Francisco Rojas-Aravena is Rector of United Nations mandated University for Peace (UPEACE). Prior to joining UPEACE, Dr.
Rojas was Secretary-General of the Latin American Faculty of Social Sciences –
FLACSO (2004-2012).
Manish Thapa: Dr. Manish Thapa is Resident Professor of International Peace
Studies at Department of Peace & Conflict Studies at United Nations mandated
University for Peace (UPEACE), Costa Rica. Dr. Thapa is Visiting Professor at Institute of International Relations at University of Warsaw, Poland.
The opinions presented in this academic paper, in addition to the analyses and interpretations herein contained,
constitute the exclusive responsibility of its authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the University
for Peace or the institutions it is affiliated with.
Las opiniones que se presentan en este trabajo, así como los análisis e interpretaciones que en él contienen, son
responsabilidad exclusiva de sus autores y no reflejan necesariamente los puntos de vista de UPAZ ni de las
instituciones a las cuales se encuentran vinculados.
UniversityforPeace
UPEACE
UPEACE01
university-for-peace
universityforpeace
UPEACE
Francisco Rojas-Aravena / Manish Thapa
Jigsaw Puzzle: Conceptual Clarity of Defining Conflict
We live in a troubled world. War and violence are expressed in different regions
of the world in diverse modalities and their consequences are thousands of deaths
and millions of refugees and displaced people. Wars and conflicts nowadays are
diverse in character: traditional, non-traditional, asymmetric, hybrid, etc. They
are expressed from nuclear tensions to terrorist acts of “lone wolves”. In the Latin American region, particularly in northern Latin America - Mexico and Central
America – more deaths from violence and malicious crimes are recorded than
during the war in Iraq. The end of the Cold War and the demise of the Soviet
Union and real socialism, opened a major new stage in the international system. A
stage in which emerging conflicts that were latent under the framework of bipolar
conflict, these include ethnic conflicts, religious conflicts, territorial conflicts, new
nationalist expressions, extremisms of different types and the reemergence of border disputes, that happen in both land and maritime borders.
Many of the basic concepts in understanding these conflicts are evidenced in the
existing lack of basic needs coverage and weak economic-social-cultural development and in different types of discrimination, from gender to people with disabilities. These shortcomings reflect a poor institutional structure and the absence of
national, regional and international pubic goods.
Mutations generated by globalization and interdependence, are transforming and
will transform the international system ever faster, generating greater uncertainty.
The destabilization of the “order” that established the competition between the superpowers during the Cold War is increased by the presence of new actors, mainly
non-state, and the difficulties of the multilateral system to shape, build and develop consensus on decisions essential in matters of peace, security, development and
respect for human rights. Also, the power relations among the various actors are
in a deep process of transformation, which together with global risks, such as the
threats produced in the planet by the climate change crisis, affect all actors beyond
their relative power. This is evidence that no actor has the resources to be able
to address these changes, the risks that are generated and the emergence of new
transnational threats. A joint action based on international cooperation is required.
The main difficulties in conflict analysis and future prospects is the ability to “anticipate” events and situations. The historical context portrays the impossibility to
predict, even in relatively recent times, the development of courses of action promoted by the various actors, let alone the ones referred to changes in the environment or arising from fortuitous events. Therefore, if there is no ability to predict, it
is necessary to prevent. This means that from the current data, we should be able
to project and formalize scenarios to design, build and implement policies focused
on prevention.
Any policy that leads to sustainable peace should be based in development, security and respect for human rights. These elements are interrelated and the result is
expressed by the association and concatenation that represents this relationship.
3
Jigsaw Puzzle: Conceptual Clarity of Defining Conflict
UPEACE
From this perspective, to visualize the situation lived today and seek solutions to
problems afflicting humanity leads to thinking of a global agenda, able to address
the deficits in the various areas in which they affect the chances of sustaining peace
in the long term, and the resilience capacity against the onslaught of new challenges, risks and threats. Thus, in September 2015, the United Nations, adopted
the resolution “Transforming Our World: The 2030 agenda for Sustainable Development” as a global program to eradicate extreme poverty and hunger, while it
seeking to protect the planet and focusing on people, their needs and dignity. This
enables prosperity to reach all of society and can build the global partnerships
necessary for such purposes; these are universal goals that will enable change in
our world.
Complying with the principles and values of the United Nations creates a new
agenda for peace, which in the context of the 2030 Agenda on the Sustainable
Development Goals, corresponds to number 16. This objective seeks to promote
peaceful and inclusive societies, facilitating access to justice for everyone, while
developing effective and inclusive institutions. If it is not possible to predict that,
as a result of hunger and poverty in the world, a grave crisis or open conflict will
break out, through the 2030 agenda, actions to prevent these situations can be developed while facing some of the root causes that unleash and accelerate conflicts
and spread violence. Respect for human rights and compliance with its provisions
is the best way to prevent serious disputes that disgorge into violence and that can
lead to open warfare of great intensity.
In order to prevent, it is necessary to generate and build knowledge, it is essential to build new conceptual maps. Maps inherited after the long cold war period
no longer allow an understanding of ongoing changes generated by globalization
and the trends it produces. The concept of power as a basic concept in international relations has mutated. Military power is challenged by the capabilities of
actors, poor in resources, in asymmetrical conflicts. Forms of soft power can generate deeper changes than a military escalation can produce in a certain period.
Interdependent processes show that the vast majority of situations are intermestic.
That is, phenomena in which international and domestic events are mutually influenced, in a context of open global risks, such as climate change, or diffuse, as the
scarcity of certain natural resources, in a context of wide range of actors. Currently, there is a serious lack of knowledge about new forms of action, perceptions and
interests of old and new players. There are many information sources, and at the
same time, a multidimensional interpretative connection inability. Therefore, new
paradigms must place prevention at the core to act timely against the inability to
predict events. Cooperation is essential in the current context.
This is why we need more clarity and a definition of conflicts. This greater conceptual clarity will enable a better understanding of the factors that influence their
emergence, an analysis of scenarios and consequences of each one of them.
The global security agenda must be viewed it in the context of what the United
Nations Security Council has established as the maintenance of peace. It is viewed
4
UPEACE
Francisco Rojas-Aravena / Manish Thapa
“as a goal and a process to build a common vision of a society, ensuring that the
needs of all segments of the population are taken into account, which encompasses
activities aimed at preventing the outbreak the outbreak, escalation, continuation
and recurrence of conflict, addressing root causes, assisting parties to conflict to
end hostilities, ensuring national reconciliation, and moving towards recovery, reconstruction and development, and emphasizing that sustaining peace is a shared
task and responsibility that needs to be fulfilled by the government and all other national stakeholders, and should flow through all three pillars of the United
Nations’ engagement at all stages of conflict, and in all its dimensions, and needs
sustained international attention and assistance. [...] Also, inclusivity is key to advancing national peacebuilding processes and objectives in order to ensure that
the needs of all segments of society are taken into account.”1
There is no acceptable definition of Armed Conflict or war. It is predominantly because conflicts that humanity is undergoing are dynamics and over the last decade
we see various trends in the nature of the armed conflict/war. During the first and
second world war and up to 1989, the world was undergoing basically through
interstate conflicts. The end of the cold war changed the entire dynamics as all of
the sudden we started seeing the rise of the new phenomenon of intrastate conflict.
Then on 9/11 attack in United States transformed the whole level of conflict into
next dimension what we know as “terrorism”.
The United Nations Security Council reaffirms, “terrorism poses a threat to international peace and security and that countering this threat requires collective
efforts on national, regional and international levels on the basis of respect for
international law and the Charter of the United Nations. [...] Development, security, and human rights are mutually reinforcing and are vital to an effective and
comprehensive approach to countering terrorism, and underlining that a particular goal of counter-terrorism strategies should be to ensure sustainable peace and
security.’2
Today the new geopolitics introduces a different dimension of the interstate wars,
with the participation of “private military enterprise”. In addition, other expression is the “hybrid war”, that means traditional and asymmetric at the same time.
Traditional Conflict: Interstate vis-à-vis Intrastate
There is no accepted definition of classical/traditional conflict. The traditional conflict can be divided roughly into two dimensions namely interstate conflict and
intrastate conflict. Interstate conflict is a conflict between two or more states (both
members of the international system), which use their respective national forces
in the conflict. There are only 3 interstate (type) conflicts in existence namely India - Pakistan border disputes; North and South Korea disputes and Ethiopia and
Eritrea disputes as only reminisces of cold war era conflicts. Uppsala Conflict Data
1
2
See Security Council Resolution 2282 on Review of United Nations Peacebuilding Architecture, U.N.
Doc. S/RES/2282 (27 April 2016).
See Security Council Resolution 2253 on Threats to international peace and security caused by terrorist acts, U.N. Doc. S/RES/2253 (17 December 2015).
5
Jigsaw Puzzle: Conceptual Clarity of Defining Conflict
UPEACE
Program records that the only interstate conflict, which was active in 2014, is the
conflict between India and Pakistan, which led to fewer than 50 fatalities.3
Intrastate conflicts are the most common form of traditional conflict today. It describes sustained political and military conflict/war that takes place between armed
groups representing, in one hand, the state, and one or more non-state groups, in
the other. Conflict of this sort regularly is confined within the borders of a single
state, but usually has significant international dimensions and holds the risk of
spilling over into bordering states (the current conflict in Syria would be described
as a Intrastate conflict). There are wide range causes of intrastate conflicts but most
of them have the following reasons such as demands for self-determination and
self-government (Self-government) or identity issues (Identity); opposition to the
political, economic, social or ideological system of a State (System) or the internal
or international policies of a government (Government), which in both cases produces a struggle to take or erode power; or control over the resources (Resources)
or the territory (Territory). The Naxalite (Maoists) movement in India waged by
Communists Revolutionaries in India is one example of ongoing intrastate conflict. Uppsala Conflict Data Program records ‘40-armed conflicts were active in
2014, which is the highest number of internal armed conflicts since 1999 and an
increase of 18% when compared to the 34 conflicts active in 2013.’4
Figure 1: Intrastate Armed conflict in 20145
3
4
5
6
Pettersson, Therése, and Peter Wallensteen. “Armed conflicts, 1946–2014.” Journal of Peace Research 52,
no. 4 (2015): 536-550.
Pettersson, Therése, and Peter Wallensteen. “Armed conflicts, 1946–2014.” Journal of Peace Research 52,
no. 4 (2015): 536-550.
Source: Uppsala Conflict Data Program (UCDP), www.ucdp.uu.se.
UPEACE
Francisco Rojas-Aravena / Manish Thapa
New War v/s Hybrid War
In effort to define this concept we revisit to Mary Kaldor’s book titled “New and
Old Wars: Organized Violence in a Global Era” which introduced the concept of
New War/Conflict in scholarly domain, which has fundamentally changed the
way, both scholars and policy-makers understand contemporary war and conflict.
In the context of globalization, this path-breaking book has shown that what we
think of as war - that is to say, ‘war between states in which the aim is to inflict
maximum violence’ - is becoming an anachronism. In its place is a new type of
organized violence or ‘new wars’, which could be described as a mixture of war,
organized crime and massive violations of human rights. The actors are global and
local, public and private. The wars are fought for particularistic political goals using tactics of terror and destabilization that are theoretically outlawed by the rules
of modern warfare. The conflict we see in Lebanon by Hezbollah and in Palestine
by Hamas are some example of New War/Conflict. The Central America’s Northern Triangle - El Salvador, Guatemala, and Honduras is a probable example of
this phenomenon, where we can observe the rise of criminality and weak capacity
of the law enforcement institutions, which elevates the levels of corruption, and
penetration of the state by criminal groups so that impunity for crime is extraordinarily high (95 percent or more), and disincentives to criminal activity are almost
non-existent and state is captured by these criminal gangs for smooth operations
of organized crime namely drugs and human trafficking.
Adding to New War conception of Mary Kaldor, Hybrid Conflict is the dynamics
we see in our society on a daily basis of informal social unrest and its consequences due to socio-economic and political disenfranchisement in the form of economic
migration (both domestic or international) or rise of petty criminality in the society
or very formal criminality in the form of organized crime dealing on transnational
smuggling of drugs, weapons, money, and humans or piracy.
The emerging literature on Hybrid Conflict6 states it as ‘an old ideas applied in a
new context’. As is the case for traditional conflicts, hybrid conflicts frequently
have multiple factors and reasons. Necessary conditions may include long-standing local grievances, perceptions of inequality (as opposed to absolute poverty),
decreased societal trust, weak national institutions, and disenfranchised demographic groups.
The example of Libya is illustrative: prior to the overthrow of Col. Qaddafi, the
unemployment rate for 18 - 25-year-old men was approximately 50%, creating a
large cadre of disillusioned young men with unmet expectations. In the wake of
other uprisings, long simmering grievances met with the reality of society offering
no peaceful outlet for the airing of deeply felt challenges such as inequality, expectations gap and failed trust in clearly weak institutions. Sometimes countries or
region can be overwhelmed with challenges to deal with victims of such Hybrid
Conflict and may spill over to their own territory such as recent Syrian Refugee
outpouring in Europe especially in Germany or Cuban Migrant crisis in Central
America of such spillover effect of such hybrid conflicts.
6
Glenn, Dr Russell W. “Thoughts on―Hybrid Conflict, Small Wars Journal, 2009.
7
Jigsaw Puzzle: Conceptual Clarity of Defining Conflict
UPEACE
Hybrid War: Organized Crime and Terrorism
On more formal category of Hybrid conflicts can also encapsulate organized crime
(both domestic and transnational) and terrorism.
Transnational Organized Crime
Transnational organized crime (TOC) poses a significant and growing threat to
national and international security, with dire implications for public safety, public
health, democratic institutions, and economic stability across the globe. Transnational organized crime is ‘estimated to generate $870 billion a year - more than six
times the amount of official development assistance and the close to 7 per cent of
the world’s exports of merchandise.’7
Definitions of transnational organized crime often differentiate between traditional crime organizations and more modern criminal networks. Traditional groups
have a hierarchical structure that operates continuously or for an extended period.
Newer networks, in contrast, are seen as having a more decentralized, often celllike structure. Some experts also distinguish groups by their relation to the state.
Many conventional organizations have interests that are aligned with countries;
they depend on the state for contracts and services.8 They may have repeatedly
laundered their assets through legitimate businesses. Modern networks, in contrast, are seen as less likely to profit from state contracts or launder large sums of
money. They often thrive on the absence of effective governance.
While transnational organized crime is a global threat, its effects are felt locally.
When organized crime takes root it can destabilize countries and entire regions,
thereby fueling armed conflicts. Organized crime groups can also work with local
criminals, leading to an increase in corruption, extortion, racketeering and violence, as well as a range of other more sophisticated crimes at the local level. Violent gangs can also turn inner cities into dangerous areas and put citizens’ lives
at risk.
Organized crime can involve top officials. For example, Vladimiro Montesinos,
head of Peru’s national intelligence and anti-narcotics efforts between 1990 and
2000, is now imprisoned, charged with running major international drug, weapons, and money laundering operations.9 In addition, some states, such as North
Korea, are accused of participating in ‘organized crime as a matter of state policy,’10 where as some states are very proactive on curbing and punishing such the
Comisión Internacional contra la Impunidad en Guatemala (CICIG) is create in
order to persecute officials and people involved in such illicit organized crime.
7
UNODC. “The Globalization of Crime: A Transnational Organized Crime Threat Assessment.” Documentation, New York (2010).
8 Louise Shelley, “The Unholy Trinity: Transnational Crime, Corruption, and Terrorism,” Brown Journal of World Affairs, Winter/Spring 2005.
9 Dow Jones Newswires, “Peru’s Ex-Spy Chief Convicted of Extortion,” March 2, 2005
10 Bureau for International Narcotics and Law Enforcement Affairs, International Narcotics Control
Strategy Report, March 2005.
8
UPEACE
Francisco Rojas-Aravena / Manish Thapa
Figure 2: Global Outlook of Transnational Organized Crime
Terrorism:
Terrorism are also part of Hybrid Conflict as our justification is that Terrorism is a
very elusive and politically laden concept used by states to label people, group of
people or organizations to defy their acts and deeds which are either politically or
religiously motivated.
So far there is no official definition of terrorism and it is one of the most elusive
and political laden term to define. Just to put into perspective, famous freedom
fighters like Mahatma Gandhi and Nelson Mandela was once referred by their
respective states as terrorists. So this gives you an idea why the term Terrorism is
so politically charged. Terrorism has been described variously as both a tactic and
strategy; a crime and a holy duty; a justified reaction to oppression and an inexcusable abomination. Obviously, a lot depends on whose point of view is being
represented.
Terrorism has often been an effective tactic for the weaker side in a conflict. As an
asymmetric form of conflict, it confers coercive power with many of the advantages of military force at a fraction of the cost. The United Nations borrows the
following un-official definition of terrorism in 1992; “An anxiety-inspiring method
of repeated violent action, employed by (semi) clandestine individual, group or
state actors, for idiosyncratic, criminal or political reasons, whereby - in contrast to
assassination - the direct targets of violence are not the main targets.”11
After September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks in United States, the global landscape of
terrorism changed forever as we witnessed a transformation of the landscape of
national security law and policy, both domestically and internationally. Soon after
11 Flemming, Peter A., Michael Stohl, and Alex P. Schmid. “The theoretical utility of typologies of terrorism: Lessons and opportunities.” The Politics of Terrorism. 3d ed. New York: Marcel Dekker (1988):
153-95.
9
Jigsaw Puzzle: Conceptual Clarity of Defining Conflict
UPEACE
the September 11 attacks, the United Nations Security Council took a bold, novel
step in mandating worldwide domestic lawmaking to combat terrorism,12 despite
the seemingly central problem that the United Nations has not adopted a comprehensive definition of terrorism.13 The lack of a comprehensive and universally
accepted definition of terrorism has been an ongoing obstacle to constructing a
unified global stance against terrorism and, on a more practical level, in concretizing the meaning, implementation, and effect of United Nations resolutions and
international treaties involving counterterrorism issues.
Without an official definition of terrorism to work with, the United Nations Security Council has established partial measures: either by enacting resolutions that
condemn acts of terrorism without defining the parameters of terrorism,14 or by
including general descriptions of acts that fall within the rubric of terrorist activity
without purporting to fully define terrorism. Security Council Resolution 1566,
passed in 2004, clearly falls into the latter category. It reaffirms its condemnation of
the terrorist activity of the Afghan Taliban, reminds Member States of their counterterrorism obligations under previous Security Council resolutions, notes the requirement to comply with international humanitarian law in combating terrorism,
and reminds MemberStates of the supranational counterterrorism committees and
structures that have been established pursuant to previous Security Council Resolutions. Then Resolution 1566 goes further, offering a partial explanation of a
terrorist act as:
“criminal acts, including against civilians, committed with the intent to
cause death or serious bodily injury, or taking of hostages, with the purpose
to provoke a state of terror in the general public or in a group of persons
or particular persons, intimidate a population or compel a government or
an international organization to do or to abstain from doing any act, which
constitute offences within the scope of and as defined in the international
conventions and protocols relating to terrorism . . . .”15
Definitions of organized crime and terrorism sometimes overlap. Both groups frequently operate in decentralized cell structures, tend to target civilians, and use
similar tactics such as kidnapping and drug dealing. Many experts distinguish the
groups by motive: criminals are driven by financial gain and terrorists by political and sometimes religious goals. But clearly discerning groups’ motives can be
challenging.
12 See S.C. Res. 1373, U.N. Doc. S/RES/1373 (Sept. 28, 2001) mandating that all U.N. member nations take
proactive steps to combat terrorism, including increasing criminalization and implementing harsher sentencing for terrorist acts, freezing funds of those financing terrorist acts, sharing intelligence
information with other member nations, and tightening border controls to prevent the migration of
terrorists.
13 See S.C. Res. 1566, U.N. Doc. S/RES/1566 (Oct. 8, 2004) attempting to more clearly set forth the parameters of terrorism in light of the lack of a comprehensive United Nations definition.
14 E.g., S.C. Res. 1368, supra note 27 (condemning the attacks of September 11, 2001, but not defining
terrorism); see also S.C. Res. 1267, U.N. Doc. S/Res/1267 (Oct. 15, 1999) (condemning the actions of
the Taliban and reaffirming the obligation of all Member States to take counterterrorism measures
without defining what constitutes terrorist activity).
15 See S.C. Res. 1566, U.N. Doc. S/RES/1566 (Oct. 8, 2004)
10
UPEACE
Francisco Rojas-Aravena / Manish Thapa
Terrorists are increasingly seen as supporting themselves through criminal activity.16 Funding for the March 2003 Madrid train attacks, for instance, came from
drug dealing.17 Some crime bosses also appear to dabble in terror. The Dubaibased Indian mobster Aftab Ansari, for example, is believed to have helped fund
the September 11 attacks with ransom money earned from kidnapping.18 Further,
definitions merge because a growing number of extremists may feel justified in
committing the criminal activities themselves, on the grounds that such acts square
with their ultimate “terrorist” aims.19
Then there are also “lone wolf” terrorists who pursue their acts of violence for
some ideological purpose with the support of the terrorist networks. They might
be psychopath or followers of some religious beliefs and ideology, but clearly the
reasons for their acts are always tied down to some societal, cultural, racial or religious discontent. These are also part of the hybrid conflicts as well.
Figure 3: Global Terrorism Outlook 2014.20
Solving the Jigsaw Puzzle: Holistic Overview of Conflict
Prior to World War I, the definition of war/conflict was generally based on an
armed contest, on an actual manifestation of the use of force between two or more
states. War was traditionally defined as a state of belligerency between sovereigns.
This definition has almost outdated to the reality of the present times. For example, as mentioned above there is only one case of interstate conflict which is active
16 David E. Kaplan, “Paying for Terror: How Jihadist Groups are Using Organized Crime Tactics — and
Its Profits — to Finance Attacks on Targets Around the Globe,” U.S. News and World Report, Dec 12,
2005.
17 Treasury Department Assistant Secretary Juan Zarata, Treasury Department press release, Feb 1,
2005.
18 Rollie Lal, “Terrorists and Organized Crime Join Forces,” International Herald Tribune, May 24, 2005.
19 “A Taliban-linked man who allegedly sought to poison U.S. streets with millions of dollars of heroin
in a deadly ‘American jihad’ has become the first person extradited from Afghanistan to face federal
charges.” The Associated Press, “U.S. Extradites Accused Drug Dealer from Afghanistan,” October
25, 2005.
20 Global Terrorism Index. “Measuring and understanding the impact of terrorism.” Institute for Economics and Peace. 2015.
11
Jigsaw Puzzle: Conceptual Clarity of Defining Conflict
UPEACE
and now we are facing numerous challenges which transcends the present day
reality of understanding ‘armed conflict’
Currently we are faced with multitude of challenges and obstacles and we see
many non-states actors using violence to address their socio-political and economic means. For instance terrorism and transnational organized crime are one of the
most serious challenges, which is posing one of the most dangerous threats to the
international peace and stability. The matter of the fact is that there has always
been much controversy even in the past over the relationship between violence,
peace and security, but one view of what constitutes an ‘armed conflict/war’—
with the elements of battle, political objectives and government participation is
always considered to be its core while defining it in both academic and policy circles even though the reality and circumstances on which the definition is derived
may change overtime.
An essential aspect in conflict analysis is to visualize how crisis situations can be
transformed into open armed conflicts affecting people directly and dramatically,
which has serious consequences on human security, state security and international security and stability. Building shared analysis as the basis for the definition of analysis variables is an essential aspect of the work of a university like
the University for Peace. In this regard, we reaffirm the statement made by the
United Nations Security Council when it avows that “consolidation of peace is an
inherently political process” aimed at preventing the outbreak, the intensification,
continuation and recurrence of conflicts and, in this sense, consolidation of peace
demands broad approaches both in programmes and mechanisms. Hence the importance of “a comprehensive approach to sustaining peace, particularly through
the prevention of conflict and addressing its root causes, strengthening the rule
of law at the international and national levels, and promoting sustained and sustainable economic growth, poverty eradication, social development, sustainable
development, national reconciliation and unity including through inclusive dialogue and mediation, access to justice and transitional justice, accountability, good
governance, democracy, accountable institutions, gender equality and respect for,
and protection of, human rights and fundamental freedoms. […] It is critical to
sustaining peace, and essential for improving respect for human rights, advancing
gender equality, empowering women and youth, strengthening the rule of law,
eradicating poverty, building institutions, and advancing economic development
in conflict-affected countries.”21
In short, prevention is an essential tool that enables the use of time towards transforming conflict, preventing its escalation and generating capacities to build a
culture of peace based on cooperation. This while placing humans at the center,
protecting the planet to reach a prosperity that resolves the root causes that trigger
many conflicts such as poverty, hunger and exclusion, and enabling universal respect for Human Rights and dignity of people. In this regard, the development of
new paradigms and concepts around conflict will allow us to reaffirm clearly, on
one hand the importance of knowledge development, and on the other, that if we
want peace we need to educate for peace.
21 See Security Council Resolution 2282 on Review of United Nations Peacebuilding Architecture, U.N.
Doc. S/RES/2282 (27 April 2016).
12