Conflict Resolution in a Changing World

There are many international conflicts within the world. Such conflicts usually exist between nations, states or peoples. International conflicts can cause harmful consequences, like war, or political and economic instability. To stop those consequences and resolve a conflict peacefully, many peace movements emerge and a mess of international organizations are established. To settle a conflict peacefully, fighters can attempt to negotiate and reach an agreement which can be beneficial for all of them. Nevertheless, in some cases, conflicts can’t be resolved by state negotiations and that they need external intervention from some world organization, like the United Nations, International NGOs or the Peace Corps. These sorts of interventions are called mediation. Mediation may be a quite conflict-management method which helps states when their negotiations reach a deadlock. Mediators can employ military, political or economic interventions in ongoing or frozen conflicts.


Conflict resolution is an approach employed by courts to assist remedy various family law issues. This is often seen as an alternate approach that aims to avoid confrontation by offering methods for the parties to figure out their differences during a cooperative manner. Conflict resolution is additionally called reconciliation, which may be a method or process that leads to a peaceful ending to a conflict.

Many times, families have conflicts that need legal resolution and that they want to unravel this conflict without browsing the court. This will be important if there are children involved.

Examples of conflict resolution during a law setting can include:

  • Alternative dispute resolution (ADR): This usually involves the assistance of a neutral third-party mediator who can moderate discussions between the conflicting parties
  • Family Intervention: this is often where the court intercedes to supply solutions for pressing legal issues. In some cases, the court may act to supply protection for persons handling physical abuse, substance abuse, neglect, and other issues
  • Collaborative divorce: this is often where the parties settle the majority of their divorce issues outside of court (such as property distribution, custody, etc.). The court simply finalizes whatever agreement the parties come up with.

Conflict resolution basically revolves round the idea of the parties arising with viable solutions for themselves, instead of having the court dictate what the result should be. Some methods, like collaborative divorce, should end in a legal ruling from the court, but there’s typically less involvement with the judge.

Resolution of Conflict

First of all, conflict resolution could also be suggested in situations where the parties are ready to communicate with one another during a cooperative and non-confrontational manner. If the parties cannot work peaceably with one another, or if there’s a danger of physical harm, courts won’t suggest conflict resolution and should instead issue their own ruling.

If conflict resolution may be a possibility, it are often wont to address matters such as:

  • Child custody and visitation
  • Spousal support and support payment
  • Distribution of property (e.g. after a divorce)
  • Want to resolve the difficulty without getting to court
  • Want to use to for a faster result
  • Want to use it for a less expensive result
  • Various other issues which will be mutually determined

Increasing interdependence and communication between societies, the continuing level of inter-state tensions, unsuccessful attempts by nations to resolve conflicts, rising significance of unconventional security issues like environment degradation, have all exacerbated the importance of the conflict resolution model in international politics. the foremost important cause and issue in international conflict is that the issue of boundary control. the present debates on boundary management in international politics emphasize the role of modem interstate boundaries as effective tools that states can use to manage their sovereign territorial authority. The solutions posited by various scholars are varied but all are meant to optimize security and efficiency at state borders via top-down policies. The particular success of a border in facilitating economic exchange preventing the passage of extremists, or restraining escalation may be a by-product of those deliberate policies from above.

Conflict resolution, which seeks to affect non-negotiable issues, may be a recent notion. It’s to be distinguished from settlement, which is feasible only there are negotiable issues. Indeed, the terms ‘disputes’ and ‘conflicts’ are used interchangeably, as are settlement and resolution[i]. Within the emerging literature on conflict ‘resolution’ these terms have distinctive meanings. Disputes involve negotiable interests, while conflicts are concerned with issues that aren’t negotiable, issues that relate to ontological human needs that can’t be compromised. Accordingly, settlement refers to negotiated or arbitrated outcomes of disputes, while ‘resolution’ refers to outcomes of a conflict situation that has got to satisfy the inherent needs of all. Hence we’ve dispute settlement and conflict resolution. The excellence between disputes and conflicts provides us with two conceptual frames: on the one hand, situations that are negotiable, and, on the opposite, those during which there are often no compromise. These distinctive conceptions imply two very different means of treatment. The primary are subject to judicial and arbitrated processes, but the second requires analytical problem-solving.

Characteristics of Conflict

The nature of conflict is often understood regarding how the issues are defined and framed. Generally, conflicts between opposing parties are differences of opinion and interest. Each conflict has its peculiarities, their qualities being different. Some conflicts are classified within the character basis as symmetric and asymmetric. The conflict of interest between relatively similar parties is named symmetric conflict. Meaning conflict between two individuals, two employees and two similar organisations, etc. Conflicts can also arise between different parties like a majority and a minority, a longtime employer and his employees, a Government and group of rebels, a master and his servants, etc. within the asymmetric conflict, the structure has the likelihood to top-level party always win; rock bottom level party always loses.

Another important character within the analysis of conflict is realistic and non-realistic conflicts. There’s some distinction between realistic and non-realistic conflict. The realistic conflict features a particular outcome, but the non-realistic conflict has no specific outcome. The source of realistic conflicts exists in every social organization as long as people raise conflicting claims to power, positions and economic resources also as argue about different values. The realistic conflict could also be resolved quickly, but it’s some specific intentions. The non-realistic conflicts provide tensions and hostilities. It’s created only in unsatisfactory situations.

The Factors liable for Conflict

 During a majority of conflict situations, the absence of communication is that the main reason for conflict. Lack of frank exchange between the parties may cause tensions. Grievances seem to be accumulating when there’s no forum on which the conflicting groups could assemble for an open exchange. The aggrieved party might be uncompromising because the party liable for conflict or oppression. Open discussions, frank exchange, a capability to concentrate with an open and sympathetic disposition, all are absent in many conflict situations. The imbalance of power among the parties can cause encroachment and aggression towards the weaker. When the weaker party resists the aggression using force, severe conflict arises[ii].

A necessary ingredient of a culture of communication is consultation and participation within the decision-making process of a specific group or community. the choice received within the mind of 1 or a couple of individuals is imposed upon the bulk without their involvement within the deliberation that precedes, the choices taken is presented as enslaving impositions upon the bulk. This sort of unilateral deciding without taking into consideration the emotions of the opposite side naturally triggers a conflict. Deliberations and consultation which are avoided deliberately cause constant conflicts.

Total negation or rejection of needs, the just demands and rights of the affected party are liable for a conflict situation. The denial of the just rights of the opposite party amounts to antagonism and rivalry. The move from one side to object the legitimate rights and wishes of another side is enough to supply a conflict. The denial of justice to the affected party and protest against the act are often shown as an example.

Basic to most conflicts may be a value system which constitutes and supports a no egalitarian social organization. Inequality within the society thrives when the individual within the society regards himself as superior to all or any others. The conflicts and violence happened in recent times between the low castes, and therefore the upper caste is an example. Suppression of their voice and demands for equality, rejection of their legitimate rights, are thwarted, and as a result, conflict arises spontaneously. Exploitation of party and therefore the state of being exploited may be a situation where conflict can originate anytime. Exploitation is visible in most the areas of life. The owner exploiting the peasant, the capitalist exploiting the worker by unjust wage systems-all constitute to violent conflicts.

Opposing ideologies and theories which different groups propagate would clash at one particular point. Extreme viewpoints, aggressive models for the propagation of ideologies and therefore the spread of counter theories often end in confrontations. Violence invariably erupts in such situations. The political parties and therefore the communal groups which attempt to dominate the opposite without tolerance cause violent mass conflicts. These conflicts are tough to resolve as there’s little scope in changing the ideologies of the political parties.

The form of government

 The interpersonal conflicts are often witnessed even within the local Panchayat election within the villages of India. The candidates’ affiliation with the party, his/her caste and community, his/her personal influence, wealth and his/her family background play a big role because the deciding think about the grass root level election. Many conflicts emerge when the local body elections are conducted within the villages. After the groups are formed on a Federation level, the Self-help Groups either nominate their candidates for the competition or plan to support a candidate who is representing the views of the group. There are many Panchayats in Tamil Nadu where the ladies group members are elected within the local body elections. In another Panchayats, the relations of the groups are elected.

Once the political power has inherited the hands of those groups, they begin interacting with the local politicians. They slowly learn to demand their rights. The govt selected the contractors to construct the local roads, school buildings and clean the common natural resources. Sometimes the group members found their performance wasn’t good. There are many instances; the local body elected member played the role of a mediator to resolve the conflicts emerged between the ladies Selfhelp Groups and to the contractors. These groups believe that in most of the occasions, these contractors’ primary consideration has been their whims and fancies and use these projects for his or her personal gain. They keep down the event of the community in their least priority. During this juncture, the ladies Self-help Groups intervene into these development projects and work for the event of the community through their consensus protest.

The system

The system is another place where conflicts are often expressed and resolved through the judiciary. Many divorces, inheritance issues, work conflicts, consumer battles, feuds among neighbours and native controversies are settled within the courts. It’s believed that the court system settles disputes during a neutral and consistent manner. The local department may be a powerful system which functions as a tripartite machinery in several occasions within the villages. Police headquarters settled many cases of conflicts. It helped the parties to save lots of their money and time because the court is usually crowded, slow and expensive. There are a couple of conflict cases led by the ladies Self-help Groups, which are taken for this study, are settled within the police headquarters itself. Police personnel dealt many cases associated with financial manipulation within the group members.

Formal/Modern Conflict Resolution

Formal conflict resolution is embedded in Western values and custom Europeans and Americans. Formal signifies the modernity which is especially the legacy of colonialism. it’s guided by codified laws and constitution. Trained professionals, lawyers, highly sophisticated and hierarchal institutions dispensed the justice. Formal conflict resolution is universal altogether technicalities aside from few codified laws. The judgement is predicated on the punitive justice of the lose-win situation supported the individual rights. The formal system adopts the rational approach, and hence emotion isn’t addressed. Furthermore, the formal system is predicated on individual interests and responsibilities. Participation isn’t mandatory, and therefore the goal is punishment instead of the rebuilding of society. Professional training and neutrality also are considered the sources of legitimacy and consequently; power is that the fundamental aspect of conflict resolution in modern systems.

Formal justice system or formal conflict resolution system refers to processes of addressing conflict created and travel by States. These may include systems like the police, the court, and therefore the legal code. Within the broader formal justice category, western/modern conflict resolution systems are those formal systems designed by and typically related to the West. These don’t include Western informal conflict resolution introduced through religions, community models and economic practices. 101 Mediation, adjudication and arbitration are mainly done by an outsider whereas in informal system third party mediator is on the brink of victim offender. The method of arbitration replicates the litigation process by promoting an adversarial culture. Decision making is rigid and inflexible, and therefore the process has an individualized focus.

Evolution of recent Conflict Resolution

 When the economic revolution broke call at Western Europe, they began to discover other new lands and commenced colonizing them. Through the method of colonialism, they transplanted their cultural values into the non-European and native societies, because indigenous processes, culture, systems were so diverse that it became inconvenient for them to know or to run their administration smoothly. Slowly and steadily, they started imposing western values and traditions upon native folks that included conflict resolution mechanisms which led to the loss of indigenous practices or made them irrelevant. The western values carry liberal ideologies, and after the colonialism, people of post-colonial era inherit an equivalent administrative, form of government of their master. Therefore, the normal practices get further marginalised.

Traditional Conflict Resolution in India

The Indian villages viewed the Conflict as a mutual concern. Conflict resolution followed conflict patterns as embedded within the norms and customs of society. Resolution processes, therefore, are culturally prescribed. Emphasis is placed on reconciling the 101 protagonists with one another, instead of on establishing rights and wrong, winner or loser. Thus punishment isn’t aimed toward retaliation but at restoring equilibrium, usually through the mechanisms of restitution, apology and reconciliation. There’s a stress on justice and fairness, forgiveness, tolerance and coexistence. The approach thus emphasizes healing of emotional wounds created by conflict and restoration of social relationships. The conflict resolution process within the traditional setting is seen as a reestablishment of relationships between people where elders, customs and values play critical roles in promoting and containing social cohesion, peace and order in societies. Traditional conflict resolution approach in India operates in various ways, both formally and informally.

The Panchayats resolve disputes during its formal sitting within the centre of the village. Both the conflicting parties would be brought before the Panchayat, and that they would tend opportunities to elucidate their part. This process would be wiped out front of the overall public community of village. The members of Panchayat discuss the matter of dispute and analyse the facts. Then the top of the Panchayat announces the choice which the parties should obey. This type of conflict resolution is extremely common within the rural India where both conflicting parties are known to every other, and that they got to maintain their relationship even after the settlement of the conflict.

There are many intra groups, intergroup and therefore the conflicts between the groups and therefore the community are settled during this form, make the govt to not intervene. due to the groups’ intervention within the main scandals like digging sands within the river bed, tender allotment of physical infrastructure contracts to the ‘favourable’ persons forced to the consultation of groups before launching many projects. Even the govt has made a rule that the Gram Sabha (open constitutional forum to debate all welfare-oriented projects at the village level) should discuss all development projects. The groups’ participation is mandatory in those meetings. It became a rule as many groups started protesting against the environmental degradation caused by many projects in their villages. This consultation with the groups features a conflict prevention and determination potentiality which is sought by the external funding agencies like International Bank for Reconstruction and Development[iii] etc. too.

Conflict Resolution Process

Non-judicial Conflict Resolution

The Women Self-help Groups support both Bipartite and tripartite mechanisms to resolve conflicts supported the character, degree, type, the magnitude of the conflicts and therefore the availability of experts within the group and therefore the willingness of the neutral person. Dialogue among the group members, peer mediation by their self-help group, cluster and Federation members, facilitation by the non-government organisations, mediation by the Panchayat president, arbitration by police personnel and adjudication by the court are other resolving mechanisms among the ladies Self-help Groups in villages. The various non-judicial processes to conflict resolution are discussed here. Women groups have adopted both bipartite and tripartite mechanisms. Mostly they take negotiation as their bipartite while handling intergroup conflicts. They preferred the tripartite or third party intervention for his or her conflict with the community.


Negotiation is an efficient method of bipartite conflict resolution. When there’s a conflict between two or more parties in line with their interests, needs, values, identities goals and rights, negotiation is employed as a communicative process. Since the groups are frequently interacting with themselves and facing the opponents in their day to day life, acquaintance between the 2 parties is inevitable. Their relationship will lead them to resolve their conflict between them.

Conflict Resolution Process

The essential qualities of negotiations are the existence of two parties who share a crucial objective but have some significant differences. The aim of the negotiating conference is to compromise the differences. The result of the negotiating conference could also be a compromise satisfactory to either side or a standoff with an agreement to undertake again at a later time. “Negotiation may be a joint decision-making or conflict-resolution process that involves two distinct parties instead of three who have conflict or issues over one or more issues”. Negotiation may be a voluntary, dynamic and evolving relationship where the parties involved have a robust incentive to co-operate, but also a robust desire to push for his or her interests. Negotiation resolved less complex disputes and conflicts. Over the last century, there has been tremendous growth within the theory and practice of negotiation. Distributive negotiation and integrative are two key approaches during this field.

Distributive Negotiation

Distributive negotiation is additionally called claiming value, zero-sum, or win-lost bargaining may be a competitive negotiation strategy that’s wont to decide the way to distribute a hard and fast resource, like money. In distributive negotiation, both the parties attempt to claim the utmost amount useful for themselves. Hence it’s quite natural during a distributive negotiation, one negotiating party will inevitably lose something, and therefore the other will gain as a result. Distributive negotiation is important because some disputes can’t be solved in the other way as they’re inherently zero-sum. If the stakes are high, such conflicts are often very immune to resolution. Distributive negotiation could also be very useful in cases where the “negotiator wants to maximise the worth obtained during a single deal and when the connection with the opposite party isn’t important.

 Both the parties should remember of their own also because the other party’s strategies and tactics to make sure that their goal is met. Distributive negotiation tends to be competitive interactions for several reasons. They’re characterised by a win/lose outcome. Also, the interests of the parties tend to be opposed. It’s common for distributive negotiation to be utilized in situations where the people involved haven’t had a relationship and aren’t likely to possess one again shortly. Without the presence of a brief or long-term relationship, there’s less concern about perceptions or reputation. This sort of negotiation isn’t common among Women Self-help Group members as they realise alright that they have to interact with the opposite party even after resolving the conflict. Both the parties live during a homogeneous group of an equivalent or nearby village which makes them aware of their post-conflict resolving interaction that seems to be inevitable in their closed circle.

Integrative Negotiation

Mary Parker Follett perceived conflict as a traditional occurrence of social life. Integrative negotiation is otherwise called “interest-based bargaining,” “win-win bargaining”. It’s a negotiation strategy during which parties collaborate to seek out a “win-win” solution to their dispute. This strategy focuses on developing interdependent agreements supported the interests of the disputants. Interests include the requirements, desires, concerns and fears important to every side. They’re the underlying reasons why people get entangled during a conflict. Integrative bargaining is important because it always produces more satisfactory outcomes for the parties involved. Creative, integrative solutions can potentially give everyone all of what they need. Integrative solutions are more gratifying for all involved within the negotiation because the true needs and concerns of each side are going to be met to a point. it’s a collaborative process, and thus the parties find yourself helping one another. It prevents ongoing ill-will after the negotiation concludes Soft, Hard and Principled Negotiation takes places a day because it may be a fact of life. Negotiation is an important means of getting what one conflicting party wants from the opposite side. Almost everyone wants to participate in decisions that affect them; many of us wouldn’t be satisfied with the choice taken by the opposite party. The negotiation helps people to handle their differences.

Soft Negotiation

The soft negotiator wants to avoid personal conflicts then makes concessions readily to succeed in an agreement. Since the amicable solution is that the clear of sentimental negotiation, it finishes up exploitation and bitter feeling. This negotiation is just too on the brink of competition thus a mild sort of negotiation is usually preferred. Since soft negotiators considered all the participants including the opponent party as their friends and prepared to form concessions to cultivate the connection, they avoid confrontation, never separate the people from the matter and are always crazy both the matter and therefore the people. They need to succeed in agreements. Hence, they avoid contests of wills, easily trusting others, able to change their opinion and accept one-sided losses to return that agreement.

Hard Negotiation

In hard negotiation, the party uses contentious strategies to influence, enforce their position and apply pressure to barter. This group sees the opposite group as adversaries. This party’s ultimate goal is that the victory. The group which follows hard negotiation doesn’t separate the people from the matter, but it’s hard to both the people and therefore the problem. They are doing not trust the opposite party and always demand concessions as a condition of the connection. They look for the only answer and demand the opposite party agree thereon. If the party insists on hard negotiation, makes threats to the soft negotiating party which yields to avoid confrontation and insists on the agreement, then the negotiation is biased and supporting the hard negotiating party. The ultimate agreement is going to be reached, but it’s going to not be a wise one. It’ll be favourable to the hard positional party than to the soft one. Hence an alternate negotiation[iv] that’s a way of negotiation explicitly designed to supply wise outcomes efficiently and amicably has been developed. This approach is named principled negotiation or negotiation on the merits.

Principled Negotiation

The party following principled negotiation will seek integrative solutions by that specialize in the matter instead of the intentions, motives and wishes of the party involved. The tactic of principled negotiation is tough on the merits, crazy the people. It employs no tricks and no posturing. This negotiation developed four propositions. Separate the people from the matter specialize in interest, not positions, invent options for mutual gain and demand on using objective criteria are these four propositions. This approach permits the parties to succeed in a gradual consensus on a joint decision efficiently. Separating the people from the matter allows the parties to deal directly and empathetically with one another as a person’s being, thus making possible an amicable agreement.


The conflict resolution approaches discussed here are applied by the ladies Selfhelp Group members supported the magnitude of the conflict, availability of the experts, the notice and therefore the interest level of both the parties, etc. Dialogue, facilitation, mediation and negotiation are the approaches commonly followed by them. Negotiation is employed when there’s a conflict between two members of an equivalent group, whereas intergroup and community conflicts adopted mediation. However, the groups don’t prefer an unknown third party to intervene in their conflict as they firmly believe their sovereignty. Arbitration is never used that too for financial related conflicts only, whereas adjudication, authoritative allocations are seldom preferred by the ladies Self-help Group members.


What is conflict resolution?

When Is Conflict Resolution Used?

What are the characteristics of conflict?

Which factors are responsible for conflict?

How conflict resolution attempts towards process?





Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *