THE EMERGENCE OF 'CONFLICT ANALYSIS' AS A FIELD OF STUDY IS A DE FACTO

CRITICISM OF CONVENTIONAL THINKING IN INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS WITH

REGARD TO THE NATURE AND FUNCTION OF CONFLICT. DISCUSS.

The behavioural revolution of the 1960s was a catalyst for the creation of new areas of study within the
discipline of international relations. Conflict analysis or peace research as it is known set out with the
intention of identifying the causes of international conflict so that theories could be developed with the
objective of either limiting large-scale conflict as observers such as Deutsch proposed or to eliminate it
entirely. However this field of study started from the assumption that war may not be the normal state of
human affairs for rational men, and this very assumption leads to questions which were to challenge the
validity of the traditional wisdom of international relations, that of state-centric realism, about which one
observer notes;

"The conflict seems to be to a large extent artificial: it is part of a belief-system, a world view that is never
debated or scrupulously analysed and it resembles most of all a religious dogma. Unless the agenda is
changed, nothing will change." 1

The study of conflict analysis has, it could be suggested provided a critique of realism across its breadth in
terms of operating assumptions, and depth in terms of questioning the underlying premises which govern
the theory. In this paper it is my intention to firstly examine the challenges made of the breadth of
conventional wisdom, before analysing the contributions made to understand the underlying assumptions in
an alternative framework, before presenting my conclusions as to the impact of this field on international
relations today. The traditional wisdom about the nature and function of conflict has its own governing
assumptions which are necessary to understand before looking at the challenges made of them. Firstly the
international system post-Westphalia is understood as an anarchic system which has no over-arching
authority capable of regulating the excesses of individual actors. Secondly the sovereign state is regarded
as being the pre-eminent actor in this system, acting in an autonomous manner, thus justifying claims of the
international "self-help" system where states are free to act in their own interest, confined only by the
nature of other sovereign members.

Further these autonomous, sovereign states are supreme within their territory, and over their
peoples, immune to outside pressures. Thirdly the traditional analysis suggests that these states are power
maximising. Whatever the basis of power, the state will seek in a rational manner to increase this power
whenever possible.

Having considered these three assumptions, what then is the nature and function of conflict in this
paradigm ? It could be suggested that this world-view demands that inter-state conflict be recognised as
supreme and to a large extent that conflict is unavoidable due to the anarchic self-help nature of the
international environment. The function of conflict could be seen as attempts to conquer other states, or
prevent a conflict of national interest from being resolved against their interests in order to increase the
power of the aggressor state vis a vie the others. Other states being equally sovereign and autonomous may
decide to ally to deter the revisionist state, or to reverse his aggression, either alone or in concert with other
like minded actors.

This describes a central plank in realist thought, that of balance-of-power politics which dominate
a power preoccupied paradigm. This system was best illustrated firstly during the Napoleonic wars of the
end of the Eighteenth and beginning of the Nineteenth century, and more recently during the cold war of
the mid to late Twentieth century, where violent systemic conflict was prevented through a nuclear stand-
off between the superpowers, a "balance-of-terror" which would, had it failed led to the end of the
international system itself.

Conflict analysis has sought to provide an agenda through which research can be started to search
for the answers to the nature of international conflict through a challenge of traditional thinking. Today it is
widely acknowledged that states, although important are no longer the only actors in the system. Since
1945 a profusion of international organisations has occurred, creating unofficial forums for inter-state
discussion and co-operation. Trans-national actors such as MNC's have arose, and some such as General
Motors have a turnover greater than the GNP of some of the world's poorest states, leading to questions of
the economic impact which these actors can have on states today. In short these examples attempt to dispel
the purist notion of states as the first and final level of analysis.

The next assumption to be evaluated is that of the unitary nature of the state and its
impermeability. During the Twentieth century there has been a drastic rise in the level of intra-state i.e..
internal conflict. Secessionist movements such as the Basque separatists in Spain, the Tamils in Sri Lanka,
and the various parties in the former Yugoslavia are all indicative of new patterns of conflict which
challenge the established wisdom. Further the idea that the state is covered by a protective hard-shell,
impervious to external forces has come under increasing pressure from new thinkers. For example in the
former Soviet Bloc people could listen to "subversive" transmissions from the BBC world service and
Radio Free Europe stations in western Europe, presenting information in a manner different to that of the
state, influencing thinking and ultimately undermining the integrity of the state to a lesser extent. In the
advanced, interdependent states, the hard-shell analogy is far weaker. The emergence of the global village
with rapid, mass transportation has come of age. Examination of near instantaneous communication and
global advertising have led to ideas, styles and cultural icons being disseminated to a global audience as
exemplified by a footwear advertisement captioned "what is life like on planet Reebok ?"

These traditional assumptions cumulated in a fixation with balance-of-power politics. The

integrity of this practise however has been challenged. Scholars of strategic studies have since the second
world war been preoccupied with the nuclear balance-of-power concentrating nearly exclusively on
deterrence theories whilst ignoring questions about the nature of the practise itself. Peace researchers
sought to generate theories that would enable states to transcend this paranoia induced self-fulfilling
prophecy, which has in this century somewhat ironically generated greater insecurity that at any time.
Integration theorists saw the escape from this treadmill through co-operative relationships which involved
increasing the number of economic, social and political transactions between states, making conflict
increasingly disruptive to the point where physical conflict has no utility, as best exemplified in the
ongoing processes within the European Union which had its genesis as a community aiming to control
strategic resources, and thus physical violence in Western Europe. Having examined the criticisms of the
conventional wisdom which were emerging at the time of the behavioural revolution I wish to turn now to
the theoretical contributions of conflict analysis and the alternative wisdom they have attempted to
illuminate.

Theories of structural conflict as proposed by Galtung and others are an alternative to the
traditional views on conflict. Rather than perceiving conflict as being violent in terms of intensive military
operations structural theorists attempted to show how insecurity can be generated through structural acts
such as the denial of participation in the global economy. For example, by being excluded from the global
economy, the northern states are inflicting structural violence on under-developed southern states in terms
of causing poverty. Another example of structural violence is that of the slave-master relationship noted by
John Burton - although the master may be kind to the slave, by being involved in the relationship he is still
causing structural violence to the slave.

The end of the cold war has led academics in the field of strategic studies to rethink their agenda,
as the threat of nuclear annihilation has diminished, an article on the future of strategic studies noting that
development assistance should be seen as part of security, and that "a deeper appreciation of the power of
economic inducements" is required 2 It could be suggested that structural conflict theorists saw its
resolution in interdependence, and integration of the world community in increasingly complex
relationships, but generally applicable theories of this are hard to formulate due to the EU being at present
the only case study.

The second key strand in the challenge presented by conflict analysis has been to examine, adapt
and propose theories based on the field of sociology. The concept of security as a forum composed of the
state against other like states has been to concentrate exclusively on the macro level-of-analysis to the
exclusion of the individual, which it could be argued these states are little more than an aggregation of.
Maslow's hierarchy of needs visualised a pyramid of five stages of needs, ranging from psychological
maintenance i.e. keeping sane through to self-actualisation. Burton in his study Deviance, Terrorism and
War (1979) discusses nine distinct human needs, eight based on Sites earlier work including stimulation,
recognition, security and distributive justice.

The denial of the needs can be seen as the cause of individual disenchantment with their place in
society, an in small groups this can be illustrated as manifesting itself as the causes behind groups such as
the PKK in Turkey, the IRA in Northern Ireland, and the Volksfront in Southern Africa, which can be
categorised under Burton's ninth human need, quote; "Role defence: The individual has a need to secure a
role, and to preserve a role by which he or she acquires and maintains recognition, security and
stimulation." 3

This concentration on Human needs and values undermines the basis of state-centric realism,
criticising the nature of the units of analysis and the level at which this theory is generated. Some scholars
have taken these theories further, particularly in respect to integration theorists, questioning whether
governments and states are the best level of organising human society in the contemporary international
system 4

In summary, the field of conflict analysis has provided an important critique of international
relations, requiring the re-evaluation of several assumptions surrounding the conventional wisdom. The
state-centric realist model of international politics had been up until the 1960s been in total dominance of
the discipline with little or no challenge to its integrity.

The scholars in the field have challenged the nature and function of conflict in the international
system, turning away from the traditional high-politics view of conflict between states and alliances, to a
more radical view of structures of conflict in which military campaigns are only a facet in a complex web
of conflict. On a philosophical level, the conventional wisdom concentrated upon the darker side of human
nature, and his lust for power, but the revisionist thinkers turned this on its head. After all is not the lust for
power a self-perpetuating cycle in a self-help system ? And if the realist model of politics is made by man,
cannot alternative structures of international politics be also made by man, in which more positive aspects
of human nature be emphasised, by focusing upon fulfilling some of humanity's basic needs for which so
many of the world's peoples are left wanting ?

In conclusion, Conflict Analysis emerged at a crucial time in the development of the international
relations discipline. Its arrival enabled scholars to attempt to provide theories which could transcend the
academic deadlock induced by the BI-polar situation during the cold war. Its agenda has provided a
challenge to traditional explanations of the nature and function of conflict, utilising a broader range of
theories from fields such as sociology, which were unavailable to the traditional thinkers, who were
constrained by the very simplicity of a model of international politics which has begun to fail in its task of
explaining the highly complex nature of the modern world system because of its methodological choices
concerning units and levels of analysis. The contemporary agenda of international relations is dominated
by issues of Nationalism, ethnocentricity and self-determination in the states of the former Soviet Union
and in Eastern Europe, whilst a multitude of civil disorder problems affect states world-wide. It could be
suggested that the research conducted under the auspices of conflict analysis may in time be more fruitful
to the understanding of these phenomena than the conventional paradigm which is under sufficient stress to
lead to its breakdown in the next decade.

FOOTNOTES
(1) Tromp H "Interdependence, security and peace research" in Rosenau J N, Interdependence and conflict
in world politics (Avebury 1986).
(2) Chipman J "The Future of Strategic Studies: Beyond even Grand Strategy" in Survival Spring 1992
(IISS) p. 127.
(3) Scimecca J A "Self-Reflexivity and Freedom: Towards a Prescriptive Theory of Conflict Resolution" in
Burton J (ed.), Conflict: Human Needs Theory (Macmillan 1990) p. 206.
(4) Potapchuk W R "Processes of Governance: Can Governments Truly Respond to Human Needs ?" in
Burton J (ed.), Conflict: Human Needs Theory (Macmillan 1990) Ch. 13.

BIBLIOGRAPHY
Booth K, New Thinking about Strategy and International Security (Harper Collins 1991) Ch. 2.
Burton J (ed.), Conflict: Readings in Management and Resolution (Macmillan 1990) Ch. 3.
Burton J (ed.), Conflict: Human Needs Theory (Macmillan 1990) Ch. 5,9,15.
Rosenau J N, Interdependence and Conflict in World Politics (Avebury 1989) Ch. 1.
Taylor T, Approaches and Theory in International Relations (Macmillan 1978) Ch. 11,12.
Survival Spring 1992.