Evolution of theories of resolution of armed conflicts in the second half of the XX century

Abstract

We can distinguish two approaches to the periodization of peace and conflict theories. Both are related to the separation of “generations of theories” with their characteristic accents, conceptual apparatus, paradigms. Generations of theories differ both in their understanding of the external factors of peace formation and in their varying degrees of consideration of internal societal factors in conflict resolution. The first generation of theories uses the basic features of political realism in maintaining peace – the main actors in peacekeeping processes are states that contribute to the end of the conflict at the international level, interacting with other states through diplomacy. The second generation of theories of peace and conflict seeks to move away from the imperatives of the Westphalian international system and focuses on basic human needs and the structural causes of conflict. Thus, the second generation of theories has expanded both methodological approaches and levels of conflict resolution analysis, postulating positive peace as the desired goal of conflict management. In the 1980s, influential theories emerged that not only referred to the deep social determinants of conflict, explored negotiations and mediation, but also drew attention to the temporal dimension of conflict. The concepts of “intractable conflict” and “ripeness of conflict” refer to the next stage in the development of theories of conflict and peace, when, on the one hand, the presence of long-term multilevel conflicts reduces scientists’ optimism about their rapid transformation, and on the other hand can change the dynamics of the conflict towards peaceful processes. The emergence of these theories was the result of paradigm shifts in practical peacekeeping - improving methods of conflict resolution, the transition from a policy of negative peace to a policy of conflict transformation provided a broader interpretation and reinterpretation of social relations within conflict societies. State-centric models of peace, which could be imposed in a rather unilateral way by a third party, were difficult for the international side to extend to the local traditional specifics of social systems and did not ensure the onset of lasting peace.