Towards Complementarity in Conflict Management: Resolution and Settlement in Northern Ireland

Abstract

This article argues the case for a model of conflict management based on a complementary view of two approaches to conflict, resolution and settlement, which have traditionally been presented in the literature as opposed. It employs empirical evidence of complementarity in practice to highlight the failure of this dichotomized theoretical debate. It endorses a theoretical model based on complementarity which both unblocks the paralysis caused by such dichotomization and energizes the prescriptive potential of both approaches. The article first describes and defines the two schools of thought and their respective prescriptions for conflict management, and then considers the potential for complementarity between the two at the theoretical level. Fisher & Keashly's contingency model of intervention (1991) is critiqued, and two descriptive weaknesses are identified: an overdependence on a sequential view of conflict, and an assumption of intra-party cohesion. Evidence for complementarity in practical conflict management strategies in the Northern Ireland conflict is then reviewed. Finally, an expansion of the contingency model based on such empirical study is discussed, in particular a means of building a model which is more flexible and context-responsive through the use of embedded criteria at the prescriptive stage.