Masaryk university

3.2Categorization of the Concept

Conflict is part of human history, and, unfortunately, will probably never disappear entirely from human interaction. The concept of conflict has been used to identify a variety of social interactions. The most destructive types of conflict involve coercion and armed confrontation among parties, leading to casualties among human lives. Scientific efforts to understand the multiple causes of conflict have resulted in some knowledge about the various phenomena. The mainstream academic literature has produced different approaches about how to study conflict; however, the outcome to delineate the concept remains ambiguous. In order to understand the research object, an adequate conceptualization that will formulate concepts and illuminate what is theoretically significant is essential. This section gathers the most influential definitions in the field of International Relations by those who have collected data on armed conflict.

The term conflict is derived from the Latin word pugna, which means strife and refers to behavior or action. Most of the definitions include the element of collision of inconsistent interests and values among conflicting parties, ranging from struggles for status to resources and social change. In general, conflict is understood in terms of aspirations of conflicting parties to achieve incompatible goals simultaneously.¹⁰² Goals are incompatible when the action of one party threatens the interests of another party. The complexity of the conflict depends on whether tangible issues (like recognition, security, territory, money) are more significant than intangible aspects like symbolic meanings that shape values and ideologies, legitimizing a certain conflict behavior.¹⁰³

Thus, in the conflict research literature, the term conflict entails a situation in which at least two actors fight over mutually exclusive and incompatible goals. In the words of one of the most prominent scholars, Donald Horowitz, “conflict is a struggle in which the aim is to gain objectives and simultaneously to neutralize, injure, or eliminate rivals.”¹⁰⁴ The Heidelberg Institute for International Conflict Research defines conflict as “the clashing interests (political differences) on national values of some duration and magnitude between at least two parties (organized groups, states, groups of states, organization) that are determined to pursue their interests and win their cases.”¹⁰⁵ A similar definition is used in the book Using Conflict Theory, which describes conflict as a unique type of behavior caused by incompatible goals and/or expression of hostility among conflicting parties.¹⁰⁶

This dissertation employs the definition by Peter Wallensteen, one of the most recognized scholars in peace research, whose definition is accepted by the majority of the academic community in the field. In order to understand and provide conflict analysis, we have to focus on three major components of the phenomenon: (1) actors, (2) process (action), and (3) incompatibility (issues at stake). By combining these aspects, we arrive at a most comprehensive analysis of all possible kinds of conflict, which is a “social situation in which a minimum of two actors (parties) strive to acquire at the same moment in time an available set of scarce resources.”¹⁰⁷ Therefore, conflicts can be categorized in terms of types of conflicting parties, interaction patterns ranging from war to non-violent conflict, and incompatibility of issues at stake within a particular conflict. This scheme will be applied in the following sections.

3.3Conflict-mapping Framework

Conflict represents a compound competition among involved actors that determine power dynamics among them. In order to capture the complexity of issues at stake and the diversity of parties and factors that contribute to the transformation of a conflict from one phase to another, this dissertation adopts a multidimensional framework for conflict analysis.

A conflict-mapping method is applied to assess incompatible goals among conflict parties and issues in contention. Each analytical step within this method requires identification of disputed issues at stake embedded in each phase of a conflict. Comparison of the issues at stake in each case study sheds light on the main factors, the relationships between them and their transition in the outlined phases. In this way, we are able to deepen our analysis and trace the differences of these conflicts, even though they share conditions under which the conflicts occurred.

Indicators provided in the theoretical chapter are needed for proper conceptualization and better structuring of complex reality of the armed conflicts under study. For each conflict analysis, it is imperative to identify and assess key conflict parties, types of issues at stake, and modes of process leading to any particular outcome. The issue at stake has a profound effect on conflict strategies, mutual relationships among conflict parties, dynamics of escalation, and the overall outcome of the conflict. The mapping method allows us to categorize specific conflict behaviors and to assess each factor on the escalation process of a conflict.

3.3.1Conflict Parties

When actor analysis is addressed, the conflict-mapping method focuses on the scope of the analysis of the groups that are in antagonistic relationship, directly opposing each other in order to achieve their incompatible goals. Membership types can identify conflict groups, legitimacy of their goals, and their ability to mobilize resources for their struggle.

In actor analysis, the dissertation does not provide the dividing lines along states on the one hand and non-state actors on the other. The conflict actors in the South Caucasus at the stage of initiation involved the nationalist movements on both sides, competing over the rules of the new political game in this region. In this regard, analyses involve individuals and groups that play a significant role in the escalation of a conflict.

Conflict processes and outcomes are affected by many actors. Allies across borders increase the struggle capabilities of the primary conflict parties. The strategic interests of an ally could be different from the interests of parties opposing each other over contested issues. While primary conflict parties initiate a spiral of conflict, new actors may change the outcomes and peace-building patterns in a conflict. In order to regulate the intensity of violence, a third-party intervention is required. As there are many international actors involved within the processes and duration of conflicts in the South Caucasus, it is essential to address the goals of each conflict party that was involved in a direct or indirect manner.

For the purposes of this research, the conflict parties under analysis are identified by their goals, attitudes toward the goals of other actors, and their mutual relationship—all of which contributes to changing the conflict dynamics. This dissertation adopts a definition according to which an actor is referred to “as a decision maker[; this] may be an individual or a group of people represented by an organization. To be included as a decision maker in a conflict model, it must have some power to influence the conflict, the power of the decision maker is expressed in terms of options or courses of an action which are under its control to initiate in order to alter the conflict situation.”¹⁰⁸

3.3.2Issues at Stake and Incompatibility

The issue at stake reveals the core aspects in the heart of a conflict and defines what the conflict is about. An analysis of issues at stake points out the significance of the aspects embedded in a conflict. Such analysis goes beyond the surface of conflict phenomena. For example, ethnic autonomy can be manifested in terms of preservation of traditions and culture of a conflict party, but the main issue at stake might be a fight over access to the power-sharing institutions of a state. The detailed study of issues at stake furthers better academic understanding of the conflict nature. Furthermore, it is essential to differentiate what is a key issue at stake and whether it correspondents with the actual claims of conflict parties. In other words, some issues might be masked and manipulated by leaders of conflicting parties. In order to achieve conflict resolution, it is essential to uncover and address the key issues at stake in each conflict.

Goals are defined as an aspiration of a conflict party to achieve particular conditions and outcomes. Goals are incompatible when different conflict parties seek the same thing, such as, for example, territory, political re-arrangement, or economic advantages, prestige, or respect. Each conflict party may have multiple goals. Identification of goals of conflict parties and manifestation of the incompatibility of these goals is essential in illuminating the nature of a conflict.

Issues at stake could be manifested in terms of incompatible interests or incompatible values. “Interests” of involved conflict parties refer to their economic, political, or occupational aspirations. Incompatible values represent a belief system according to which a conflict party interprets the behavior of others. It also serves to legitimize certain behavior of conflict parties.

Conflict analysis should go beyond the symptoms that characterize a conflict to uncover the real issues at stake that transform the conflict into its violent form. This will contribute to the creation of social and political formulae that meet the needs of conflict parties in order to build sustainable peace.

In order to analyze a conflict process, this research is built upon a study of developments and mutual relationships at different phases following the changes in the conflict parties’ perceptions and issues at stake. These modes of inter-relation among conflict parties have tremendous influence on escalation and de-escalation of the conflict. Therefore, activities of conflict parties are analyzed in terms of their synergy. The operationalization of issues at stake is presented in the theoretical chapter of this dissertation.
Figure Conflict Mapping.

Source: Ho-Won Jeong, Understanding Conflict and Conflict Analysis (Los Angeles ; London: SAGE Publications Ltd, 2008), 21.