Masaryk university

3.4Conflict Typology by Process—Violence Intensity

The study recognizes that conflicts are not always violent. In fact, the vast majority of conflicts in international relations are non-violent. Thus, there is a significant and growing literature on these types of conflicts. The COSIMO (Conflict Simulation Model) conflict categorization belongs among the most prominent classifications; it has been developed by the Heidelberg Institute for International Conflict Research (HIIK), aiming to grasp armed conflict from non-violent, latent conflict to violent war phases. Conflict analysis within this framework is divided into two main categories: non-violent and violent conflicts. The non-violent form of a conflict does not mean that the conflict is absent, but rather that conflicting parties do not employ violent methods to resolve incompatible goals. Put in the words of Dennis Sandole, non-violent conflict is a manifestation of conflict processes during which one party seeks to undermine the goal-seeking capabilities of another conflicting party by non-violent means, as, for instance, with economic sanctions, through exclusion of some groups from access to power, and so on.¹⁰⁹

There are two types of non-violent conflict: latent conflict and manifested conflict. While conflicting parties do not use force against each other, a latent conflict occurs when one of the conflicting parties has incompatible differences over issues, values, or objectives that have national significance for them. When these clashing interests are articulated in the form of demands and claims, the conflict enters a stage of manifestation in which tensions still remain below the threshold of full-scale violence. As illustrated in Table 1, the conflicts are divided into two major categories: non-violent and violent conflict.

Table Categories of Conflict Intensity.

Violence	Intensity	Name of Intensity	Definition
Non-violent	Low	Latent Conflict	A positional difference on values of national meaning articulated by one party and perceived by the other as such.
		Manifest Conflict	The use of measures located at the preliminary stage to violent force, such as economic sanctions or verbal pressure to use violence.
Violent	Medium	Crisis	At least one of the parties uses violent force in a sporadic way.
	High	Severe Crisis	A conflict in which violent force is used repeatedly in a systemic and organized way.
		War	The type of armed conflict in which violence reaches a certain magnitude and the conflicting parties exercise extensive measures.

Source: Derived from the Conflictbarometer 2005: Crisis - Wars - Coups d’État Negotiations - Mediations - Peace Settlements. 14th Annual Conflict Analysis.
As far as violent conflicts are concerned, the Uppsala Conflict Data Program (UCDP) introduces empirical-quantitative analysis of conflicts and offers a deeper differentiation of conflict intensity. There are three categories of armed conflict: (1) minor armed conflict, which involves at least 25 battle-related deaths, but less than 1,000 for the whole duration of the conflict; (2) intermediate armed conflict, in which the number of deaths counts more than 25 people and fewer than 1,000 per year, but more than 1,000 during the entire conflict; and (3) war, a conflict in which there are more than 1,000 deaths in one year (Wallensteen 2012: 22). It means that a conflict has to reach a certain magnitude before it is classified as “armed.” It is measured in terms of a minimum of 25 battle-related deaths per year and per incompatibility.

Undoubtedly, the highest level of violent conflict is war. In order to grasp the whole dynamics of war, scholars have created definitions that stem from different theoretical perspectives. As a result, the research has developed different sets of aspects for investigation. Hedley Bull’s definition, which has guided research within the field of IR, defines war as “organized violence carried out by political units against each other.”¹¹⁰ Significant assumptions made by this definition elucidate the following aspects of war: first, it is fought by political organizations (not by any other collective actors, as, for example, economic corporations); second, war is organized violence with its own rules and norms; and third, war is collective, not individual.¹¹¹ This definition, however, does not include that war is a special tool to compel opposing actors to fulfill will and attain a goal that cannot be achieved by other means. As the most well-known definition by famous military theorist Carl von Clausewitz claims, “war is mere continuation of policy by other means.”¹¹²

Given the diversity of theoretical perspectives and plurality of hypotheses in the literature about the causes of war, it has been impossible to reach a universally acceptable definition on a theoretical level. Further significant attempts to define war were determined by the empirical domain of the concept. An attempt was made to create a data set that could be used by every scholar to verify or falsify hypotheses derived from different theoretical approaches. In this regard, the criteria to define war were drawn across the causality line. Quincy Wright, an outstanding political scientist, made one of the first contributions to this attempt by including under the criteria of war all hostilities among “members of the family of nations, whether international, civil, colonial, or imperial, which were recognized as states of war in the legal sense or involved 50,000 troops.” Another prominent scholar, Lewis F. Richardson, took a different perspective. He differentiated war from other acts of violence by the number of the dead, grouped by various logarithms to base ten.¹¹³

Melvin Small and David Singer, who have developed the conceptualization and typology of war within the Correlates of War Project, have combined work of their two main predecessors, Wright and Richardson. The starting point for Small and Singer, who collected data on war from 1816 to the present, was to understand the concept as follows: “we must define war in terms of violence. Not only is war impossible without violence (except of course in the metaphorical sense), but we consider the taking of human life the primary and dominant characteristic of war.”¹¹⁴

Since then the concept of war has been based on two primary criteria: first, a certain magnitude of battle-related fatalities (initially including only soldiers and military staff) and second, the status of the conflicting actors. According to these scholars, the threshold of 1,000 battle-related deaths caused by sustainable, organized armed forces differentiates war from other types of conflict.¹¹⁵ This criterion is broadly accepted by the academic community; however, the threshold of 1,000 deaths was broadened to include civilian casualties.

Clearly, there is a number of issues over which conflicting parties fight. Classification of the issues is necessary to achieve a comprehensive analysis and potential policy recommendations for the resolution of a conflict. The next section of the chapter presents the typology of major theoretical approaches that shed light on the causes, processes, and conditions that are entailed in understanding interaction patterns in a conflict.

3.4.1Conflict Phases

Each conflict has specific lifecycles of its own. The dynamic approach to conflict analysis allows establishing a dialogue between conflict phases. In spite of variations in patterns, conflict research literature postulates several phases that offer a clear framework for analysis. The core set of interrelated conflict behavior ranges from the initiation over escalation, stalemate, de-escalation to peacekeeping efforts. Stalemate is the highest peak in the pathway of conflict evolution. While it is helpful to have an ideal model for conflict analysis, this research emphasizes that conflict dynamics is not a linear process. It proposes a better model to capture the pathway of conflict development in the cases under study. This is especially needed for conflict analysis with long duration that does not follow a strictly predictable model.

The path of a conflict is not a straightforward process. Most of the conflicts go through a complex cycle, transforming one phase of a conflict to another while each phase diverges in terms of duration and possibly changes issues at stake. Thus, a trajectory of the conflict does not follow the stipulated stage-by-stage model. Some conflicts do not even reach the phase of conflict resolution, as has been the case in the South Caucasus.

The change in conflict dynamics to a rapid eruption of violence can be caused by accumulated tension between conflict parties. A trigger event can lead to the escalation of violence. On its way to escalation, a conflict produces uncertainty and unpredictability. The significance of issues at stake reflects the incentives of conflicting parties to full engagement in the full-scale confrontation. This process of escalation turns non-violent conflict into full-scale war. The enemy is portrayed “as a negative mirror image of oneself. … Each party tries to outdo the other’s behavior in a vicious circle of hostile action and negative reaction.”¹¹⁶

The escalation process leads to a new spiral of armed confrontation. Conflict parties are involved in military strategies to achieve their goals via coercion. During this phase, mistrust and suspicion are major features of the mutual relationship. A cycle of coercion, political chaos, and disputes among conflict parties determines perceptions on costs and benefits of a conflict. Even after material exhaustion, parties are not willing to accept an “unworthy” compromise, even if achieving incompatible goals is not realistic. A stalemate indicates a phase when none of the conflict parties are able to reach decisive victory. Both escalation and stalemate last as long as there is hope to attain their goals. The modification of behavior comes with huge losses and extensive damage after a long, intensive struggle.

De-escalation does not come with the offer for ceasefire. Decrease in violence does not mean that the issues at stake or the goals of the conflict parties have changed. The issues at stake embedded within the conflict may escalate tensions in order to achieve objectives or remain on the level of a status quo. In this case, the issues at stake are unresolved, the images of the counter-actors remain unchanged, and the conflict parties are typically soon ready to fight against each other so that (enemy) victories are symbolic and short term.

3.4.1.1The Vicious Cycle of Conflict: The Nexus of Escalation, De-escalation, and Re-escalation

Different characteristics of conflict dynamics can be distinguished by escalation and de-escalation modes, levels of violence, their continuity and duration. We can identify the directions in conflict development in terms of pulling toward or backward from the full-scale struggle. Different types of conflict have different time spans, depending on the conflict cycle. Changes in conflict behavior are usually asymmetrical and reflect diverse characteristics in mutual relationships of conflicting parties. As the conflict evolves, a new balance of power is established.

The complexity of armed conflicts can hardly be captured in a linear way. Trajectory of conflict represents the culmination of the latent phase to intensification of violence leading to full-scale war. Once the conflict starts, it may transform leading to an increase or decrease of intensity in violence. The analysis of conflict processes in this dissertation traces the relationships among the different phases.

The modes of escalation of conflict have a significant influence on the behavior of the conflict parties. As the conflict evolves, the pattern of this behavior becomes more complex, the number of issues at stake increases, and the intensity of violence leads to a vicious circle of escalation. In order to explain the armed conflicts in the South Caucasus region, this dissertation employs the scheme of “vicious cycle of conflict” as illustrated in Figure 2 below.

Figure The Vicious Cycle of Conflict.

Note: This figure was prepared by the author.