Basic Concept of Peace

The term peace is drive from Anglo- French PES Which means peace, Reconciliation, silence agreement,
but the words PES itself comes from the Latin PAX Meaning peace, Compact, Agreement, Treaty of
peace, tranquility, absence of hostility and harmony.

Peace is a universal concept, every society desires it none can exist without it, the time feature
prominently in the two-leading religious of the world, Christianity and Islam.

Peace is one of the humanity’s highest values and no society will ever flourish and progress where there
is no peace, there are many definitions of what peace is. Its meaning is multilateral and multi-disciplinary,
depending on which notion is central in the determination of peace as a concept. Peace, like many
theoretical terms is difficult to define, but also like happiness, harmony, love. Justice and freedom. We
obtained recognized it by its absence.

Albert Eisten said that peace cannot kept by force it can only be achieve by understanding.

Ibeanu 2006 define Peace as the process involving activities that are directly or indirectly linked to
increasing development and reducing conflict, both within specific societies and in the wider international
community.

Negative peace

... refers to the absence of war, fear, direct violence and conflict at individual, national, regional and
international levels. It requires institutional reforms to pre- vent acts of direct physical violence
committed by individuals or groups. Negative perception of a former enemy or conflicting party is
neutralized or shifted after a violent conflict is settled. In this scenario, there may be little or no hostility
but the conflicting parties may be sceptical to engage in positive interactions that might lead to building
trust. During the period of negative peace, there is no emphasis on dealing with the causes of violence or
conflict. Rather, it is limited to addressing the manifestation of factors that led and lead to violence.

NEGATIVE PEACE is the absence of direct violence (physical, verbal, and psychological)
between individuals, groups, and governments. (1)

Efforts to achieve negative peace emphasize:

 Managing interpersonal and organizational conflict in order to control, contain, and reduce
actual and potential violence.
 Reducing the incidence of war by eliminating the extreme dangers of the war system and
limiting war through international crisis management. (2)
 Preventing war through strategic deterrence and arms control. (3)

The concept of NEGATIVE PEACE addresses immediate symptoms, the conditions of war, and

1
the use and effects of force and weapons. Words and images that reveal the horror of war and its
aftermath are often used by writers, artists, and citizen groups in their efforts to stop it.

Positive peace

... refers to the absence of indirect and structural violence, the absence of unjust structures and unequal
relationships; it refers to peace on different levels like behavioural, attitudes or structures. Positive peace
is filled with positive contents such as the restoration of relationships, the constructive resolution of
conflict and the creation of social systems that serve the needs of the whole population. Positive peace
encompasses all aspects of a good society that one might envisage for one- self: universal rights,
economic well‐being, ecological balance and other core values. It describes a situation where justice and
fairness reign, it seeks to promote and improve the quality of life.

Positive peace is the concept that most peace and conflict researchers adopt to describe peace, in this
sense peace provides for:

  Conditions able to respond to underlying causes of conflict that can lead to violence,
 Possibilities towards building bridges between conflicting parties
(for example by common grounds in fighting non‐human enemies like hunger, diseases or
corruption),
  initiatives towards bridge building between victims and perpetrators,
 structures working towards co‐operation and integration among groups or social institutions,
  situations where there are no winners and losers—all are considered winners,
 Available institutions for the consolidation of peace like independent democratic institutions,
peace research institutes or peace studies centres.

Stages of Peace

Peace like many concepts has many stages and the stages of peace are among others include:

1) Stable peace: this is a condition of peace which characterize by improve social justice, human
right protection, and application of rule of law by the government of the country
2) Durable peace: this is a condition that characterize by mutual understanding and good
relationship among people of a country
3) Unstable Peace: this condition people agree to remain together and interact and possible
avoiding conflict, however, conflict may likely happen.

Basic concept of conflict

According to Maoz (1982), conflict is “a state of incompatibility among values, where the
achievement of one value can be realized only at the expense of some other values. Conflict may
arise within single organisms pursuing multiple goals as well as between striving at incompatible
goals” (1982:12).

2
Kriesberg define conflict as relationship between two or more parties who believe they have
incompatible goals.

Michael Nicholson sees conflict as an activity which take place when human being wishes to
carry out mutually inconsistent act concerning their want, needs or obligation’

Stagner (1967: 16) defines conflict as a ‘situation in which two or more human beings desire
goals which they perceive as being obtainable by one or the other, but not both; each party is
mobilizing energy to obtain a goal; and each party perceive the other as a barrier or threat to that
goal’.

Stages of Conflict

There are several stages to any given conflict. Each conflict has specific dimension and
processes. However, there are five seemingly general stages of conflicts pass through as
identified by Fisher (2000)

1) Pre-conflict stage: this primarily refers to a period when goals between parties are
incompatible, which would lead to open conflict. At this stage communication between
the parties has deteriorated but conflict remain largely latent.
2) Confrontation stage: at this stage, the conflict has become manifest or open. It is
characterized by occasional fighting. Low level of violence, Search for allies by parties,
Mobilization of resources, strained relations, and polarization.
3) Crisis stage: these represent the peak of the conflict. In violent conflict, this represents
the stage of war and intense fighting, leading to killings, Injuries and Large -scale
population displacement and the use of small arms and light weapons.
4) Outcome stage: indeed, all conflicts naturally pass through this stage. With the outcome
of the conflict tilting in favor of one party, or even if a ceasefire was declared or
negotiated, the critical issue henceforth is that the violence is decreased, which allows
room for some discussion to commence, or alternative means of settling the conflict.
5) Post-conflict stage: Here, violence has either ended or significantly reduced, and the
parties have gone past the crisis stage. Fisher (2000) remark that at this point underlying
causes of the conflict are addressed. And that if not properly tackled. The cycle of
conflict may be re-enacted and return to the pre-conflict stage, with consequent re-
eruption of violence becomes a possibility.

Types of Conflict

Various scientists and researchers classify conflicts according to different criteria Many of the
types presented below are based on the aspects described previously. Even though all conflicts
have more reasons (which might even shift over the con- flict history) it is important to identify and
analyze the central ones to create appro- priate intervention strategies.

3
 1. Identity or Ethnic based conflict: arise when one’s identity is in danger. Identity goes
beyond religion or ethnic factors; people are part of clubs, societies, professions, political
parties or cults with which they identify themselves either for prestige, historical or
cultural reasons. When people feel that their identity with a group is threatened, there is
the tendency to resort to protest, violence or other social action to correct the perceived
threat.
2. Needs-based conflict is concerned with the frustration of basic human needs. Basic
human needs are seen as fundamental requirements for human existence and
development. These include food, security, identity, freedom, justice and participation.
When these needs are not being fulfilled over time, it triggers conflict.
3. Power conflict, which arises when an individual or a group attempts to increase undue
influence and control over other individuals or groups targeting their way of life, thinking
or attitude within or between societies. In other words, power conflicts are about struggle
for dominance either in the family, work- place, church, mosque, club, village,
government departments or other institutions. Power conflicts are often associated with
the use of negative power including threats, deception or manipulation.

4. Religious or Ideological conflicts are triggered when there is an attempt to defame or

criticize some- body’s religion a wrong, funny or useless. Religion is a matter of the heart
— very emotional. Accepting other religions, complying with the various ways of
practicing different faiths and tolerating even the contrasting spirituality of others can
enhance peaceful co‐existence in any community.
5. Resource based/economic conflict is triggered by competition over scarce resources such
as land, water, oil and diamonds or intangible resources such as power and knowledge. If
resources are in limited or short supply and the competing parties are of the opinion that
what one gains, the other loses, both groups pursue strategies and behaviour to obtain a
fair share of the available resources. At the same time, this might be perceived by the
other side as unfair. This circum- stance can generate feelings of being under threat,
suspicion and eventually a feeling of hostility.
6. Value conflicts arise over ideological differences in what individuals, groups, parties or
organizations believe in as paramount or sacred to their existence. Values cannot be
compromised, but they might change over time due to various influences. Value conflicts
arise over how goals are achieved, about their nature or priorities. Actual or perceived
differences in value do not necessarily lead to conflict. It is only when values are imposed
on individuals or groups and these people are prevented from upholding their previous
value systems that conflict arises.

Positive functions of conflict

Despite the possible risk of destructive consequences, conflicts bear the opportunity for various
positive functions, if handled adequately. Some of them are listed below

4
 1) Conflict can enhance identity and independence. Conflicts show that something in an
individual’s life or relationship with others cannot continue as it was. To find out what
we want and what our priorities are for shaping our lives requires an awareness and
understanding of these issues. Conflict may act as an incentive to start the self-awareness
process and in this way may help the individual assert their personal identity as separate
from the aspirations, beliefs and behaviours of the others around them.
2) Conflict establishes and maintains group identities. Groups in conflict tend to create
clearer boundaries, which help to determine who is part of the in‐group and who is part
of the out‐group. By discussing issues, beliefs and interests, the members create a more
sharply defined ideology on which they agree. In this way, conflicts can help individuals
to understand how they are part of a certain group. It may also incite them to take action
to defend the groups’ interests.
3) The intensity of conflict demonstrates the closeness and importance of relations.
Intimate relationships require the expression of opposing feelings such as love and anger.
While the intensity of emotions can threaten a relationship, it also helps to measure the
depth and importance of the relationship if the emotions are dealt with constructively.
4) Conflict can build new relationships. At times, conflict brings together people who did
not have a previous relationship. During the process of conflict and its transformation,
opposing parties or individuals may realize they have com- mon interests and begin to
work to develop a relationship.
5) Conflict can create coalition. Facing a common opponent can create new bonds
between people who were previously unrelated. Sometimes opponents can even
overcome previous antagonisms and come together to build coalitions, achieve common
goals or fend off a common threat.
6) Conflict creates or modifies rules, norms, laws and institutions. If there is readiness
for conflict transformation, it is through the raising and discussion of issues that rules,
norms, laws and institutions are created. For example WWII has created modern nation
states in Europe and various other structures and institutions. Conflict in this light serves
as unifying force and offers stability.

Classification of Conflict

Experience in human society has shown that there are degrees of variation in conflicts. Conflicts
are in classify into many aspects. Psychology as a discipline has espoused on intra-personal
conflict. Sociology identifies inter-personal as well as intra-group or intra-unit conflict, as well
as inter-group conflict. Political Science and History have identified inter-ethnic or intra-state
conflict as well as international conflict.

Intra-personal conflict

5
This refers to a state of implosion in an individual shaped by the state of mind. It is however
important to know that such human state is largely dictated by circumstances around him. Such
situations are anger, depression, confusion, frustration, which could lead to aggression, erratic
behavior, addiction and in extreme cases, suicide (Ross, 1993). This is the kind of conflict that
has been described as “man against self” (Lamb, 2008), in which man continues to contend or
battle with his mind and habits. Smoking, drug use, alcoholism, as well as lying are some
addictive habits that man may continually contend with; even when he desires to stop, he may
find himself continuing it. This is intra-personal conflict or “man against self”.

Inter-personal conflict

This is what has been described as “man against man” in the micro sense. This type of conflict
may be direct opposition, as in exchange of blows, a gunfight or a robbery, or it may be a more
subtle conflict between the desires of two or more persons (Nikolajeva, 2005). A boxing or
wrestling match is a kind of game, but the act on the mat depicts conflict. Conflict in this sense is
a fight between people. However, conflict does not always translate to physical exchange of
blows. Malice or ‘cold attitude’ to each other already underscores conflict. Conflict thus also
means implicit hostility. It may not be obvious to the third party, but the disagreeing or
unfriendly parties already understand that there is a state of discontent between them.

Man against society; man against nature

This is an interesting type of conflict. Morell (2009) posits that “man against society” type of
conflict arises when man stands against a man-made institution or practices. These may include
slavery, human trafficking, child prostitution, human rights abuses, bullying, corruption, bad
governance, et cetera. According to her, "man against man" conflict may shade into "man against
society”. “Man against nature” is the type of conflict that depicts a state of contention between
man and his environment (Lamb, 2008). Such forces of nature as global warming, climate
change, rainstorm, hurricane, desertification, resistant malaria, killer insects, et cetera create a
situation in which man battles with nature to overcome and master it.

Family conflict

This type of conflict occurs in a family unit. Sociologists would describe this as intra-unit
conflict. In most cases, these conflicts arise from crisis occasioned by familial roles, expectations
and role conflict. Examples include father-son, mother-father, husband-wife, brother-sister
conflict. It may also imply cousin-cousin, nephew-uncle, sister-in-law or brother-in-law conflict.
Such conflicts may be caused by such factors as simple as rudeness, claim to seniority, laziness,
truancy at school, lying; to such extreme cases as land, property, inheritance and will dispute.

Inter-Group conflict

6
This refers to the kind of disagreement or feud that takes places between two or more sectarian
or religious groups, ethnic groups, communities, or interest groups. The contention between
Christians and Moslems in Nigeria is a classic example of inter-faith conflict. Nigeria has been
riddled with clashes between members of the two faiths since the 1980s. The Maitatsine riots in
Kano, Bulumkutu crisis in Maiduguri, Sokoto university campus riots over use of Othman dan
Fodio’s daughter’s name in a pageant, Cross vs. Crescent crisis at the Ibadan university, among
others, are worse scenarios of this (Folarin, 1997). The Boko Haram Islamist terrorist onslaught
against Christians and the Nigerian State since 2009 has however, become the worst in the annals
of Nigeria’s religious conflict. In terms of ethnic conflict, there have been: Igbo-Hausa feud that
began after the military coup and counter-coup of 1966, culminating in the Civil War in 1967,
Efik-Ibibio conflict, Tiv-Jukun debacle, Fulani-Birom clashes, and Itsekiri-Urhobo-Ijaw conflict
in the Niger Delta. Intra-ethnic or inter-community conflicts include Ife-Modakeke, Umuleri-
Aguleri, Andoni-Ogoni, and Egba-Awori (Ota) clashes.

Intra-State conflict

This type of conflict is confined within the borders of a sovereign state. Such economic factors
as land, uneven development, resource control and revenue-sharing formula could cause a
conflict within a state. Social factors as value differences as had been the case in old Sudan could
also cause conflict. Socio-ethnic factors such as real or perceived ethnic balancing or ethnic
cleansing such as in the case of the Nigeria-Biafra episode and Rwanda genocide chapter in
1994, could also be a factor. Political factors such as power-sharing, power equation or zoning
formula in public administration, lopsidedness in political appointments, quota system and the
likes could cause intra-state conflict. Other examples of intra-state conflicts are the Malian crisis,
Ivorian crisis, Libyan conflict, conflict in the DRC and Central African Republic.

Inter-State conflict

This type of conflict is also known as international conflict. This is a conflict between two or
more states. In some cases, this type of conflict degenerates to a state of war. We must remember
that all wars are described as conflict. As such, all inter-state wars are same as international
conflict. Inter-sate conflict can be caused by territorial encroachment by another state,
breakdown of diplomatic ties, exportation of toxic or contrabands to another country, et cetera.
In the 1980s, Nigeria almost cut off diplomatic ties with Italy because hundreds of tons of toxic
substances dumped at Koko, a sedate village in Delta (Bendel) State, were traced to the
European country. Nigeria and Cameroon have had cases of hostilities on a number of occasions,
over Northern borders and lately, Bakassi Peninsula; but none ever resulted in full-scale war. The
United States and Cuba have been in a perpetual state of conflict since the Cuban Missile Crisis
of 1962. Examples of inter-state conflict that resulted in war include Iran-Iraq of 1980-1988,
Britain-Argentina War of 1982 over the Falkland Islands, USA-Afghanistan War.

Global conflict

7
This should not be mistaken for inter-state conflict, although it also connotes international
conflict. This kind of international conflict however transcends the type which involves two or
more sovereign states. It is however instructive to note that a conflict between two or more states
could become a full-blown global conflict. The Serbia-Austrian conflict of 1914 resulted in the
First World War. The German-British conflict of 1939 culminated in the Second World War.
There are also cases of global conflict not directly caused by states. The rise in terrorism has
escalated to a global conflict in which the whole world is battling with the scourge of global
terrorism and working in concert to fight it.

Theories of Conflict

Theories of conflict are the explanations put forward to explain causes of conflict. The causes of
conflict are numerous and complex, thus creating problem of analysis of specific conflict
situations. The theories are advanced to simplify the causes by looking at them in categories.

The theories explaining causes of conflict include structural theory of conflict, Marxist theory,
international capitalist theory, realist theory, biological theory, and psychological theory of
conflict.

Structural Theory of conflict

The structural theory attempts to explain conflict as a product of the tension that arises when
groups compete for scarce recourses. The central argument in this sociological theory is that
conflict is built into the particular ways societies are structured or organized. It describes the
condition of the society and how such condition or environment can create conflict. Structural
conflict theory identifies such conditions as social exclusion, deprivation, class inequalities,
injustice, political marginalization, gender imbalances, racial segregation, economic exploitation
and the likes, all of which often lead to conflict (Oakland, 2005).

Structuralists maintain that conflict occurs because of the exploitative and unjust nature of
human societies or because of domination of one class by another. The theory is however
deficient in its on-sidedness of looking at causes of conflict. It, for instance, does not see the
bright sides of racial or ethnic diversity and the strength that a society may derive from
pluralism. It only sees the flaws. The structural theory thus makes sense only when conflicts are
viewed from the broadest possible perspective, and only if the observer opts to ignore alternate
causes of the conflict.

Marxist Theory of conflict

The Marxist theory is an offshoot of the Marxian explanation of society. Society is divided into
unequal classes: the one is strong, rich and noble and bears the tag of bourgeoisie, who controls

8
the instrumentality of state; while the other is deprived, socially deflated, financially infantile
and is called the proletariat. There is a constant struggle between the two, but he that has the
financial muscle controls both the state and the poor, and that is the structure of society. Thus,
the Marxist stand is that the state is itself a product of the irreconcilability of class antagonisms
(Lenin, 1917). The state is therefore structured to be in a perpetual state of conflict.

The rich controls the state as well as means of production. The rich thus grows wealthier at the
expense of the poor, who lives at his mercy and is implicitly embittered by the development. The
central argument of Marxism is thus that capitalism is at the heart of the state, and that same
capitalism is exploitative and oppressive and has been responsible for the polarization of the
society (and state) into two incompatible classes.

The limitation of Marxism is similar to that of structuralism. It looks at every issue of conflict
from the viewpoint of dialectical materialism alone. This economic prism is not enough to
capture every aspect of conflict causation.

Economic Theory of conflict

Economic theory of conflict explicates the economic undercurrents in conflict causation. There is
considerable interface between politics (power, resources or value) and scarcity. People seek
power because it is a means to an end, more often, economic ends. Communities feud over
farmlands, grazing fields, water resource, et cetera, and groups fight government over allocation
of resources or revenue. Scarcity, wants, needs, or the fear of scarcity is often a driving force for
political power, contention for resource control, and so forth. Conflict is thus not far-fetched in
the course of such palpable fear or threat of scarcity. Just as the fear of poverty and deprivation
could lead to fraud or corruption; so is threat of or real famine, deprivation, mismanagement of
scarce resources, could propel conflict over resource control.

International Capitalism Theory of conflict

This theory captures the historical import of colonialism and imperialism. According to Hobson
(2006; 1902), in his classic, Imperialism: A Study, the external drive of western nations propelled
by the Industrial Revolution began to create numerous platforms for conflict. The search for raw
materials, need to invest surplus capital and search for new markets outside Europe compelled an
imperialist pathway as the western countries desperately sought such markets, raw materials and
investment climates at the expense of the peace and prosperity of the locals in what is now
known as the Global South. This led to colonization, as well as collision of cultures and
civilizations and ultimately conflict.

Imperialism thus became the last and highest stage of capitalism (Lenin, 1917: 43). This
international capitalism theory aptly explains the collaboration of western financial markets and
capital today, as it solidified and extended their economic influences all over the world, and has

9
leveraged them for economic exploitation of the developing economies, which has created
imbalances between what is now the North and South.

Realist Theory of conflict

Political realism explains conflict as an inherent attribute of man. As far as men live with their
‘baggage of emotions’, so will conflict remain a part of their habitat; and as long as man remains
a ‘political animal’ with interests different from others, so shall conflict of interests remain a
feature of society. More importantly, as long as there are scarce resources where most men are
ambitiously seeking comfort or control of resources, conflict is inevitable. Realism is a good
blend of the Marxist, international capitalist and economic theories in the explication of conflict.

The realist theory describes conflict as a product of the innate selfish nature of man, who
continues to pursue his own best interests even if the ox of others is gored. This selfish nature of
man leads to “competitive processes” between actors who seek to have all or most of available
scarce resources. It is such attribute that is taken to the inter-state level, which leads to erratic
behavior, hegemonic propensities, imperialism, et cetera, that can impel resistance as well as
violent opposition and consequently heat up the international system.

Biological Theory of conflict

This theory explains that human nature is genetically transferred from generation to generation.
Just as parents can genetically transfer their godly qualities and ingenuity to their offspring, so
can the evil nature of man be genetically transferred. The argument goes that since our ancestors
were instinctively violent beings and since we evolved from them, we must bear aggressive or
destructive impulses in our genes.

This theory explains that the irresistible outbreaks of violent impulses are ascribed to fixed
biological propensities. As such, aggression is spontaneous and could be uncontrollable. This
line of thought underlines the assumption about the greatness of certain people, clan or family; or
the pride, arrogance and aggressiveness of a particular nation or group.

Frustration-anger-aggression

This is a psychological hypothesis of conflict that posits that it is natural for man to react to
unpleasant situations. The hypothesis is drawn from the frustration-aggression theory
propounded by Dollard and Doob, et al (1939), and further developed by Miller (1948) and
Berkowitz (1969). The theory says that aggression is the result of blocking, or frustrating, a
person's efforts to attain a goal.

Frustration is described as the feeling we get when we do not get what we want, or when
something interferes with our gaining a desired goal, as shown in the case of Niger Delta, and

10
that of the Palestinians or Hutus in Rwanda. Anger implies feeling mad in response to frustration
or injury; while aggression refers to flashes of temper (Tucker-Lad, 2013). The frustration
aggression theory states that aggression is caused by frustration. When someone is prevented
from reaching his target, he becomes frustrated. This frustration can then turn into anger and then
aggression when something triggers it.

When expectation fails to meet attainment, the tendency is for people to confront others they can
hold responsible for frustrating their ambitions or someone on whom they can take out their
frustrations. And when aggression cannot be expressed against the real source of frustration,
displaced hostilities can be targeted to substitute objects, that is, aggression is transferred to
alternate objects.

Conflict management

Conflict management refers to the process of limiting and possibly avoiding violence conflict by
promoting positive behavioral change in the parties involve. Similarly, Conflict management is seen as
the process of limiting the negative aspect of conflict while increasing the positive aspect of conflict

Process of managing Conflict

I. Accommodation: this process is also regarded as self-sacrifice where an individual set aside his
interest for a peace to maintain
II. Avoidance: this is a situation in which one the party in conflict avoiding and neglect any root
cause of conflict with a view of finding a lasting solution to the conflict
III. Collaborating: in collaborating a party in conflict understand one another by coming together to
look into their demand with anticipating of finding a lasting solution to the conflict
IV. Compromising: this is a situation in which both party in conflict come up with a solution to the
conflict by surrendering their interest and allowed peace to maintain
V. Competing: in this situation one of the parties will continue mounting pressure until a winner
emerge

Approach to Conflict management

I. The judicial Approach: this is the process of employing the legal framework which will serve as
a third party with the aim of managing conflict e.g. Attorney or Judge
II. The power-politics Approach: in this situation the 3rd party shows interest in resolving by
achieving his interest not the interest of the conflicting party.
III. Conciliatory Approach: in this process the 3rd party try to bring conflicting parties into
agreement by improving communication between them.

Conflict management Styles

11
 I. Avoidance: in this situation the conflicting parties avoid the conflict on their own because of its
destructive tendencies, many lives and properties are destroyed, and the way is to avoid the
conflict from further escalation
II. Confrontation: this is the situation in which the party in conflict confront one another until a
winner emerge
III. Problem solving this is the situation in conflict management where the parties in conflict parties
either by themselves or with the help of 3 rd party find the solution to their problems in a cordial
manner

Conflict management Techniques

Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR)

Alternative Dispute Resolution refers to various dispute management techniques, which allows
for introduction of a neutral third party intervention. It denounces the gamut of traditional
adversarial processes. Alternative Dispute Resolution only involves all forms of conflict
management mechanisms, which are not ad-judicial; these include negotiation, mediation, and
arbitration (Burgess and Burgess, 1997: 8). The principal ADR processes remain mediation and
arbitration (Goldbery et al, 1992). ADR unravels systematic and professional ways through
which third party neutrality can create opportunities to promote creative joint problem solving
culture as well as supervision and facilitation of mutual good agreements, which consider the
needs of the parties rather than their positions. But court adjudication basically considers
positional views of the parties. Before adopting ADR approach for the resolution of any conflict,
the parties in dispute should ask the following questions:
a. Despite the broken alliance or relationship, is there any need to restore the conflict-
ridden relationship?
b. Are there any communication problems, and is it necessary to seek for the assistance of
skilled neutral third party intervention, and consider the reliability of such intervention?
c. Are we (the parties) willing to meet to settle the areas of dispute?
d. What level of importance do we (the parties) attach to confidentiality?
e. Do we (the parties) wish to retain full control over the outcome?
f. How important is time?

Reasons for Adoption of ADR

a. One of the reasons for the choice ADR is time. ADR is quicker than the traditional
judicial method. People prefer ADR to court process because the latter takes a long
period of time before a dispute can be determined for possible resolution, while in most
cases, due to the characteristic preferences, the court processes, accord positional ethos,
achieving positive peace remains a difficult task – it often presents parties as gladiators
or enemies;
b. Cost: ADR is cheaper, in spite of being faster. The cost of adopting the court process is
enormous. For instance, A 5 year study conducted by Assistant United State Attorneys
(AUSA’s) shows the prominent status of ADR in dispute resolution. During the period,
63% success was recorded in the ADR interventions, while estimated $10, 700 was
saved in litigation costs, and at least eight – nine hours of staff time, and six months of
litigation time were also saved. Therefore, ADR remains the most effective (Senger, 26).

12
 c. Participation: ADR affords the parties a great opportunity to take part fully in the whole
peace process, through which a mutually acceptable agreement can be reached. The
parties ask questions from themselves with shared feelings, exploring the possibilities for
restoring hope and confidence between themselves (parties) in the actualization of
dispute resolution. ADR affords the disputing parties to discuss and debate on their
differences and see the need to improve their relationship for mutual good and
understanding rather than articulating a win-lose philosophy. The above incident shows
how the victim and offender can come together and discuss on ways to change their
conflict situation to that of tranquility and mutual respect for each other’s needs.

Advantages of ADR
a. It does not consume much time;
b. It is more cost effective. It is of course cheaper than the traditional alternative of court
process;
c. It affords the parties opportunity to control the outcome of the peace process;
d. The parties agree without compulsion from the diplomatic framework through which
their dispute can be resolved;
e. It tends to improve the relationships between the parties, creating a win-win situation for
the attainment of positive peace; It also considers the needs of the parties.

Negotiation:
According to Pruitt, “negotiation is a form of decision making in which two or more parties talk
with one another in an effort to resolve their opposing interest --- a process by which a joint
decision is made by two or more parties” (Pruitt, 1981: xi -xii). Negotiation can also be defined
as “Talks between conflicting parties who discuss ideas, information and options in order to
reach a mutually acceptable agreement. Initially at least, negotiations may not be face – to face”
(International Alert, 1996, 111: 53).

On the disadvantage of negotiation, several scholars in the fields of peace and conflict studies
as well as international law and relations believe that negotiation is ‘not always a good method of
settling international dispute’ because its facts are difficult to be objectively ascertained
(Malanczuk, 1997: 275). It also lacks the moderating influence of neutral third parties, and
cannot curb ‘extreme claims’ by the contending parties especially when there is a strong
bargaining power.

Stages of Negotiation Process

There are various stages through which negotiation can be facilitated. According to
Albert (2004:1), these stages include:
I. Establish contact with other directly, by written words or symbols or through an
intermediary.
II. Create at least a minimally positive professional relationship.
III. Identify topics to be addressed and determine how discussions will be conducted.
IV. Transmit both substantive information and messages about the type and strength of
feelings.
V. Communicate about their desires, positions, or demands and possible needs and interests.
VI. Generate options and assess their validity.

13
VII. Seek to influence each other to obtain advantage or satisfaction.
VIII. Create procedures and ritual for gaining final approval for agreements, and
IX. Develop ways to implement, monitor, and ensure compliance with understandings that
have been reached”.

Strategies of Negotiation Process

There are three basic strategies of negotiation process. These include the following:
I. Competitive bargaining: This is also known as hard bargaining and distributive, position,
zero sum, or win – lose bargaining. Here, the negotiation process or bargaining tends to
be conducted through a framework of competition. The bargainers see the diplomatic
process as competition, in which each of them strives to achieve victory. It promotes
victor, vanquished’ relationship, as immediate benefits, not considering prominently the
relevance of future relationships;
II. Compromising (Cooperative) bargaining: This is also known as soft bargaining, wins
some – lose some or gives and take bargaining. Here, a party strongly has a desire to
maintaining a future relationship with the opponent. His bargaining principle is
integrative and interest based, not minding to make concessions in order to hasten a
mutual agreement with the other party. But it is worth – noting that such as desperate bid
to make quick agreement may be injurious to bargainer. A good example is the conflict
between Nigeria and Cameroon over the ownership of Bakassi Peninsula. Gen. Gowon
Administration made a rash of concessions to the Ahidjo Cameroon, in order to promote
a mutual confidence through the Agreements between the parties. After collapse of Gown
regime, successive administrations in Nigeria have refused to further honour these
agreements because of what they have considered as the excessive nature of Gowon
concessions, which reestablished the conflict situation that had long bedeviled the
bilateral relations between Nigeria and Cameroon.
III. Collaborative bargaining: This is also known as integrative or problem solving
bargaining or interest or positive – sum or – win bargaining. Here, both parties creates
avenues to explore possibilities through their collaborative efforts to achieve a win – win
situation where both parties agree to give premium on their respective interests without
any unnecessary compromise.

Mediation
According to Schmid, mediation is a ‘form of conflict management whereby a skilled and / or
powerful third Party (State, International organization, NGO) acts … to facilitate communication
between conflict parties that consent to the initiative to bring a partial solution (e.g) exchange of
prisoners) or a settlement. The initiative for mediation usually comes from the outside or from
the weaker of the conflicting parties” (Schimid, 2000: 54).
Mediation is any voluntary, non-binding process, even informal, conducted by a neutral
third party with the aim of promoting the dispute settlement between the disputing parties.
According to Miller, Mediation involves third party intervention, which must operate with
considerable neutrality,
“-------lacking the authority to coerce or impose judgments, conditions, or resolutions,
facilitators aim to transform the dynamics of the conflict situation by introducing new
relevant knowledge or information, especially regarding the negotiation process between

14
 the disputants, by revealing common interests and suggesting possible directions toward
settlements (Miller and King 2004: 23 – 24).

In mediation, the parties are expected to ‘maintain considerable control over the process and the
outcome’. The mediator offers mediating services with the ultimate aim of bringing the
contending parties together, and to suggest modalities for the peaceful resolution of dispute. The
submissions of the mediator are of no binding substance on the disputants. For instance, in
Koreans hostilities, the United Nations General Assembly backed a mediation process with the
aim of proposing means and methods for effecting the termination of the armed conflicts, rather
than bringing about negotiations between the disputing parties.
At international level, mediation appears a difficult task because the mediator’s ‘---- neutral
stance is often not possible without favoring one side or the other, especially in armed conflict’
(Malanczuk, 1997: 276). Malanczuk goes further to argue that
Great Powers have greater opportunities in the area of mediation ‘due to their resources and
weight’, who of course, ’tend to pursue their own interests’ and mediation can be said to be most
effective ‘in the settlement of smaller issues or local conflicts’.

Stages to Mediation Process.

I. Creation of forum or medium or bargaining avenue;
II. Collection and sharing of data basically to implore the communication problem between
the disputants;
III. Adoption of problem – solving bargaining approach within a collaboration framework;
IV. Decision making process- Mind you, time is very vital element in peace process, it is
imperative for the mediator to draw a time frame for his/her diplomatic assignment in
order to achieve a quick dispute settlement response from the parties.

Conciliation
Conciliation is another form of ADR. It is defined as ‘----- a process of formulating proposals of
settlement after an investigation of facts and an effort to reconcile opposing contentions, the
parties to the dispute being left free to accept or reject the proposals formulated’. (Hudson, 1994:
232). According to the US Institute of Peace, conciliation is:
The least structured of the four major conflict resolution techniques.
Unlike a negotiator, arbitrator, or mediator, a conciliator frequently works in pre-negotiation
situations to establish and maintain communication among disputants and, if appropriate, to
move them into more formal bargaining formats. Conciliators may employ fact-finding and
observation techniques, and help disputes to be resolved informally. In addition, conciliators may
employ fact-finding and observation techniques, and help disputes to be resolved informally. In
addition, conciliators play critical roles in helping agreements to be kept, and (in) reconciliation
efforts that prevent future conflicts after agreements are reached. (The US Academy of Peace,
1981: 105). Conciliation has been argued by some scholars of international law to be a
‘combination of inquiry and mediation’ (Akehurst, 1970: 1). Conciliation, on the issue of
formality, is more formal than mediation but less flexible because a conciliator can formulate a
new set of proposals where proposals made by a mediator are rejected by the parties, and
mediator can only have a single report’.

15
The basic relevance or importance of conciliation in
international law and relations, in practical terms, lies on the area of Study. Conciliation
commission was established pursuant to Article 83 of the Peace Treaty with Italy of 1947. Some
conciliation commission can also be established outside the framework of specific treaties as
evident in the United Nations. Instance may include the Conciliation Commission for Palestine
under the General Assembly Resolution 194 (iii), 1948 as well as the Conciliation Commission
for the Congo under the Resolution 1474 (ES – IV) of the 1960 (Shaw, 1997: 728).
Conciliation is not regarded in some quarters, as sufficient instrument of peaceful settlement of
dispute. A great example was the ‘context, of tragedy in Yugoslavia’ where conciliation out
rightly failed to address the conflict (Malanczuk, 1997: 281), but it (conciliation) is still a vital
mechanism for dispute resolution, as the successes, it has recorded recently, has attracted
international renewal of interest in the approach.

Arbitration
Arbitration is the most adopted form of ADR. According to International
Law Commission, arbitration is a “procedure for the settlement of dispute between states by a
binding award on the basis of law as a result of an undertaking voluntarily accepted”.
Arbitration can also be defined as “a generic term for a voluntary process in which people in
conflict request the assistance of an impartial and neutral third party to make decision for them
regarding contested issues” (Moore, 1996: 9). Albert adds his voice to this intellectual discourse
by describing arbitration as a process, which of course:
Is resorted to when past efforts to reach a common ground by the
disputants proved abortive though both of them want the conflict to
be resolved quickly, under this process, the third party with formal
mandate, and upon the invitation of the disputing parties, hears the
issues in the conflict and discusses them with each side in a formal,
legal setting. The arbitrator conducts himself, more or less, like a
judge. His decisions have legal backing and must be respected by the
parties once taken (Albert, 2001: 34 – 35).
Arbitration remains a pacific mechanism in the management of conflict whereby the disputing
parties their objects of disagreement, without any iota of compulsion, seeking the neutral third-
party intervention, selecting the majority of the members of the arbitration panel, who will take
decisions, which the parties should voluntarily accept in good faith. The process of arbitration is
informal, economical, private, and relatively quick.
The main motive of arbitration is to conduct a neutral third-party intervention, in such a way that
the disputing parties will have their dispute settled without any further exhibition of adversarial
attitude between the parties with the aim of achieving a win – win situation.
On the final note, arbitration involves appointment of certain people
(Arbitrators) without compulsion by the disputants, who are charged with utmost responsibility
of making necessary arbitrating award, which cannot be forcefully imposed on the disputants.
The composition of the arbitration should fulfill the odd number requirement. The
disputants may appoint one arbitrator each and these arbitrator in consequential appoint an’
umpire’ (arbitrator that makes for the odd number). In the conduct of arbitral interventional, the
arbitrators are expected to be ‘impartial dispensers of justice’, not ‘minding to rule against the
interest of the parties that appointed them for the true dispensation of justice, though which we
can have a true resolution of conflict.

16
 Judicial Settlement / Court Adjudication
Court adjudication, both at local and international levels includes the activities of making
decision, by courts of competent jurisdiction, on disputes according to the rules and principles of
law. It is worth knowing that the highest court at the global level is International Court of Justice,
while in Nigeria, the highest court is the Supreme Court.
International Court of Justice usually consists of 15 judges who are normally elected in separate
electronic by the General Assembly. These judges serve a term of nine years in such a way that
at least five out of these fifteen members would be due for retirement every – three years, but
they can still seek for re-election. These judges, in customary terms, are obliged not to see
themselves as representatives of their various governments. Thus, they should demonstrate a
high degree of no biasness in their dispensation of justice and conform to the ‘main forms of
civilization’, and regard themselves as representing the ‘---principal legal systems of the world’
as contained in the Article 9 of its statute.
In the settlement of international dispute, the ICJ is charged with responsibility of entertaining
any case of dispute agreed by the disputants to resolve through third party adjudication. But
states or nations are often reluctant to appear before the court due to the principle of optimal
clause i.e. if another party takes a party to the ICJ, that party taken to the ICJ may decide not to
appear because of the optimal clause contained in the statute of the Court, but if it decides to
defend itself at the world court, the decision of the court stands binding on the parties.
However, court adjudication is conflict resolution tool that affords the disputants no opportunity
to appoint the third-party adjudicator. The underlying element and principle of third-party
adjudication involves a decision that is binding within a legal framework, which may create an
atmosphere of negative peace due to its philosophy of win – lose outcome (Kleiboer, 1997: 9).
The court adjudication approach also takes a longer time. In spite of routine domestic legal
reforms, dispensation of justice in courts, takes a very long time, even to the frustration of the
parties, which has necessitated the death of some cases of conflict in most courts. At
international level, the situation is even worse, for instance in the case between Nigerian and
Cameroon over the ownership of Bakassi, it took the ICJ eight years before its ruling could be
delivered. In the aftermath, the parties have even resolved to negotiation, when both parties
(Nigeria and Cameroon) had seen the need for mutual understanding, which would create an
improvement in their communication for the peaceful settlement of dispute within a win – win
framework. This formula has really helped them to some extent to resolve the conflict, rather
than the court pronouncement or decision.

Conflict Resolution

Conflict Resolution is the method and process use to facilitate the peaceful ending of conflict by
addressing the root causes of the conflict. Milter (2003) defined Conflict Resolution as a variety of
approaches aimed at terminating conflict through the constructive solving of problem and disagreement
between the conflicting parties. Similarly, Mitchel and Banks (1996) see Conflict Resolution as referring
to (i) an outcome in which the issues in an existing conflict are satisfactory dealt with through a solution
that is mutually acceptable to the parties that will ensure new positive relationship between parties that
were previously hostile and (ii) any process or procedure by which such an outcome is achieve.

17
Conflict Resolution also referred to as ‘dispute resolution’, it usually implies the process of resolving a
dispute or conflict permanently. It’s done by providing each side with appropriate terms of bargaining. It
is predicted on the belief that a good Conflict Resolution begins by identifying the problems and demands
of each party involved in conflict and then by adequately addressing the interest of each to ensure lasting
peace.

Components of Conflict Resolution

 Conflict Prevention
 Conflict Transformation
 Peacekeeping
 Peace building
 Culture of Peace

Conflict Prevention: is a term coined by peace researchers in order to denote the relevant mechanisms
put in place to avert the reoccurrence of conflict, particularly in places where conflicts or wars occurred.
Conflict Prevention also refer to different crisis intervention efforts made to reconcile parties and groups
involve in dispute.

Stages of conflict prevention

o Early prevention: this refers to the situation which stresses the need to curtail evolving
situations of violent conflict.
o Last minute prevention: this is aimed at stopping both horizontal and vertical escalation
of already existing violent conflict.
o Post conflict: this aims to prevent the outbreak of further violence after ceasefire and
peace agreement.
o
Approaches to conflict Prevention

 Operational prevention (direct prevention): this is a measure aim at addressing

conflict from escalation into violent war and it involve the deployment of peacekeepers
and conflict resolution

 Structural prevention (root causes prevention): this comprises long term interventions
that aim to transform key socioeconomic, political and institutional factors which if left
unattended and unaddressed could lead to violent conflict in the future, this includes
poverty, inequality, marginalization

Peace-keeping Operation: the term peacekeeping refers to international efforts made to ensure that
peace is restored in conflict ridden societies through a combination of different support initiatives.
Similarly, peacekeeping also refers to activities intended to create condition that favour lasting peace.

The purpose of peacekeeping is to persuade the parties involved in conflict to stop the conflict and begin
to identify the need for reaching a lasting peace, usually with the support and assistance of the

18
international community. The term was coined by the first U.N secretary General, Dag Hammarskjold to
describe the first UN Emergency Force (UNEF I) deployed to the middle-East in order to restore peace
following an agreement of ceasefire between Egypt and Israel in 1956.

Types of peace keeping Mission

1. Observation Mission: this is the type of peace keeping mission which consist of small groups of
military and civilian task with the responsibility of observing and monitoring the ceasefire
between the conflicting parties.
2. Interpersonal Mission: this is also known as traditional peacekeeping and it consist of large
contingent of lightly armed troops to serve as intermediary between the conflicting parties to
ensure peace and ceasefire.
3. Multidimension mission: this are usually carryout by military and police meant to implement a
comprehensive peaceful settlement of conflict and also shouldered with the responsibility of
ensuring security, institution building and economic development.

Peace Building: is a process that facilitate the establishment of durable peace and tries to prevent the
reoccurrence of violent conflict by addressing root causes and effect of conflict through reconciliation,
institution building and political as well as economic transformation.

Peace building also refers to activities design to prevent conflict through addressing structural and
proximate causes of violence, promoting sustainable peace, delegitimizing violence as a dispute
resolution strategy, building capacity within the society to peacefully manage dispute and reducing
vulnerability to trigger that may spark violence.

Process of peacebuilding

 Pre-conflict peace building: this consist of control of weapons proliferation, improve

police and judicial system
 Post-conflict peacebuilding: this involves re-integration of former combatant into
civilian society, provision of security sector reform, strengthening the rule of law, human
right improvement and provision of people economic and social need

Principles for peacebuilding

The central task of peacebuilding is to create positive peace, a social environment in which new
disputes do not escalate into violence and war. Sustainable peace is characterized by self‐
sustainability, the absence of physical and structural violence and the elimination of
discrimination. Moving towards this sort of environment goes beyond problem solving or
conflict management.

Comprehensive

Comprehensive means having the ability to see the overall picture in order to effect change
within it. Lasting peace can be achieved by addressing the multiple sources of conflict at various
levels of society. This means identifying the needs of those involved, developing a vision of

19
what should be worked towards, creating actions that might lead to achieving this goal, and
constructing a plan that functions as a guide.

Sustainable

Peacebuilding is a long term prospect. Conflicts often span generations and flare up periodically
into violent actions. To achieve sustainable peace, one therefore needs to pay attention to where
the activities and energies are leading. This means not just thinking about and working on
immediate and effective responses to issues and crises, but creating ongoing capacities within the
context to transform recurring cycles of conflict and crisis. This means identifying and
strengthening resources in the context of the conflict.

Strategic

Being strategic implies putting specific scheduled actions in place, responding pro- actively to
emerging social situations and meeting immediate and specific concerns and needs. At the same
time a larger and longer term change process must be re- inforced. The design of peacebuilding
actions should therefore be related to immediate needs and desired ideas for future changes.

Infrastructure

Infrastructure is required to provide the necessary logistical mechanisms, social space and
institutions that support the peacebuilding processes and effect the envis- aged changes.
Peacebuilding infrastructure can be compared to the foundations and pillars that hold up a hous

Peace building Agents

 Internal Actor: this involves government of the country, lawyers, teachers and
religious leaders
 External Actors: external actors include NGOs USAID, Human right watch, UN

Culture of peace

Culture of peace is an integral approach to preventing violence and violent conflict is an opposite
of culture of war and promote sustainable and social development respect of human right, and
equality between human being. The culture of peace was introduced in 1989 during the
international conference on peace in the mind of men in cote d ivore.

The culture of peace implies that peace means more than the absence of war. Peace is considered
as set of values, attitude and mode of behaviour that promote the peaceful settlement of conflict
and the quest for mutual understanding.

Keys to achieve culture of peace;

1. Tolerance
2. Solidarity

20
 3. Poverty reduction
4. Improve environment degradation
5. Mobilization and dedication

Toward building a culture of peace

1. Foster a culture through education, eg, teaching youth to be peace ambassadors and
respect one another
2. Promote sustainable economic and social development, eg, reducing economic and social
inequality, eradicating poverty, and ensuring food security
3. Promote respect for all human right, eg human right and culture of peace are
complementing conflict emerge where there is no respect of human right
4. Foster democratic participation, eg participation of all sector of the society in fight
against corruption, terrorism and organized crime
5. Promote international peace and security, eg people should encourage to participate in
peaceful settlement in order to stop arm and weapons dealing

21