Outlining a Theoretical Approach



The first three chapters provide grounding in the evolution of peacekeeping. The information presented was essentially descriptive. As was noted, peacekeeping is, at present, an ad hoc response to international conflict and as such has little or no conceptual basis. The purpose of the next three chapters is to develop a conceptual framework for peacekeeping. In order to begin this process, it is necessary to examine the general theoretical foundations of the fields of international relations and conflict management. It is from this background that third party intervention strategies and contingency approaches have emerged. And it is upon these two theoretical domains that a conceptual framework for peacekeeping will be built. While the present chapter will focus on reviewing broad academic areas, Chapters 5 and 6 will focus on bringing together this conceptual material with the descriptive information provided in the first three chapters. Through analysis of these two areas, a theory of peacekeeping will be developed.


Conflict Resolution International Relation Conflict Management Contingency Theory Contingency Model 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Notes and References

  1. 1.
    For a more detailed discussion of these perspectives see: Pearson and Rochester, 1992; Smith et al., 1981; Light and Groom, 1985; Klare and Thomas, 1991; Banks, 1984; Gaddis, 1993.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    H. Morganthau (1948), Politics Among Nations, New York: Knopf. Politics Among Nations has been through six editions, the last one published in 1985 following Morganthau’s death. See also, Waltz, 1959, 1979.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Examples of neo-realist perspectives: Small and Singer, 1979; Keohane, 1986.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Gaddis, 1993, offers an interesting discussion on the predictive capability of international relations theory given the end of the Cold War.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    R. Falk (1991), ‘Theory, realism and world security’, in Klare and Thomas, p. 22; see also, Banks, in Burton and Dukes, Vol. 3, 1990; Tickner, 1992.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    A.J.R. Groom (1990), ‘Paradigms in conflict: the strategist, the conflict researcher and the peace researcher’, in Burton and Dukes, Vol. 3, p. 76.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    See Falk, Kim and Mendolvitz, 1982; Walker, 1988; Miller, 1990; Soroos, 1986.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Groom, in Burton and Dukes, Vol. 3, 1990, p. 76.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    See Burton and Sandole, 1986; Burton, 1984; Burton, Vol. 1, 1990.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Falk, in Klare and Thomas, 1991, p. 23.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    For more on ‘transformation’ see Vayrynen, in Vayrynen, 1991; Falk et al., 1991.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    N. Young (1987), ‘The peace movement, peace research, peace education and peace building’, Bulletin of Peace Proposals, 18(3):334.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    P. Wallensteen (1988), ‘The origins of peace research’, in P. Wallensteen (ed.), Peace Research: Achievements and Challenges, Boulder, CO: Westview, p. 10.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Young, 1987, p. 335.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Young, 1987, pp. 336–7.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Galtung, Vol. 1, 1975.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    A. Rapoport (1982), ‘Various conceptions of peace research’, in G. Pardesi (ed.), Contemporary Peace Research Brighton: Harvester, p. 43.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Galtung, Vol. 1, 1975, p. 256.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    For an interesting discussion of the ‘structuralist’/‘evolutionist’ debate within the field, see Boulding, 1977.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Galtung, Vol. 1, 1975, p. 29.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    A. Curle (1971), Making Peace, London: Tavistock, p. 1.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Curle, 1990, outlines Curle’s approach to peace research and to creating positively peaceful societies.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Galtung, Vol. 1, 1975, p. 29.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Galtung, Vol. 1, 1975, p. 111.Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    J. Galtung (1985), ‘Twenty-five years of peace research’, Journal of Peace Research, 22(2):145.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    A. Curle (1990), Tools for Transfortnation: A Personal Study, Stroud, UK: Hawthorne Press, p. 22–3.Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    K. Boulding (1987), ‘Peace and the evolutionary process’, in R. Vayrynen (ed.), The Quest for Peace, London: Sage, p. 52.Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Burton, Vol. 1, 1990, pp. 36–48.Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    For more detailed discussion of human needs theory, see Burton, 1979; Burton, Vol. 2, 1990; Sites, 1973.Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    G. Sorensen (1992), ‘Utopianism in peace research: the Gandhian heritage’, Journal of Peace Research, 29 (2):135–44, provides an interesting discussion of contradictions inherent in different conceptions of peace. Of particular relevance to this discussion is his critique of Galtung’s definition of violence as it is embedded in human needs theory, pp. 136–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    K. Avruch and P.W. Black (1987), ‘A generic theory of conflict resolution: a critique’, Negotiation Journal 3(1):87–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Avruch and Black, 1987, p. 91.Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    This refers to attempts to resolve conflicts through the application of problem-solving workshops or consultancy approaches. See Rothman, 1992; R.J. Fisher, 1983, 1990; Hill, 1982; Burton, 1969; Doob, 1970; Cohen et al., 1977.Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Groom, in Burton and Dukes, Vol. 3, 1990, p. 96.Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Burton, Vol. 1, 1990, p. 3, defines provention as, ‘deducing from an adequate explanation of the phenomenon of conflict, including its human dimensions, not merely the conditions that create an environment of conflict, and the structural changes required to remove it, but more importantly, the promotion of conditions that create cooperative relationships.’Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    See Soroos, 1990a.Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Some examples of work on the causes of conflict are, Cashman, 1993; R.J. Fisher, 1990; Waltz, 1959; Small and Singer, 1989; Gurr, 1993; Horowitz, 1985; Burton, 1984; Mitchell, 1981b.Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    M. Deutsch (1991), ‘Subjective features of conflict resolution: psychological, social and cultural influences’, in Vayrynen, p. 31.Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    Burton, Vol. 1, 1990, p. 2.Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    Burton, Vol. 1, 1990, p. 2.Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    E.E. Azar (1990), The Management of Protracted Social Conflict: Theory and Cases, Aldershot, U.K.: Dartmouth, especially pp. 1–17.Google Scholar
  42. 42.
    Azar, 1990, p. 12.Google Scholar
  43. 43.
    Azar, 1990, p. 2.Google Scholar
  44. 44.
    Mitchell, 1981b, p. 16 shows the model. Explanation of the three parts of the model follows, pp. 19–34.Google Scholar
  45. 45.
    Mitchell, 1981b, p. 29Google Scholar
  46. 46.
    Mitchell, 1981b, pp. 47–68.Google Scholar
  47. 47.
    Deutsch, in Vayrynen, 1991, p. 27.Google Scholar
  48. 48.
    F. Glasl (1982), ‘The process of conflict escalation and roles of third parties’, in G.B.J. Bomers and R.B. Peterson (eds), Conflict Management and Industrial Relations, Boston: Kluwer Nijhoff, p. 122.Google Scholar
  49. 49.
    H. Eckstein (1980), ‘Theoretical approaches to explaining collective political violence’, in T.R. Gurr (ed.), Handbook of Political Conflict: Theory and Research, New York: Free Press, p. 138.Google Scholar
  50. 50.
    J.W. Burton (1972c), World Society, London: Cambridge University Press, pp. 137–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    Eckstein, in Gurr, 1980, p. 139.Google Scholar
  52. 52.
    Banks, in Burton and Dukes, Vol. 3, 1990, p. 56.Google Scholar
  53. 53.
    Banks, in Burton and Dukes, Vol. 3, 1990, p. 68.Google Scholar
  54. 54.
    For an excellent discussion of this debate see C. Mitchell (1991), ‘Recognising conflict’, in T. Woodhouse (ed.), Peacemaking in a Troubled World, New York: Berg, pp. 209–25.Google Scholar
  55. 55.
    C. Mitchell (1981a), Peacemaking and the Consultant’s Role, Westmead: Gower, p. 22.Google Scholar
  56. 56.
    C. Mitchell (1973), ‘Conflict resolution and controlled communication: some further comments’, Journal of Peace Research, 10:128.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. 57.
    Mitchell, 1981a, p. 31.Google Scholar
  58. 58.
    Burton, 1972c, p. 149.Google Scholar
  59. 59.
    Mitchell, 1981b, pp. 15–34.Google Scholar
  60. 60.
    Fisher, 1990, pp. 234–8.Google Scholar
  61. 61.
    Deutsch, in Vayrynen, 1991, p. 28.Google Scholar
  62. 62.
    J. Bercovitch (1986), ‘International mediation: a study of the incidence, strategies and conditions of successful outcomes’, Cooperation and Conflict, 21:155.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. 63.
    J. Bercovitch, J.T Anagnoson and D.L. Willie (1991), ‘Some conceptual issues and empirical trends in the study of successful mediation in international relations’, Journal of Peace Research, 28(1):7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. 64.
    Mitchell, 1981b, p. 278.Google Scholar
  65. 65.
    Conflict management will be used here as a generic term to encompass all types of strategies employed to reduce or end conflict.Google Scholar
  66. 66.
    J.W. Burton (1987), Resolving Deep-Rooted Conflict: A Handbook, Lanham MD: University Press of America, p. 21.Google Scholar
  67. 67.
    Azar, 1990, pp. 1–17.Google Scholar
  68. 68.
    Mitchell, 1981b, p. 253.Google Scholar
  69. 69.
    Burton, Vol. 1, 1990, p. 3.Google Scholar
  70. 70.
    J. Laue (1990), ‘The emergence and institutionalization of third-party roles in conflict’, in Burton and Dukes, Vol. 3, p. 258.Google Scholar
  71. 71.
    Laue, in Burton and Dukes, Vol. 3, 1990, p. 258.Google Scholar
  72. 72.
    See note 33 for references on problem-solving.Google Scholar
  73. 73.
    A discussion of the development of the field of conflict intervention is offered by Laue, in Burton and Dukes, Vol. 3., 1990. Laue describes the influences, roles, expectations of this emerging field.Google Scholar
  74. 74.
    Mitchell, 1981b, pp. 274–5.Google Scholar
  75. 75.
    Laue, in Burton and Dukes, Vol. 3, 1990, p. 260.Google Scholar
  76. 76.
    Laue, in Burton and Dukes, Vol. 3, 1990, pp. 260–1.Google Scholar
  77. 77.
    This point is discussed more fully by Burton, Vol. 1, 1990, pp. 188–210, especially the model used to distinguish between third party roles, pp. 196–7.Google Scholar
  78. 78.
    Bercovitch et al., 1991, p. 8.Google Scholar
  79. 79.
    Bercovitch et al., 1991, p. 8.Google Scholar
  80. 80.
    R. Fisher and L. Keashly (1991), ‘The potential complementarity of mediation and consultation within a contingency model of third party intervention’, Journal of Peace Research, 28(1):30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  81. 81.
    For a general overview of mediation see Wall and Lynn, 1993; Wall, 1981; Fisher and Keashly, 1988; Bercovitch, 1991, 1992; Bercovitch and Lamare, 1993.Google Scholar
  82. 82.
    See note 33 for references on consultancy (problem-solving).Google Scholar
  83. 83.
    Fisher and Keashly, 1991, p. 30.Google Scholar
  84. 84.
    Wehr, 1979, p. 45.Google Scholar
  85. 85.
    van der Merwe et al., in Burton and Dukes, Vol. 3, 1990, p. 233.Google Scholar
  86. 86.
    Burton, 1987b, p. 7.Google Scholar
  87. 87.
    For further discussion of negotiation, see Pruitt and Carnavale, 1993; Druckman, Kidd and Saks, Vol. 2, 1983; Druckman, 1993; Kriesberg, 1988; Saunders, 1985; Stein, 1989c; Touval, 1989; Rubin, 1989.Google Scholar
  88. 88.
    G. Tillett (1991), Resolving Conflict: A Practical Approach, Sydney/Melbourne: Sydney University Press/Oxford University Press Australia, p. 45.Google Scholar
  89. 89.
    van der Merwe et al., in Burton and Dukes, Vol. 3, 1990, p. 218.Google Scholar
  90. 90.
    R. Fisher and W. Ury (1981), Getting to Yes: How To Negotiate to Agreement Without Giving In, London: Arrow.Google Scholar
  91. 91.
    van der Merwe et al., in Burton and Dukes, Vol. 3, 1990, p. 224.Google Scholar
  92. 92.
    Fisher and Keashly, 1991, p. 33.Google Scholar
  93. 93.
    A useful discussion of conciliatory gestures is offered in Mitchell, 1991.Google Scholar
  94. 94.
    Deutsch, in Vayrynen, 1991, p. 49.Google Scholar
  95. 95.
    Deutsch, in Vayrynen, 1991, p. 49.Google Scholar
  96. 96.
    Wehr, 1979, pp. 50–52.Google Scholar
  97. 97.
    C. Honeyman (1988), ‘Five elements of mediation’, Negotiation Journal, 4(2):152–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  98. 98.
    N. Katz and J. Lawyer (1985), Communication and Conflict Resolution Skills, Dubuque, Iowa: Kendall/Hunt, pp. 11–12.Google Scholar
  99. 99.
    Katz and Lawyer, 1985, pp. vii–ix.Google Scholar
  100. 100.
    Burton and Dukes, Vol. 4, 1990, pp. 187–8.Google Scholar
  101. 101.
    The field of peace research, in particular, has focused on this problem and there have been numerous approaches and positions put forward. For a range of arguments see Boulding, Brigagao and Clements, 1991; Curle, 1990; Dumas and Thee, 1989.Google Scholar
  102. 102.
    See Avruch, Black and Scimecca, 1991; Wehr and Lederach, 1991.Google Scholar
  103. 103.
    M.H. Ross (1992), ‘The language of success and failure in ethnic conflict management’, paper prepared for the First International Conference of the Ethnic Studies Network, Northern Ireland, 8–10June 1992, pp. 6–7.Google Scholar
  104. 104.
    The main arguments of this framework are summarized in J. Laue (1982), ‘Ethical considerations in choosing intervention roles’, Peace and Change, 8(2/3):29–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  105. 105.
    Laue, 1982, pp. 35–6.Google Scholar
  106. 106.
    Wehr, 1979, p. 50.Google Scholar
  107. 107.
    Burton, Vol. 1, 1990, p. 159.Google Scholar
  108. 108.
    Burton, Vol. 1, 1990, p. 160.Google Scholar
  109. 109.
    Burton, Vol. 1, 1990, p. 160.Google Scholar
  110. 110.
    N. Lewer and O. Ramsbotham (1993), ‘Something must be done: towards and ethical framework for humanitarian intervention in international social conflict’, Peace Research Report, No. 33, Bradford, UK: Department of Peace Studies, University of Bradford, p. 98.Google Scholar
  111. 111.
    See Prein, 1984; Bercovitch et al., 1991; Haas, 1986.Google Scholar
  112. 112.
    See Bercovitch et al., 1991. This paper provides a good example of analysis of third party intervention yielding empirical evidence which is then applied to a contingency model.Google Scholar
  113. 113.
    See Wehr and Lederach, 1991. This is a good example of a case-study approach which could yield useful evidence for a contingency model. Examples of the data-set approach can be found in Bercovitch et al., 1991, and Miall, 1992.Google Scholar
  114. 114.
    Bercovitch et al., 1991, p. 9.Google Scholar
  115. 115.
    Gaddis, 1993, p. 58.Google Scholar
  116. 116.
    For example Haas, 1987, did a very similar study to that of Bercovitch et al., 1991, covering a very similar data set, and came up with somewhat different conclusions. Based on his results, Haas suggests that mediation is more successful in intense, violent conflicts, while relatively unsuccessful in relatively less intense ones. Bercovitch et al., on the other hand, find the opposite to be the case. They argue that mediation is more successful if a conflict has not escalated into violence.Google Scholar
  117. 117.
    Prein, 1984, p. 82.Google Scholar
  118. 118.
    Laue, 1982, p. 35.Google Scholar
  119. 119.
    The results of Prein’s 1984 study seem to indicate that such an approach is valid. His research suggests that process or contingency approaches offer a general strategy combined with other approaches operating at a more specific level, p. 100.Google Scholar
  120. 120.
    Q. Wright (1965), ‘The escalation of international conflicts’, Journal of Conflict Resolution, 4(4):434–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  121. 121.
    Glasl, in Bomers and Peterson, 1982, pp. 119–40.Google Scholar
  122. 122.
    Fisher and Keashly, 1991, pp. 35–9.Google Scholar
  123. 123.
    For a further explanation of this approach and its development, and the theory behind it, see R.J. Fisher, 1990; Fisher and Keashly, 1988.Google Scholar
  124. 124.
    See Glasl, in Bomers and Peterson, 1982.Google Scholar
  125. 125.
    Fisher and Keashly, 1991, p. 42.Google Scholar
  126. 126.
    Rothman, 1989, p. 274.Google Scholar
  127. 127.
    W. L. Ury (1987), ‘Strengthening international mediation’, Negotiation Journal, 3(3): 226–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  128. 128.
    van der Merwe et al., in Burton and Dukes, Vol. 3, 1990, p. 232.Google Scholar
  129. 129.
    Mitchell, 1981b, p. 279.Google Scholar
  130. 130.
    Azar, 1990, p. 127.Google Scholar
  131. 131.
    Azar, 1990, p. 127.Google Scholar
  132. 132.
    Bercovitch et al., 1991, pp. 7–17.Google Scholar
  133. 133.
    Wehr and Lederach, 1991.Google Scholar
  134. 134.
    See Wehr and Lederach, 1991.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© A. B. Fetherston 1994

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Peace Research CentreThe Australian National UniversityAustralia

Personalised recommendations