The Changing Nature of Conflict: The Need for a Conflict-Sensitive Approach

Chapter

Abstract

Conflicts and complex emergencies provide the most pervasive context for contemporary humanitarian action as they drive more than 80% of current humanitarian need. Conflicts are a universal feature of society, although every conflict is unique in terms of its actors, causes, consequences and dynamics. For humanitarian organisations

the word ‘conflict’ is usually used with reference to countries where there is politically motivated violence, internally or internationally, and where several parties (e.g. states, communities, political parties or groups) are involved in acting out their disagreement using violence.

References

  1. Anderson MB (1999) Do no harm: how aid can support peace-or war. Lynne Rienner Publishers Inc., LondonGoogle Scholar
  2. Brahm E (2003) Latent conflict stage. Retrieved from Beyond Intractability: http://www.beyondintractability.org/essay/latent-conflict
  3. Conflict Sensitivity Consortium (Undated) Do no harm. Retrieved from Conflict Sensitivity Consortium: http://www.conflictsensitivity.org/do-no-harm-local-capacities-for-peace-project/
  4. Conflict Sensitivity Consortium (Undated) Introduction. Retrieved from Conflict Sensitive Consortium: http://www.conflictsensitivity.org/an-introduction-to-conflict-sensitivity-3/
  5. Deutsch M (1983) The prevention of World War III: a psychological perspective. Polit Psychol 4(1):3–31, p 6, 24 and othersGoogle Scholar
  6. Deutsch M, Coleman P (2000) The handbook of conflict resolution: theory and practice. Jossey-Bass Publishers, San Francisco, pp 428–450Google Scholar
  7. DG ECHO (2015, February 2) Assessing needs vulnerability and risk. Retrieved from European Commission Humanitarian Aid and Civil Protection: http://ec.europa.eu/echo/what/humanitarian-aid/needs-assessments_en
  8. Galtung J (1967) Theories of peace: a synthetic approach to peace thinking. Unpublished, Oslo. Retrieved from http://www.transcend.org/files/Galtung_Book_unpub_Theories_of_Peace_-_A_Synthetic_Approach_to_Peace_Thinking_1967.pdf
  9. Galtung J (1969) Violence, peace, and peace research. J Peace Res (3):167–191Google Scholar
  10. Galtung J (1971) The Middle East and the theory of conflict. J Peace Res 8(3/4):173–206Google Scholar
  11. GHA Report (2016) Global humanitarian assistance report. Global Humanitarian Assistance, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  12. Global Peace Index (2016) Global Peace Index 2016. Institute for Economics and Peace, BrusselsGoogle Scholar
  13. HIIK (2015) Conflict Barometer 2015. The Heidelberg Institute for International Conflict Research, Heidelberg. Retrieved from http://www.hiik.de/en/konfliktbarometer/pdf/ConflictBarometer_2015.pdf
  14. Human Security Report Project (2013) Human Security Report 2013. Human Security Research Group, VancouverGoogle Scholar
  15. ICRC (2008) How is the term “Armed Conflict” defined in International Humanitarian Law? - Opinion paper. ICRC, Geneva. Retrieved from http://www.icrc.org/eng/assets/files/other/opinion-paper-armed-conflict.pdf Google Scholar
  16. ICRC (2014) The International Committee of the Red Cross’s (ICRC’s) role in situations of violence below the threshold of armed conflict- Policy Document. Int Rev Red Cross 275–304Google Scholar
  17. Jeong H-W (2008) Understanding conflict and conflict analysis. Sage Publications Limited, LondonGoogle Scholar
  18. Joint Evaluation of Emergency Assistance to Rwanda (1996) The international response to conflict and genocide: lessons from the Rwanda experience: synthesis report. Retrieved from http://www.oecd.org/derec/sweden/50189495.pdf
  19. Kalpakian J (2004) Identity, conflict and cooperation in international river systems. Ashgate, MoroccoGoogle Scholar
  20. Lawand K (2012, December 10) Internal conflicts or other situations of violence – what is the difference for victims? Retrieved from International Committee of the Red Cross: http://www.icrc.org/eng/resources/documents/interview/2012/12-10-niac-non-international-armed-conflict.htm
  21. Loane G (2011) Applying Conflict Sensitivity in Emergency Response (Questions and Discussion). Applying conflict sensitivity in emergency response: current practice and ways forward (Conference Paper, p. 70). Overseas Development Institute, LondonGoogle Scholar
  22. Médecins Sans Frontières (2016, May 5) MSF to pull out of World Humanitarian Summit. Retrieved from MSF UK: http://www.msf.org.uk/article/msf-to-pull-out-of-world-humanitarian-summit
  23. OECD (2012) Conflict analysis and its use in evaluation. In: OECD (ed) Evaluating peacebuilding activities in settings of conflict and fragility: improving learnings for results. OECDGoogle Scholar
  24. Orbinski J (1999) Nobel Lecture. Retrieved July 2016, from http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/peace/laureates/1999/msf-lecture.html
  25. PRIO (2015) Graphs. PRIO Conflict Trends Project. Retrieved from http://www.prio.org/Projects/Extensions/ConflictTrends/Graphs/
  26. Ramsbotham O, Woodhouse T, Miall H (2011) Contemporary conflict resolution. Polity Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  27. Sarkees RM (2011) The COW typology of war: defining and categorizing wars (version 4 of the data). The Correlates of War Project. Retrieved from http://cow.la.psu.edu/COW2%20Data/WarData_NEW/COW%20Website%20-%20Typology%20of%20war.pdf
  28. Sarkees MR, Schafer P (2000) The correlates of war data on war: an update to 1997. Conflict Manag Peace Sci 18:123–144Google Scholar
  29. The Global Peace Index (2016) Global cost of conflict reaches $14.3tn, says report. Institute for Economics and Peace, BrusselsGoogle Scholar
  30. Trocaire (2011) Conflict sensitivity toolkit. Trocaire, Dublin. http://www.trocaire.org/resources/policyandadvocacy/conflict-sensitivity-toolkit
  31. UCDP (2016a) Definitions. Retrieved from Uppsala Conflict Data Program: http://www.pcr.uu.se/research/ucdp/definitions/#dyad
  32. UCDP (2016b) Fatalities view. Retrieved from Uppsala Conflict Data Program: http://ucdp.uu.se/#/exploratory
  33. UCDP (2016c) Uppsala conflict data program. Uppsala University, Uppsala. Retrieved from http://ucdp.uu.se/#/encyclopedia Google Scholar
  34. UN Secretary-General (2016) World Humanitarian Summit- chair’s summary. The United Nations, IstanbulGoogle Scholar
  35. Vite S (2009) Typology of armed conflicts in international humanitarian law: legal concepts and actual situations. Int Rev Red Cross 873:70–94Google Scholar
  36. Wallensteen P (2007) Understanding conflict resolution: war peace and the global system. Sage Publications, SwedenGoogle Scholar
  37. WHS (2016) One humanity shared responsibility. The United Nations, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  38. WHS Secretariat (2015) Restoring humanity: systhesis of the consultation process for the World Humanitarian Summit. United Nations, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  39. Zeitoun M, Mirumachi N (2008) Transboundary water interaction I: reconsidering conflict and cooperation. Int Environ Agreements 297–316Google Scholar
  40. Zicherman N, Khan A, Street A, Heyer H, Chevreau O (2011) Applying conflict sensitivity in emergency response: current practice and ways forward. Humanitarian Practice Network, LondonGoogle Scholar

Further Reading

  1. Ramsbotham O, Woodhouse T, Miall H (2011) Contemporary conflict resolution. Polity Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  2. Trocaire (2011) Conflict sensitivity toolkit. Trocaire, Dublin. http://www.trocaire.org/resources/policyandadvocacy/conflict-sensitivity-toolkit
  3. Wallensteen P (2007) Understanding conflict resolution: war peace and the global system. Sage Publications, SwedenGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University College DublinDublinIreland

Personalised recommendations