GST 204: PEACE STUDIES AND CONFLICT

RESOLUTION

Prepared by Sociology Department, Federal University Birnin Kebbi

REVISED IN NOVEMBER, 2022

GST 204: PEACE STUDIES AND CONFLICT RESOLUTION
COURSE CONTENTS
1.0 INTRODUCTION
1.1 Scope of the Course
1.2 Basic Concepts in Peace Studies and Conflict Resolution
1.3 Origin of the Term Peace
2.0 DEFINITION AND TYPES OF PEACE
2.1 Meaning of Peace
2.2 Conceptual Definition of Peace
2.3 Authoritative Definition of Peace
2.4 Types of Peace
2.5 Different Perspectives of Peace
2.6 Principles of Peace Concept
2.7 Dimensions of Peace
2.8 Global Peace Index
2.9 Pillars and Indicators of Positive Peace
2.10 Forms of Peace Process
2.11 Defining Culture of Peace
2.12 Basic Elements of Culture of Peace
2.13 Building a Culture of Peace
3.0 DEFINITION OF SUSTAINABLE PEACE
3.1 Major Components of Sustainable Peace
3.2 Conditions for the Creation of Sustainable Peace
4.0 ORIGIN AND DEFINITIONS OF CONFLICT
4.1 Conceptual Definitions of Conflict
4.2 Authoritative Definitions of Conflict
4.3 Nature of Conflict: Violent Conflict and Non-Violent Conflict.
4.4 Definition and Types of Violent Conflict
4.5 Definitions, Types and Dimensions of Non-Violent Conflict
4.6 Stages of Conflicts
4.7 Conditions for the Emergence and Development of Inter-group Conflict
4.8 Determinants or Sources of Conflicts
4.9 Cases of Conflicts in Nigeria, West Africa and other Parts of the World
4.10 Theories of Conflicts
4.11 Consequences of Conflict
5.0 APPROACHES TO CONFLICT MANAGEMENT
5.1 Two Broad Methods of Conflict and Dispute Resolution
5.2 Regular Dispute Resolution (RDR)
5.3 Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR)
5.4 Traditional Approaches to Conflict Prevention Management & Resolution in Africa
5.5 International Organizations and Conflict Management in Africa
6.0 CONCLUSION

Page 2 of 26
1.0 INTRODUCTION
These lecture notes are prepared to expose readers to some conceptual, theoretical and
methodological issues required in understanding, explaining, predicting and managing
peaceful co-existence and conflicts between and among individuals, groups, organizations,
communities, nations, countries or regions. The notes intend to inculcate into readers the
spirits of perceiving, accepting, applying and sustaining peace as a vehicle of unity and
development across the world with reference to African region and Nigeria in particular. Also
the notes are meant to equip readers with fairly adequate strategic and operational tools with
which to analyze inter-personal, gender-based, domestic, communal, ethnic, industrial,
religious, political and economic conflicts, including indigene-settler crisis and to partake in
the resolution of varied social conflicts as well as to appreciate the imperatives for
establishing, fostering and conserving harmonious social relationship in human societies.
Thus, the course is introduced to facilitate training of readers on, equipping and fortifying
them with in-depth knowledge and skills required to achieve Nigeria ’s five (5) national
objectives, which are to build (a) a free and democratic society; (b) a just and egalitarian
society, (c) a united, strong and self-reliant nation, (d) a great and dynamic economy; and (e)
a land of bright and full of opportunities for all citizens. Again, it is essential to express that
the course seeks to fast-track the realization of Nigeria ’s motto, ‘Unity and Faith, Peace and
Progress,’ as indicated in the country’s coat of arm, including all the virtues that reflected in
its ‘National Anthems’ (service with love, strength, faith, heart and might for Nigeria ’s peace
and unity; noble cause, right guidance and youths’ truthfulness, loveliness and honesty for
peace, justice and nation building) and ‘National Pledge’ (faithful, loyal and honest service for
the defense of the unity, honor and glory of Nigeria).

1.1 Scope of the Course: Peace Studies and Conflict Resolution

The notes begin with the basic concepts in peace and conflict resolution studies. Then, they
cover the origins, definitions, types, dimensions of peace, including the idea of ‘Global Peace
Index,’ pillars and indicators of positive peace, as well as the meanings, aims/objectives,
scope/elements, stages, sampled activities and forms of peace process. Definitions and basic
elements of culture of peace as well as the conditions for building culture of peace, including
the definitions, components and conditions for creation of sustainable peace are treated. Also,
the notes are designed to update readers on the definitions, nature, extent, sources, types,
cases, theories, consequences of conflicts and approaches to conflict management (conflict
settlement, conflict resolution and conflict transformation). Specifically, the two (2) broad
methods of dispute and conflict resolution (Regular Dispute Resolution; RDR and Alternative
Dispute Resolution; ADR) are considered. The role of regional (e.g. Economic Community
of West African States, ECOWAS and African Union, AU) and international bodies (e.g.
United Nations, UN; and European Union, EU) in conflict resolution in Africa is examined.
Readers' attentions need to be drawn to the fact that the notes are necessarily introductory,
and not meant to replace lectures and/or further reading. Thus, a bibliography has been
incorporated at the end of these notes to acknowledge citations and to point out further
materials for the readers to explore.

Page 3 of 26
1.2 Basic Concepts in Peace Studies and Conflict Resolution
This section sets to keep readers informed about the terminologies that are central to and
recurrent in peace and conflict resolution studies, though some of the concepts are either
closely related or used interchangeably. For example, the concept of peace is associated with
harmony, tranquility, serenity, calm, quiet, stillness, wellness, healthiness and silence, while
the term conflict is often linked to crisis, clash, quarrel, divergence, difference, tension,
opposition, disaster, confrontation, frustration, contradiction, assault, attack, dispute,
disagreement, displacement, disintegration, competition, violence, struggle, complaint, war,
hostility, acrimony, insistence, resistance, persistence, argument and disengagement. While
injustice, unfairness, prejudice, discrimination, inequality, deprivation, denial, exclusion and
segregation are often perceived and considered as catalysts of conflict, the terms deal,
agreement, negotiation, intervention, pact, mediation, treaty, compromise, apology,
persuasion, submission, solution, settlement and accord are frequently treated as ideal
constructs that relate to conflict management, resolution and transformation. Other notable
concepts are interest, aspiration, aim, goal, objective, purpose, target, intention, vision and
mission. Need arises to stress that the recurring and interchangeable concepts in the contents
of these notes are inexhaustible due to diversity in human societies, cultures and the ways
people perceive and respond to issues around them. Given this, some of the terms that are not
listed in the notes are likely to be found in the suggested reading materials.

1.3 Origins of the Term Peace

The origins of ‘Peace’ as a concept are traceable to the Latin Words ‘Pes’ or ‘Pax’ or the
French word ‘Pairs’. Each of these terms refers to pact, agreement, treaty, reconciliation,
silence, or tranquility. At the individual level, the European references showed that since 12 th
Century, the clause, such as ‘being at peace in one’s own mind or with oneself ’ is used to
define peace. Since 13th Century, the term ‘peace’ has been used in a ‘farewell’ to deceased
person, especially in a statement such as ‘Rest in Peace’. Later, it begins to appear in
greetings across the world, especially in Arab societies and Hawaiian society, where “Salaam’
and ‘Aloha’ are respectively used in greetings. Takeshi Ishida (1969) expressed that ‘peace ’ is
the same with the ancient Hebrew’s concept of ‘Shalom’ (i.e. will of God, justice or
prosperity), Greek’s concept of ‘eireme’ (i.e. prosperity or order), Roman ’s concept of ‘pax ’
(i.e calmness), Japanese concept of ‘heiwa’ (i.e mental tranquility), Indian concept of ‘shanti ’
(i.e tranquility of mind), including the Chinese terms, such as ‘he ’ or ‘ho ’ (i.e smoothness or
harmonious or peaceful) and ‘ping’ (i.e even or tranquil or just), ‘helping ’ (i.e world peace or
peace between/among nations), ‘an’ and ‘mingsi’ are expressions for ‘inner peace ’ i.e peace of
mind. This indicates that peace has both ‘outer ’ and ‘inner ’ forms. In addition, ‘ubuntu ’ is a
Bantu ethnic group’s word used in Eastern, Central and Southern African. It ( ubuntu) is
humanistic and holistic term that symbolizes both ‘negative’ and ‘positive ’ peace, and it
represents whatsoever it takes and whatsoever it means to be human in many African
societies. The word ‘lafiya’ is often used by some West African ethnic groups, such as Hausa,
Nupe, Gbagyi and Yoruba to express peace. However, studies indicated that the word ‘lafiya ’
was extracted from an Arabic word ‘afia’, which means ‘wellness ’. All these showed that
peace signifies sense of ‘quietness’, ‘calmness’, ‘serenity’, including ‘avoidance of quarrel.
2.0 DEFINITION AND TYPES OF PEACE

Page 4 of 26
2.1 Meaning of Peace
The diversity in people’s perceptions about what constitute peace and what did not represent
peace accounted for various meanings, which are associated with peace. For example, David
Francis (2006) identified six (6) meaning of peace as follows:
1. Peace as an absence of war or lack of direct violence,
2. Peace as justice and development or lack of structural violence,
3. Peace as a balance in and with the ecosphere,
4. Peace as an inner nourishment or spiritual diet, and
5. Peace as wholeness and making whole or unified existence or complete unity.

2.2 Conceptual Definition of Peace

Peace is a state of harmony that affords interacting parties the chance to meet their needs and
expectations. It is lack of violence, conflicting behaviors, hostility, retribution, and presence
of freedom from fear of violence, sincere efforts at reconciliation, healthy and/or newly
healed interpersonal and/or international relationships, as well as prosperity in socio-
economic welfare, in establishing equality and political order that serves the true interests of
all.

2.3 Authoritative Definition of Peace

Given the indispensability of ‘peace’ to the world and the rising threats against it as seen or
heard in various ‘crises and wars’ that occurred in pre-industrial and industrial era, including
the First World War (1914-1919) and the Second World War (1939-1945), Peace Studies was
introduced as a course in schools and research centres. During the early years of Peace
Studies, the term peace was defined as the (a) opposite of war or (b) absence of war. These
definitions were influenced by the tragedies that occurred in the 2nd World War and by the
bitter experience of destruction of lives and property during the Nuclear War between world’s
two superpowers i.e. the former Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR) and the United
States of America (USA).

Albert Einstein (1940), a German-born theoretical physicist and one of the leading scientists
that the world has ever had, was the first that extended the definition of peace above ‘the
absence of war,’ when he asserted that peace is not only the absence of war, but also the
presence of justice, law and order i.e. existence of government. As such, Muhammad-Baba
(2014) argues that conceptions of peace as absence of violence/war are weak for their
inability to include the primary causes of lack of peace.

Sugata Dasgupta (1968) also expanded the definition of peace beyond ‘absence of war’ by
proposing a new concept of “Peacelessness” i.e. absence of non-war situations, where people
suffer just as much as in war from social disorganizations (poverty, deprivation, malnutrition,
disease, illiteracy, prejudice, discrimination, injustice, oppression) and deviant behaviors
(crime, delinquency, insecurity, substance abuse). The definitions of peace by Einstein and
Dasgupta revealed new values of peace, which are government, social relation, better
economy, justice, law and order. The values are additional components/conditions for peace
that are omitted in the definition of peace as absence of war. This implied that absence of

Page 5 of 26
interstate or inter-community wars is insufficient to be regarded as the only condition for
peace. Furthermore, Batty Reardon (1988) sees peace as the absence of violence in all its’
forms; physical, social, psychological and structural forms.

Oke Ibeanu (2006) conceives peace as a process that involves some activities which are
directly and/or indirectly linked to rise in human development and to reduction in conflict at
group, societal, regional or global spheres. The UNESCO (2013, p. 5) stated that peace is
beyond absence of war, because it is about living together irrespective of social differences,
such as sex, race, language, religion or culture, and also about promoting universal respect for
justice and human rights, which are the bedrock of coexistence. Peace is a choice to be made
on each situation and in everyday life decision.

Peace is defined as a political condition that ensures justice and social stability through
formal and informal institutions, practices and norms’ Miller and King (2003). It is
dangerously misleading to think that the absence of war means the presence of peace. It is
also important to know that simply avoiding conflicts, does not mean peace, but acting in
accordance to some of the conditions that must be met to guarantee peace in any society.
Balance political power sharing in any region; legitimate for decision makers and
implementers in the eyes of their respective groups, supported by external parties through
transparency and accountability, recognized and valued interdependence among the people
fostering long-term co-operation during disagreements, agreements, normality and crises;
trusted and reliable institutions for resolving conflicts; mutual understanding of
incompatibility, and every member of that community must be given a sense of respect and
belonging in principle and practice, collectively and individually in accordance with
international standards. All these conditions mentioned above come to guarantee positive
peace. Peace sought outside the premise of social justice as mentioned above is called
negative and it is not true peace.

2.4 Types of Peace

John Galtung (1967) identified two (2) types of peace, as (i) Positive peace, and (ii) negative
peace. First, positive peace is a situation that simultaneously contains most, if not all
required features (such as harmony, justice and equity) of human mind and society, including
lack of indirect and structural violence. The Institute for Economics and Peace (IEP, 2015)
defines positive peace as the collection of attitudes, institutions and structures that create and
conserve harmonious social relations and open societies for human potentials to flourish.
Positive Peace also defined as the attitudes, institutions and structures that create and sustain
peaceful societies. Countries that have higher levels of peace, as measured by the GPI, than
their Positive Peace measures are said to have a ‘Positive Peace deficit’. This is where a
country records a higher level of peacefulness than can be sustained by its level of socio-
economic development. Of the countries with large Positive Peace deficits in 2009, 80 per
cent had deteriorated in the GPI by 2022. Second, negative peace is a condition that lacks
direct violence, such as war and other issues that are setbacks to the progress of society.

Page 6 of 26
2.5 Different Perspectives of Peace

A lot of perspectives of peace making and processes were developed over years. But for the
purpose of this module, we will describe the following:

1. Ahimsa (‘Non-violence’)

This is religious base. It originated within the Jainism, a reforming sect of Hinduism, a faith
prominent in Indian region where Gandhi grew up. Ahimsa is translated into English as ‘non-
violence’, but in the original Sanskrit, it conveys more meanings encompassing ‘non-injury ’ to
all aspects or forms of life, be it man, animal or plant.

2. Satyagraha (‘the pursuit of truth’ or ‘insistence on truth’)

This is another principle of peace which was also pushed by Gandhi which means ‘the
pursuit of truth’ or ‘insistence on truth’ Gandhi (1928:36) argued that there is law of nature
guiding the process of acquisition. The law according to him states that whatever guided the process
of acquisition, will also guide the sustenance or the keeping of that acquisition. He therefore argued
that it is then better to acquire whatever thing we want, be it political, economic or social in
a non- violent way , so that we can keep it the same way . ‘A thing acquired by violence can be
retained by violence alone’ Gandhi (1928:36). The idea of Satyagraha goes beyond non-
violence, but ‘embodied a life - long pursuit of truth’.

3. Conflict Resolution

This perspective talks about mediation, negotiation and arbitration. These processes
encouraged the use of neutral third party to facilitate the process of peace making. The
processes could be applied to inter and intra personal and group conflicts. These processes
can be studied and practiced independently. Agreements reached with these processes can be
binding, therefore enforceable in the court of law.

4. Pacifism

This is historical theory that rejects war as a means of settling disputes. This theory argues
that peaceful efforts should be applied in conflicts. It was first used in1902 at the tenth
Universal Peace Conference at Glasgow, Scotland. People opt for pacifism because of
religion or the belief that war is ineffective and obsolete. To some, it goes beyond no war, to
include the pursuit for justice and human rights. We have absolute pacifists who doesn ’t
believe in war, even, for self - defense. But the conditional pacifists oppose war and violence
in principle, but recognize war to be the last resort in some cases. Some pacifists engage in
humanitarian acts during wars, but some just refuse to participate in any form. They may be
sentenced to community services in cases of state assignments that they refused to be drafted
in.

2.6 Principles of Peace Concepts

Principles of peace are linked with some terms, specially seven (7) concepts, which are:
i. No conflict, violence or war,
ii. Presence of order,

Page 7 of 26
 iii. Rest of mind,
iv. Respect of law,
v. No coercive power,
vi. Strong divinity/spirituality, and
vii. Milk of human goodness.

2.7 Dimensions of Peace

Peace as a concept has been discussed by scholars based on differential social contexts and
intellectual perspectives. David Francis (2006) identifies six (6) dimensions of peace, which
are (1) Peace at an individual level, (2) Peace at the local level, (3) Peace at the societal level,
(4) Peace at the national level, (5) Peace at the regional or sub-regional level, and (6) Peace at
the global level. Each of the levels ontologically represents the stage at which peace could be
initiated, developed and maintained. This discourse explains that various segments of peace
exist in the world, but the levels are likely to be more than the above listed ones.

2.8 Global Peace Index

The Global Peace Index, like its’ sister index (Global Terrorism Index) is a set of indicators
designed as measures for quantifying peacefulness, exposing its sources and benefits,
specifically its economic relevance. It is annually prepared and published in the form of a
report by an independent, non-profit, non-partisan and non-governmental organization
(NGO) called the Institute for Economics and Peace (IEP), which is domiciled in University
of Sydney, Australia. This agency did not only have offices in New York and Mexico City,
but it usually partner with a quite number of local and international NGOs in drawing and
redirecting the attention of world’s leaders, their supporters and followers to uphold positive
peace as a tool for improved human wellbeing and progress. The institute devised global
peace gauge based on three (3) major thematic structures, which are (a) societal safety and
security level, (b) domestic and international conflict level and (c) militarization level. The
2022 Global Peace Index (GPI) is the 16th edition, which ranks 163 independent states and
territories according to their level of peacefulness. Produced by the Institute for Economics
and Peace (IEP), the GPI is the world’s leading measure of global peacefulness. This report
presents the most comprehensive data-driven analysis to-date on trends in peace, its
economic value, and how to develop peaceful societies.

The GPI covers 163 countries comprising 99.7 per cent of the world ’s population, using 23
qualitative and quantitative indicators from highly respected sources, and measures the state
of peace across three domains: the level of societal Safety and Security; the extent of
Ongoing Domestic and International Conflict; and the degree of Militarization. In
addition to discussing the findings from the 2022 GPI, the report includes an analysis of the
military conflict in Ukraine. It covers likely increases in military spending, new and emerging
uses of technology in the war, its impact on food prices and global shipping routes. The
report also contains a deeper analysis on violent demonstrations around the world. This year ’s
results found that the average level of global peacefulness deteriorated by 0.3 per cent.
Although slight, this is the eleventh deterioration in peacefulness in the last fourteen years,
with 90 countries improving, 71 deteriorating and two remaining stable in peacefulness,
Page 8 of 26
highlighting that countries tend to deteriorate much faster than they improve. Iceland remains
the most peaceful country in the world, a position it has held since 2008. It is joined at the top
of the index by New Zealand, Ireland, Denmark and Austria. Afghanistan is the least peaceful
country in the world for the fifth consecutive year, followed by Yemen, Syria, Russia and
South Sudan. All of these countries have been among the ten least peaceful countries for the
last three years. Unsurprisingly, two of the five countries with the largest deteriorations in
peacefulness were Russia and Ukraine; they were joined by Guinea, Burkina Faso and Haiti.
All of these deteriorations were due to ongoing conflict. Europe is the most peaceful region in
the world, where seven of the ten countries most peaceful countries are located. Five of the
nine regions in the world became more peaceful over the past year. The largest improvements
occurred in South Asia and the Middle East and North Africa (MENA) region. South Asia ’s
result was driven by a substantial improvement in the Ongoing Conflict domain, as many
countries experienced reductions in the number of deaths from internal conflicts. MENA
recorded improvements across all three GPI domains, with the region ’s result being driven by
improvements in military expenditure, deaths from internal conflict, terrorism impact and
nuclear and heavy weapons.

Predictably, the largest regional deterioration in peacefulness was Russia and Eurasia,
followed by North America. The conflict between Russia and Ukraine led to a large rise in
the number of conflict deaths, as well as sharp deteriorations in indicators such as refugees
and IDPs, political instability and political terror. The conflict in Ukraine had immediate
repercussions outside the Russia and Eurasia region, especially for the neighboring countries
relations indicator, which recorded a sharp deterioration.

2.9 Pillars and Indicators of Positive Peace

There are eight (8) factors that the IEP (2022) tagged as the key pillars of positive peace and
twenty four (24) indicators of positive peace. Each of the pillars has three (3) indicators
within it. The pillars and their indicators are presented as follows:
1. Equitable distribution of resources: (1) Life expectancy index loss, (2) Gini
coefficient, and (3) Population living below US$2 per day;
2. Sound business environment: (4) Ease of doing business, (5) Economic freedom, and
(6) Gross Domestic Product per capital;
3. High Level of Human Capital: (7) Gross percentage of secondary school enrolment,
(8) Youth development index, and (9) Scientific publications;
4. Good relations with neighbors; (10) Number of visitors, (11) Regional integration,
and (12) Hostilities to foreigners;
5. Free flow of information: (13) Freedom of press index, (14) World press freedom
index, and (15) Mobile phone subscriptions;
6. Well-Functioning government: (16) Government effectiveness, (17) Rule of law, and
(18) Political culture;

Page 9 of 26
 7. Law levels of corruption: (19) Control of corruption, (20) Factionalized elites, and
(21) Perception of corruption; and
8. Acceptance of the rights of others: (22) Intergroup cohesion, (23) Empowerment
index, and (24) Gender inequality index.
2.10 Forms of Peace Process
Several forms of peace process exist and each relates to conflict and human progress, but the
four (4) major forms of peace process considered in these notes are;
i. Peacekeeping is the use of armed forces and unarmed civilians to intervene in
adversaries or to separate aggrieved parties so as to reduce the extent of damages in
conflict. It is applied, where there is low conflict level and low chances for
development.
ii. Peace-enforcing is a way of alleviating conflict situations, while increasing
likelihood of human progress. It is required, where there is high level of conflict and
weak chances for human development.
iii. Peacemaking is the application of a series of diplomatic process through negotiation,
mediation and conciliation, arbitration and judicial settlement, economic sanctions
and military interventions to end violent actions between/among conflicting parties
and subsequently to achieve a peace agreement. Its usage is determined by high level
of conflict and better chances for human development.
iv. Peace-building is a long-term means of securing harmonious social relations in post-
conflict situations and societies by altering structural contradictions, improving
relationship between conflicting parties, and changing the attitudes and behaviors of
individuals. It is an ongoing exercise, which is characterized by low level of conflict
and better chances for human development.

2.11 Defining a Culture of Peace

It is essential to define culture, before discussing culture of peace. Edward B. Taylor (1871)
one of the earliest anthropologist views culture as a complex whole which includes
knowledge, beliefs, art, morals, laws, custom, artifacts, technical machines, tools, technology,
and any other capabilities and habits that people acquired by members of a particular family,
group, nation, country or region. This definition of culture indicates that it has both
material and non-material aspects, and is acquired by every member of a society. Material
culture relates to overt or explicit aspect of culture and means the products of industry,
technology, arts etc. that is visible or concrete acquisition of people in society: artifacts such
as bridges, pots, cutlasses, hoes, houses, cooking utensils, handcrafts etc. These are directly
observable as the cultural products of any society. The material aspects of culture thus consist
of the objects which people have learned to make use to satisfy their needs in society. The
non-material aspects of culture consist of the knowledge, philosophy, and morals,
motivation, language, attitudes, values etc. shared and transmitted in a society (Otite and
Ogionwo, 2014). Both material and non-material go together as the culture of a people and
they are fundamental in the analysis of culture of peace.

Page 10 of 26
The United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO, 2002) sees
culture as a set of distinctive spiritual materials, intellectual and emotional features of social
group or society, including their value systems, traditions and beliefs, arts literature, lifestyles
and ways of living together. Given the above definitions, culture of peace can be defined as
a total way of life that encompasses active participation of everyone in the creation,
conservation and changing of harmonious social relations between/among people irrespective
of their differences. The United Nations (UN, 1999) defines ‘Culture of Peace’ as a set of
values, attitudes, traditions, modes of behavior and ways of life that prevent and reject
violence by tackling the root causes of problems through dialogue and negotiation among
individuals, groups and nations. Culture of peace consists of values, attitudes and behaviors
that reflect and inspire social interaction and sharing based on the principles of freedom,
justice, democracy, human rights, tolerance and solidarity, while guaranteeing the full
exercise of all rights and the means to participate fully in the developmental processes of the
society. Culture of peace has the potential to lead to everyday peace i.e. peace that is crafted
by all members of social group or society. At times, everyday peace is used interchangeably
with culture of peace. Everyday peace is a reference point, resource and compass for large-
scale efforts to build lasting peace in the world.

2.12 Basic Elements of Culture of Peace

The culture of peace has five (5) key elements, which are:
i. Rejection of violence.
ii. Prevention of conflict,
iii. Provision of solution to problems,
iv. Actions that promote peace education, and
v. Relates to sustainable development.
These elements indirectly characterized the ingredients required for building, developing and
sustaining culture of peace between/among people, nations and regions and at a global
sphere.

2.13 Building a Culture of Peace

The idea of building culture of peace was launched in 1999 by the General Assembly of the
United Nations with a view to foster positive peace among individuals, families, groups,
communities, nations and regions. The philosophy emphasizes (a) peace that is practical, (b)
peace that contributes to the functionality and growth of society, including daily life
individuals and (c) peace that is understood by each individual, who lives in the world. This
implies that everyone has rules to play in building a culture of peace by ensuring that her/his
actions contribute to the emergence of a culture that stimulates and reinforces people ’s sense
of human unity, cooperation and respect for each other. People do this by thinking and living
their lives in accordance with the expectation of their social groups. If everybody focuses on
process of building a culture of peace by discharging his/her duties and responsibilities as a
member of society at the right time and in the right place, a more peaceful world can be
created for the present and future generations. Thus, it is in order to point that culture of
everyday peace and sustainable development are two-sides of the same coin i.e either cannot
be treated in isolation.

Page 11 of 26
3.0 DEFINITIONS OF SUSTAINABLE PEACE
The concept of sustainable peace was introduced to describe and analyze the state of affairs
among members of a group, community, nation or region that experienced internally and
externally legitimized cessation of armed hostilities, total absence or minimization of
physical, psychological and cultural violence. Sustainable peace is a situation, where
hostilities and disagreements are handled constructively through institutional agents of
dispute resolution such as courts of law. Christopher E. Miller (2005, p. 55) refers sustainable
peace as a ‘political condition that ensures justice and social stability through formal and
informal institutions, practices, and norms’. A t this point, need arises to express that
sustainable peace is one of the indicators of sustainable development. The World
Commission on Environment and Development (WCED, 1987, p. 43) defines sustainable
development as progress that satisfies the aspirations of the present generation without
compromising the ability of future generation to satisfy their respective aspirations.

3.1 Major Components of Sustainable Peace

Luc Reuchler (2008, p. 2028) argues that sustainable peace has five elements, which are:

i. Presence of effective communication systems between/among community members

that guarantees consultation and negotiation;
ii. Presence of integrative internal and international peace-oriented systems &
environments
iii. Presence of peace-driven political, economic and security structures;
iv. Presence of many critical and thoughtful leaders, who are peace-builders; including
v. Presence of many followers, who are peace-lovers, peace-advocates and peace-
drivers.

3.2 Conditions for the Creation of Sustainable Peace

Christopher E. Miller (2005, pp. 55-56) identified six (6) conditions that are spring-boards of
sustainable peace as,

(i) Existence of balanced political power distribution between/among different groups in

the community, country or region;
(ii) Existence of transparent decisions made by decision-makers, whose actions are
internally and externally regarded by majority of people as legitimate;
(iii) Existence of recognized interdependent relationship between different members of a
group, community, country or region in a bid to promote cooperation in periods of
crisis, conflict or under the state of normality and agreement;
(iv) Existence of reliable and trusted institutions/agencies for dispute resolution;
(v) Existence of a generalized sense of equity and respect in theory and practice based on
international standards among different members of a community, country or region;
and

Page 12 of 26
(vi) Existence of mutual understanding of rights, interests, intents and flexibility even in
the face of incompatibilities in the community.
The above conditions suggest peace should be incorporated within the totality of every
community and they supported a quote in UNESCO Constitution that reads, ‘Since wars
begin in the minds of men, it is in the minds of men that the defences of peace must be
constructed.”.

4.0 ORIGINS AND DEFINITIONS OF CONFLICT

Conflict arises due to the inability of individuals or groups to build and maintain peaceful co-
existence during social interaction, but two (2) major bodies (religion and science) offer
better explanation on the origins of conflict. First, religious scriptures of the world’s two (2)
dominant religion (Islam and Christianity) revealed the conflicting social relations between
Abel (Habil in Arabic) and Cabel (Qabil in Arabic), who are Prophet Adam ’s children. The
case is captured in the Bible and in the Qur ’an (see Suratul Maida verses 30-34), where it was
expressed that envy served as the bottom-line of conflict between Abel (younger brother) and
Cabel (elder brother). The envy was nursed by Cabel, who eventually murdered Abel,
because the sacrifice made to God by Abel was accepted, while Cable offering to God was
rejected. Second, origin of conflict is associated with survival of the fittest (struggle
between/among species). This is the scientific explanation of human evolution that Charles
Darwin (1859; 1871) and Alfred Wallace proposed under the law of natural selection.
Darwin and Wallace argued that evolution of species, including human beings was
characterized by struggles for survival. During this competition, some species are eliminated
in the process, while others proceeded and succeeded to the final stage of human evolution.
There are two (2) major forms of definitions of conflict, conceptual and authoritative.

4.1 Conceptual Definitions of Conflict

Social conflict can simply be defined as the opposition between individuals or groups on the
basis of competing interests, and aspirations, as well as different identities and/or attitudes. It
is also conceived as a disagreement between/among parties that have real/perceived
incompatible interests, aspirations, values or strategies for achieving desired ends.
Furthermore, it is a clash of idea and/or action between and among individuals or groups
during social interaction.

4.2 Authoritative Definitions of Conflict

There is consensus among scholars, for example, Karl Marx, Fredrick Engels, Ralf
Dahrendolf, Louis Altrusser, Charles Wright Mills, Louis Coser, Vladimir I. Lenin and other
leftists on conflict, as an intrinsic and inevitable condition or process of social life. According
to Lewis Coser (1956, p. 121) social conflict is “a struggle over values and claims to scarce
status, power and resources,” as the competing parties seek to get the desired values, to
neutralize or injure or eliminate other contender(s). Webster ’s Dictionary (1983) sees conflict
as a fight, battle, struggle or overt confrontation between/among parties. Also, Pruitt Dean
and Kim Hee (2004) conceived conflict as a perceived divergence of interest between/among

Page 13 of 26
people in society. It is therefore wrong to interchange conflict with violence, because it is not
all conflicts that are violent in nature i.e. some conflicts are violent-oriented, while others are
non-violent-driven.

4.3 Nature of Conflict: Violent Conflict and Non-violent Conflict.

Conflict is ubiquitous, but its nature varies across periods and places. This implies that
conflict is common to all persons, but individuals, group or society are likely to have similar
or different experience of conflict. The two (2) major ways through which nature of conflicts
are discussed are violent conflict and non-violent conflict.

4.4 Definitions and Types of Violent Conflict

Violent Conflict is the use of force or coercive action in the pursuit of incompatible interests
and goals. It is aimed at the destruction of lives and property, since it involves the use of
harmful objects, like acid, guns, knives, cutlasses, and nuclear weapons. This form of conflict
results in bloodshed, injuries, maiming, death and other forms of harms among competitors
and innocent people, especially passersby. Thus extreme Marxists that viewed violent
revolution as the only and key instrument of social change and development in the society are
regarded as advocates of violent conflict. The typologies of violent conflict given by Frantz
Fanon (1968) and Johan Galtung (1990) are considered below.

Frantz Fanon (1968), one of the African exponents of violent conflict identified and
discussed three (3) types of violence in relation to colonialism in Africa, especially in Algeria.
Fanon argued that colonialism was introduced and developed through physical violence,
structural violence and psychological violence and it should be abolished through violence.
First, physical violence is a somatic injury inflicted on the oppressed people via oppressors’
imposed rules, unjust used of guns and machines to kill, maim and wound innocent humans.
Second, structural violence is a condition of exploitation and its necessary institutional
reforms, which reflects social injustice that is launched by the haves against the haves not, by
the powerful against the powerless, by the strong against the weak. This reflected the
structural demarcation, like Native quarters vs. European quarters, Government Reserve
Areas vs. Informal Settlement, Schools for the Whites/Europeans vs. School for the
Blacks/Africans etc. Third, psychological violence has to do with the injury or harm inflicted
on human mind, including brainwashing, threats, assimilation policy and all acts that
decrease victim’s mental potentialities. Johan Galtung (1969) refers to psychological
violence, as a violence that works on the soul.

John Galtung (1990) divides violent conflict into three (3); direct, structural and cultural
violence. First, direct violence is the use of physical and/or psychological force by an
individual or a group against competitors. One of the key aspects of direct violence is the
physical attack (armed robbery, wife/husband battery, assassinations etc.). Second, structural
violence is an intolerable condition, like poverty, deprivation, exclusion, unemployment and
illiteracy that emanates from social organization, institutions, or processes. It is any damage
done to individuals/groups due to their differential, but inadequate access to social resources
in the social system. It occurs from deliberate government policies which expose

Page 14 of 26
citizens/residents to sufferings, death and harm. Third, cultural violence is the
discrimination, injustice and suffering experienced by people due to cultural norms and
practices, such as female circumcision, child labor and abuse, harmful and forceful death
rites, tribal facial marking and body incision.

4.5 Definitions, Types and Dimensions of Non-Violent Conflict

Nonviolent Conflict is a divergence of interest, which does not involve the use of any
injurious object. This occurs, when aggrieved parties refused to use dangerous weapons
against each other or when their differences did not lead to loss of life and destruction of
property. Gene Sharp (1973) defines nonviolent conflict as a peacefully expressed divergent
interest. It abhors passiveness and considers struggle as a pathway to change. The action is
not launched to avoid or ignore conflict, but to influence social change. Nonviolent conflict is
demonstrated in the liberation movement of Mahatma Gandhi in India and Martin Luther
King Jr. in the USA. Nonviolent conflict is associated with moderate Marxists, because their
philosophies and practices support peaceful societal change. Gene Sharp (1972) identified
nine (9) nonviolent actions; non-resistance, active reconciliation, moral resistance, selective
nonviolence, nonviolent revolution, Satyagraha, passive resistance, peaceful resistance, and
nonviolent direct action.

Again, Gene Sharp (1973) suggested three (3) types of nonviolent conflict, (i) nonviolent
protest and persuasion; (ii) nonviolent cooperation; and (iii) Nonviolent intervention. First,
nonviolent protest and persuasion are peaceful acts, like marches, street-theatre plays,
paintings, posters, vigils, pickets and meetings that oppose certain practices. Second, non
violent cooperation is a planned withdrawal of support for a person, group or government via
war tax resistance, strike, election boycott, open civil disobedience and peaceful violation of
law. Third, nonviolent intervention is a process of disrupting some established patterns,
policies or institutions via blockage, fasting, occupation, prisonization or overcrowding of
courts, prisons, police stations, and tribunal centers.

There are various dimensions of non-violence, such as ideological, pragmatic, strategic and
tactical. They are paired in different forms, but the two (2) major paired dimensions of non-
violence are (a) Tactical-strategic non-violence and (b) Pragmatic-ideological non-violence.
First, tactical-strategic non-violence is based upon deep-rooted analytical explanation,
general aim and operational time-frame, which activists used in order to push forward their
argument in establishing a change in the group, community, society, country, region or world.
Second, pragmatic-ideological non-violence is characterized by the nature and depth of
commitment to non-violence and the approach to conflict used by activists in order to address
divergent interests (Pruitt Dean and Kim Hee, 2004).

4.6 Stages of Conflicts

There are many stages by which conflicts erupt, but Fisher et al (2000) emphasized only five
(5) key stages, which are:

Page 15 of 26
 i. Pre-Condition Stage (Emerging stage): signs (such as disinterestedness,
indifference, coldness and uncaring) that indicate gradual reduction in visitation,
warmth emotional feeling, expressed familiarity, close affinity, intimacy and
communication between or among individuals or groups begin. At this stage, the
public rarely know that conflict exist between/among parties.
ii. Confrontation Stage (Escalating stage): signs (such as lack of visitation,
affection, sympathy) that give parties the impression that something is getting or
has gotten wrong with their relationships are becoming glaring. At this stage,
conflict openly erupted, as demonstrated in irregular fight, low violence, wooing
supporters and friends, resource mobilization, strained relations and polarization
within a short time.
iii. Crisis Stage (Most severe stage): signs (such as high level of insecurity of lives
and property, physical attacks on persons and properties that lead to injuries,
defacement, death of people; destruction of structures) that characterize sour or
bitter relationships between/among parties manifested. At this stage, conflict has
reached optimum level, where confrontation, war and intense fight became order
of the day with serious damages to humans - women, children and innocent
passers-by.
iv. Outcome Stage (De-escalating stage): glaring signs (such as withdrawal of
hostility; greet, talk to, visit and care for each other) that create impression in the
minds of the warring parties that efforts are being made to mend or cement their
relationships are emerging. At this stage, violence decreases and room opens for
discussions on the alternative means of settling or neutralizing the conflict.
v. Post-Conflict Stage (Rebuilding and reconciliation stage): processes and
actions are being taken to repair the sour/bitter relationships, weak institutions,
destroyed social amenities/infrastructures that were affected during the conflict.
This was introduced as Rehabilitation, Reconstruction and Reconciliation
programme by Nigeria’s Federal Military Government after the civil war, which
lasted for 30-months (1967-1970).

4.7 Conditions for the Emergence and Development of Intergroup Conflict

There are four (4) major conditions that Pruitt & Kim (2004) identified and associated with
the emergent and development of conflict, particularly the intergroup conflicts. Each of the
conditions also has within it other sub-conditions. These conditions are;
i. Features of the situations (scarcity of resources, because people are likely to place
more values on them; rapidly expanding achievement).
ii. Features of the parties (zero-sun thinking).
iii. Features of the social relationships between/among the parties (ambiguity about
relative power; invidious comparisons; status inconsistency; and distrust);
iv. Features of the broader community surrounding the parties (security dilemma; and
lack of normative consensus).
4.8 Determinants or Sources of Conflicts

Page 16 of 26
Several issues are often linked to the sources of interpersonal/intergroup conflict. David
Lockwood (1956) argued that conflict in societies depend on three (3) major issues, which
are:
i. Power differentials: This expresses that the inability of people to have equal
power can ultimately give some (most and more powerful minority) the
opportunities to exploit others (less powerful majority) thereby resulting to
conflict in the group or society.
ii. Scarce resources: This explains that all the material and non-material things that
people attached great value and importance to are limited in supply i.e. limit in
supply provokes competition and struggle between/among people, which
eventually generate fights over the distribution process, patterns, and portions.
iii. Different interest groups: This means that people have divergent goals that often
lead to conflicts i.e. conflict is likely to occur, as each person/group tries to pursue
its interests.

4.9 Cases of Conflict in Nigeria, West Africa, Africa and other Parts of the World

Numerous cases of conflicts have been witnessed around the world. At the national level,
especially in Nigeria, the deadly onslaughts against people by Boko Haram, since 2009 in
north eastern region’s states (Yobe, Adamawa, Bauchi, Borno, Gombe, Taraba), some parts
of north-central and north-western regions are fresh in our memories. Also, the sporadic
human abduction, ethnic feuds, gang armed robberies, sea piracies, assassinations, rituals,
including and different.

4.10 Theories of Conflict

Scholars from different Schools of Thoughts have developed various frameworks for
analyzing the conditions under which conflicts occur. Their ideas gave rise to assumptions
that explain the origins of conflicts. These assumptions are grouped into four (4) theories
(structural theories, biological theories, human need theories and economic theories). It is
observed that no single theoretical group adequately explains the sources of all past and/or
present conflicts in the world; since some of their assumptions are not mutually exclusive i.e.
they relatively overlap.

A. Structural Theories of Conflict demonstrated that conflict is built into the ways
societies are organized. It proposes that conflict arises due to deep-rooted structural
imbalances, such as political and economic exclusion, injustice, poverty, disease, exploitation
and inequality, which are either internally or externally generated in society. It is noteworthy
that the structural conflict theory is divided into two (2) major sub-orientations, which are:

(i) Radical structural theory explains that conflicts occur due to the exploitative and
unjust nature of human societies and the domination of lower class (proletariat or
workers/poor people) by upper class (bourgeoisie or factory owners/rich people). This case
was made by the radicals, such as Friedrich Engels, Karl Marx, Vladimir I. Lenin, Andre
Page 17 of 26
Gunder Frank, Louis Althrusser and Immanuel Wallenstein, who are from developed
countries and Mao Tse Tung (China), Franz Fanon (Algeria), Kwame Nkrumah (Ghana),
Amilcar Cabral (Guinea-Bissau), Walter Rodney (Tanzania), Claude Ake (Nigeria) and
Samir Amin (Egypt), who hailed from developing countries. The radical structuralists
assumed that conflict will be resolved through workers-led revolution, which is expected to
lead to the establishment of a socialist order.

(ii) Liberal structural theory was expounded by many scholars, Robert Malthus
(England), Max Weber (Germany), Johan Galtung (Sweden), Abdulrahman Ibn Khaldun
(Tunisia) and Julius Nyerere (Tanzania). This theory indicates that competing interest of
groups directly injects conflict in social, economic and political organizations of society, and
it weakens the social networks within, between and among community groups. Furthermore,
they explained that internal conflicts emerged from rising human populations, economic
instability, demographic variability, uninterested social and political programs in the society.
Thus, the liberal structural theorists suggested that the solutions to conflicts required the
elimination of structural defects, dialogue and policy reforms, as opposed to the radical
structuralisms, who advocated for revolution as the solution to all conflicts.

B. Biological Theories of Conflict emerged from the ideas of many classical theorists,
such as Saint Augustine (354-430), Thomas Hobbes (1588-1679), Cesare Lombroso (1835-
1909), Charles Robert Darwin () and Sigmund Freud (1856-1939). The theories expressed
that human beings are naturally evil-driven and they have the capacity to violently respond to
unfavorable situations. The idea emerges from the ancient belief that viewed human ancestors
as instructively violent beings that possessed destructive impulses in their genetic makeup.
For example, Thomas Hobbes (1651) argued that conflict occurs and it continues to occur or
becomes intense in societies due to the inherent human tendency to be selfish, sinful and
driven by the natural quest to satisfy all their desires. This was why Hobbes (1651) described
life in the “state of nature” as “solitary, poor, nasty, brutish and short. ” The biological
theories are divided into two (2) major sub-orientations, which are:

(i) Innate theory developed from the ideas of some scholars, particularly theologians and
psychologists, who indicated that conflict is possible in all social interactions. First,
theologians observed that there are inner flaws in humankind that cause sinful behavior,
bitterness, violence and conflict. Therefore, they argue that religion is responsible for
regulating sinful nature in the relationship between and among people, as well as between
people and God (or god/goddess). Second, the psychologists, especially the personality
psychologists argued that conflict is inborn in humans, as indicated in inner properties,
attributes and hormonal composition of humans. This idea shows that human aggressive
instinct is likely to be provoked, if an individual(s) is threatened and challenged. And, it
explains that conflict is a necessary periodic release that helps humans to preserve themselves
by unleashing their destructive abilities on others.

(ii) Frustration – Aggression theory as expounded by several scholars, such as Ted

Robert Gurr, John Dollard, Leonard Berkowitz and Aubrey Yates assumes that conflict is a
direct response to accumulated disappointment and anger experienced by people in a society,

Page 18 of 26
where they could not achieve their aspirations due to some forces that beyond their control.
The theory indicates that conflict primarily occurs due to people ’s inability to fulfill their
needs. It points to the difference between peoples’ perceived needs and actual needs (want-
get-ratio or expected need satisfaction vs. actual need satisfaction). When people ’s
expectations are unmet, frustration set in and the frustrated people may confront those they
viewed as thwarters of their ambitions.

C. Human Needs Theory of Conflict originated from the ideas of many scholars, such
as Abraham Maslow, John Burton, who argued that people have basic needs (physiological,
safety, security, psychological, social and spiritual needs) that must be met to build peace and
to avoid discord. Its major assumption is that all human beings have some basic needs that
they seek to fulfill and maximize, but attempt by individual/group(s)/institution(s) to deny or
frustrate them from satisfying the needs may lead to conflict. They also explained that if one
need (e.g. food) is met and other needs (e.g. freedom of worship) is denied or unmet, the
situation could make people apply violence in their efforts to meet unmet needs, to satisfy
and protect the met needs.

John Burton (1979) identified a link between frustration that pushes people to act
aggressively and their willingness to satisfy basic needs. Thus, people rarely accept practices
that destroy their identities and goals that are attached to their needs. This is why people often
reacted against the factors, groups and institutions that they considered as threats to their
shared needs, especially needs for survival, protection, affection, understanding,
participation, creativity and identity. Burton argued that human needs have components
(needs for recognition, identity, security, autonomy and bonding with other) that they hardly
give up. No matter how much any political or social system tries to suppress these needs, it
will either fail or cause more damage in the long run. The prevention of conflicts that may
arise and/or resolution of conflicts that arose from unmet basic needs, as John Burton (1990)
argues largely depends on how far and how well effective and easily accessible mechanisms
are put in place by the state to satisfy human needs.

D. Economic Theory of Conflict as advanced by Collier Paul, David Malone, Mats

Berdal among others locate causes of conflict on material benefits that initiators, sponsors,
perpetrators and sustainers of conflict are out to gain. While raising a series of key questions
about the individual(s) that conflict serves their interests or those that gain and loose from the
conflict, this theory demonstrated that material interest is the motivating factor for conflict.
Collier Paul et al (2003, p. 4) pointed out that conflicts are perpetrated by conflict
entrepreneurs - a few people that benefitted from growing chaos. The conflict entrepreneurs
do not only steer conflict, but also invest their resources on and sustain conflict for maximum
material benefits at the expense of majority of people that are negatively affected by conflict.
Using cost/benefit analysis, the theory identifies two categories of forces in conflict situations
– beneficiaries of conflict (leaders of armed conflicts, their followers and supporters,
including manufacturers, dealers and traders who engaged in arms business) and non-
beneficiaries of conflict (majority of the people that are negatively affected by the conflict).
Mats Berdal and David Malone (2000, p.1) agree that across ages social conflicts are
generated by many deep-seated factors and conflicts are said to have a “functional utility, ”

Page 19 of 26
since they are embedded in economic disparities. They argue that conflicts (such as war and
crisis) and their prolongations have sometimes become vast private business, profit-making
and profit-maximization enterprises as expressed in the sole aim of their initiators and
perpetrators. In sum, the economic theory of conflict posits that though the causes of conflict
may be hidden and perpetrated in the pretext of ideological (nationalistic or political or
religious) differences, their underlying motive is to acquire and retain economic values,
assets, human resources, natural and solid minerals (such as gold, crude oil, coal, diamond,
land, waters, etc). Recently, Pope Francis Benedict (2015) exploded by referring to the
manufacturers of and investors in weapons industries, such as guns, who called themselves
Christians as hypocrites. .

4.11 Consequences of Conflict

Conflict is often perceived to be negative, setback, disruptive and disintegrative, but there are
instances, where conflicts bring positive development to individuals, groups or society
(Onigu Otite and Isaac Olawale Albert, 1999). Thus, it is right to express that conflict has two
faces (positive/constructive and negative/destructive) as identified and discussed below:

a. Positive Effects or Consequences of Conflicts (The Good News about Conflicts)

i. Conflict allows people to define situations i.e. it allows members of the society to
define their interests and aspirations. In doing so, ambiguous situations are averted i.e.
it helps to define ambiguous situation so that these are clear to everyone concerned.
ii. Conflict is an agent of change. It often nourishes change in human societies.
iii. Conflict fosters solidarity between and within groups. Different groups pursuing
common goals in conflict will forget their differences and unite to fight their common
enemy.
iv. Conflict fosters unity and emergence of general normative behaviour when it is
resolved.
v. The known negative consequences of conflict may alert groups to hasten to resolve
emerging conflict, thereby fostering peace.

b. Negative Effects or Consequences of Conflicts (The Bad News about Conflicts)

i. Conflict leads to destruction of lives and property leading to a general economic set
back.
ii. Conflict disrupts social and family life owing to displacement, separation and
migration.
iii. Conflict results to persistent and widespread fear.
iv. Conflict causes untold suffering to the aged, children and women.
v. Conflict causes hatred and mistrust between individuals and among groups of people.
vi. Conflict serves as a threat to national stability, since it can tear a nation apart.
vii. Conflict breeds revenge mentality across generations – unending divergent interests.

Page 20 of 26
5.0 APPROACHES TO CONFLICT MANAGEMENT
Conflict management is both proactive and reactive means of handling divergent interests
positively at any stage. There are several approaches to the management of dispute and
conflict. These approaches are applicable at interpersonal, intergroup, intra-group, inter-
communal, intra-communal, international, intra-national and global levels. Cordula Reimann
(1999) identified three (3) major approaches to conflict and dispute management as conflict
settlement, conflict resolution and conflict transformation.
Conflict Settlement Approach is a process-driven method by which diplomacy and power
politics are applied at official leadership level to address conflict or dispute, which result
from problems of status quo and political order.
Conflict Resolution Approach is a resulted-oriented method that provides everlasting
solution to the deep-rooted sources of conflict. This approach is a catalyst for social change.
To Shedrack G. Best (2006), it represents a sense of finality, wherein aggrieved parties are
equally satisfied with the outcome of the settlement, while Christopher A. Miller (2003, p. 8)
sees it as “a variety of approaches that aimed at terminating conflicts through the constructive
solving of problems, distinct from management or transformation of conflict”.
Conflict Transformation Approach is a structure-based method, which aimed at
strengthening the capabilities of disadvantaged groups to act or deal with conflict and also to
empower divided, war-torn and traumatized societies to get integrated. It is a nonviolent
struggle for social justice and change that John Paul Lederach (1995) regarded to be beyond
conflict resolution by building strong and enduring relationships and by changing the
perceptions and attitudes of the aggrieved parties about the conflicts.
However, the discussion and analysis of conflict resolution approach is specifically extended
below. This does not necessarily means that it is better than the conflict settlement and
conflict transformation.

5.1 Two Broad Methods of Conflict and Dispute Resolution

The Regular Dispute Resolution (RDR) and Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) are two
(2) major methods by which conflict and dispute are resolved between/among individuals,
families, communities, countries and regions. Asides from these major methods of conflict
resolution, Pruitt Dean and Kim Hee (2004) identified contending, yielding, problem-solving
and avoiding as the four (4) strategies for conflict resolution. The usage of any of these four
strategies alone is not likely to be adequate measure for resolving conflict, except if two or
more strategies are combined. The combination is expected to be sequential and it needs to be
determined by the nature of the conflict and the parties involved. For example, contending
strategy may be followed by yielding, then by problem-solving and finally by avoiding
strategy.
i. Contending is the process of trying to impose one’s preferred solution on the
other party.
ii. Yielding is the process of lowering down one’s own aspirations and settling
for less than one would have liked.

Page 21 of 26
 iii. Problem-solving is the process of pursuing an alternative that satisfies the
aspirations of both sides.
iv. Avoiding is the process of not engaging in the conflict. This strategy is
divided into two (2) forms, which are inaction and withdrawal. The former
means that each party does nothing about the conflict, especially by waiting to
see or hear the response of the other party. The latter means that each party
abandons the conflict, especially by walking away/out.
The two (2) major classes or methods of resolving conflicts that dominated contemporary
debates are discussed below.

5.2 Regular Dispute Resolution (RDR)

The RDR method is a formal process by which disputes and conflicts are treated and solved.
It involves the application of law enforcement, such as police and justice system, like the
courts and prisons. Basically, RDR entails litigation, wherein a trial will be conducted by a
jury or judge, who decides winner and loser of the case during court hearing and
adjudication.
The process starts from the point, where one of the aggrieved or conflicting parties makes
complain to the authority, especially police. The police will in turn interrogate the
complainant (plaintiff) and take down his/her statement word by word. After this, a warrant
of arrest will be issued against the second party (defendant), who will also be interrogated
before charging the case to court, if the two parties could not reconcile. In sum, this method
involves the regular system of reporting a case to the police, getting the offender prosecuted,
convicted and sentenced. It also covers civil litigations in court, that is, through legal process.
Under this system, there is always a winner and a loser, and the winner takes it all. The
method is also called traditional method of dispute and conflict resolution.
5.3 Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR)
The ADR method is a system by which issues are permanently settled without the use of
litigation. As its name implies, it contains several methods that are alternative to the regular
system, i.e. RDR method. The ADR creates an opportunity to people to go for a win-win
solution, as against a win-lose or lose-lose situation that characterized RDR. There are
different types of ADR, but the major types are (1) negotiation, (2) mediation and (3)
arbitration.

Negotiation

This is a process of settling conflict or disputes or differences between aggrieved parties

without the intervention of any third party. It involves discussion or communication between
conflicting parties, who seek to find a lasting solution to the existing conflict between them.
This technique of conflict resolution could either be applied directly, when the conflicting
parties had a face-to-face communication or indirectly, when each of the two conflicting
parties is being represented by his/her attorney. At times, the communication in negotiation is
governed by pre-established procedures between representatives of the aggrieved parties. The

Page 22 of 26
warring parties come to the realization that they each have a problem and both are aware that
by talking to each other, a solution to the problem could be found. As such, negotiation is
regarded as the best under ADR, because it does not involve third party and it is cost-
effective.

Mediation

Mediation is a practice, where an impartial person (intervener) initiates and promotes

peaceful reconciliation between aggrieved parties. It is a process, where a third party
facilitates permanent termination of conflicts and attainment of mutually acceptable
agreement between people or communities with divergent interests. This settlement process
requires a neutral third party to take on the role of helping parties in conflict achieves a
lasting solution to their disputes. Christopher E. Miller (2003, p. 23) sees mediation as
“voluntary, informal, nonbinding process undertaken by an external party that fosters the
settlement of differences or demands between directly invested parties. ” Cooley J. W. (1992)
identified eight (8) major steps of meditation are as initiation, preparation, introduction,
problem statement, problem clarification, generation and evaluation of alternatives, as well
as selection of alternatives, and finally agreement.

Arbitration
Arbitration is the process whereby a neutral person or persons (body/panel) adjudicates or
passes a judgment on divergent interest between or among people. The judgment passed
could be either binding or non-binding on the concerned parties. The method allows the third
party or parties to take position by pronouncing one aggrieved party as winner and the other
aggrieved party as loser. It involves submission of contending issues to an impartial body to
decide or assess and recommend way out, which could be favorable or unfavorable to either
of the aggrieved party. The arbitrator nominated or approved by the conflicting parties to
adjudicate on their differences. Often, any resolution passed by the arbitrator is enforceable
by a court of law, although the procedure in arbitration is different from the usual court
process.

5.4 Traditional Approaches to Conflict Prevention Management & Resolution in

Africa
The following were some of the ways through which conflicts were prevented, managed and
resolved in Africa before the coming of the colonialists.
Socialization
The indigenous African see human existence as unified, interlinked, and integrated in a web.
In most communities of the South of Africa, there existed the concept “Ubuntu ” which means
“collective personhood” or “member of the human family”. This concept is contained in the
Nguni proverb that states, “I am because we are”. From childhood, people were taught to live
in harmony with others and avoid a situation of trying to win at all cost in the case of conflict
and dispute settlement. Indigenous Africans impart in their offspring that quarrel and fight
with others are to be seen as quarrel between blood relations.

Page 23 of 26
Inculcation of Myths
The use of proverbs, idioms, folktales and songs to describe the nature of the world and how
to live in it was another way of preventing, managing and resolving conflicts in Africa. The
need to live harmoniously with others and avoid violent conflict because of the dangers
inherent in it was one of the reasons for inculcating these myths through the use of proverbs,
idioms etc. on the children at tender age.
Use of Traditional Institutions in Conflict Monitoring
The institutions of family, council of elders, clan, female born of a village etc. were used in
the task of conflict monitoring and prevention. Each family head is employed and mobilized
to prevent conflict through peace education, conflict monitoring and mediation and
reconciliation.
Ritual Treaties and Blood Covenant
Rituals treaties and blood covenant were used to remove fear, and engender trust, blind
families and villages and to avoid war. Such treaties and covenants involve powerful deities,
which makes it not easy to violate as violation would bring dire consequences.
Institution and Celebration of Festivals
There were instituted celebrations of festivals during which the virtues of peace, harmonious
living, honesty etc. were extolled in songs. Rituals and sacrifices were performed to the
village deities and ancestors for peace, protection, good works, fertility etc.
Use of Sanctions
Sanctions were imposed on families and individuals who were seen to have contradicted the
customs and traditions in order to deter others from engaging in behaviors that would
engender conflict. Sanctions were met on such misbehavior as stealing, willful murder,
incest, abuse of elders, willful damage to property, lying, bearing false witness, poisoning,
rape etc.. such sanctions included those that were imposed by the deities such as accidents,
sickness, death, famine, poverty, misery, barrenness and loss of children etc. to the ones
imposed by the society such as exile, ostracism, fines, compensation, restitution, rendering
apology etc.
Use of Marriages
Marriage is one of the means to the prevention, management and resolution of conflict before
slave trade, colonialism and religion changed the societal life of the indigenous Africans.
Marriages reduced inter-group wars as children who possessed mixed blood were used to
prevent manage and resolve conflict. most of these marriages were not just intra-tribal but
inter-tribal and most times involve the royalty such as the one between Adaeze, the daughter
of Obi Ossa of Aboh and Amain, the king boy of Brass and that between King Ajaja ’s
daughter and Alafin of Oyo in 1730.

Oath Taking
One of the approaches used in pre-colonial days to prevent, manage and resolve conflict was
oath taking. This was a practice to establish truth and guilt and discourage dishonest attitude
and evil actions in society. Most times this was done at the shrine of a very powerful deity
over something that could be an avenue for contacting such deity. People are always warned
before taking oath on the consequence of doing so on falsehood in order to avoid shame.

Page 24 of 26
Diplomacy
In the past, diplomacy, which was a tool for foreign relations, was also employed in conflict
prevention, management and resolution in Africa. This is attested to by the diplomatic
exchanges between the empire rulers of Songhai and Mali etc.

5.5 International Organizations and Conflict Management in Africa

The participation of international organizations in conflict management in Africa has four (4)
key dimensions. First, the United Nations and its agencies usually play significant role in
conflict management, resolution, and transformation. Second, the developed countries,
especially the G8 or G7 members, have had major influence in brokering peace and conflict
management in the continent. Third, the Regional Bodies, especially the African Union
(AU, formerly known as the Organisation of African Unity; OAU) and the European
Union (EU) have had great contributions in peace processes and conflict resolution in Africa.
Fourth, the Sub-Regional bodies, such as the East African Standby Brigade Coordination
Mechanism (EASBRICOM), the Economic Community of West African States
(ECOWAS), the Economic Community of Central African States (ECCAS), North African
Regional Capability (NARC) and the Southern African Development Community (SADC).
These three (3) bodies are regarded as the key players in peace process and security
management in Africa.

6.0 CONCLUSION
These notes demonstrated that peace and conflict are inseparable in social interaction and
across developing and developed societies. They are two-sides of the same coin, in the sense
that no matter the level of peace in any society, there must be some elements of conflicts
either at interpersonal or intergroup level. Also, no matter the degree of conflict in any social
setting, there must be a moment of peace, even if it is for a second or minute. Nevertheless,
most individuals, groups or organizations and societies preferred peace to conflict. This is
why these notes begin with the analysis of the concept of peace, its types, dimensions and
processes as well as its relevance to the attainment of Nigeria ’s national objectives, human
development and sustainable development. In spite of the good efforts steered by the UN, AU
and sub-regional bodies towards creation of peaceful co-existence between and among
individuals and groups in Africa, the region’s level of development is still low, particularly in
Central Africa, where there are ongoing conflicts. This draws attention to the need for every
individual, family, group and community around Africa to acquire basic knowledge and skills
in peace studies and conflict resolution. It is in line with the call above that this reading
material is prepared to expose readers to ideas, which could fast-track their transformation to
ambassadors of peace and managers of conflicts at local, national and global levels.

Page 25 of 26
 Further Readings
Albert, O. Isaac. (2005). Perspectives on peace and conflict in Africa. Ibadan: John Archers.
Bercovitch Jacob. (Ed.). (1996). Resolving international conflicts: The theory and practice of
mediation. Boulder: Lynner Rienner Publishers.
Berdal, Mats and Malone, M. David (Eds.) (2000). Greed or grievance: Economic agendas in
civil war. Boulder: Lynne Rienner Publishers.
Best Shedrack Gaya (Ed.). (2006). Introduction to peace and conflict studies in West Africa.
Ibadan: Spectrum Books Ltd.
Burton John. (1990). Conflict: Resolution and prevention. London: Macmillan Publishers.
Collier, Paul et al. (2003). Breaking the conflict trap: Civil war and development policy.
Washington, DC: The World Bank.
Coser Lewis (1956). The functions of social conflict. New York: The Free Press.
Galtung John. (1969). Violence, peace and peace research. Journal of Peace Research, 3:
167-191.
Hintjens Helen and Zarkov Dubravka (Eds.)(2014). Conflict, peace, security and
development, London: Routledge Publication.
Institute for Economics and Peace. (2014). Global peace index 2014: Measuring peace and
assessing country risk. Sydney, Australia: IEP Publication.
Laremont, Richardo (Ed.). (2013). Revolution, revolt and reform in North Africa: The Arab
spring and beyond. London: Routledge Publication.
Lederach, John Paul. (1997). Building peace: Sustainable reconciliation in divided societies.
Washington, DC: US Institute for Peace and Tokyo: United Nations University Press.
Mitchell, Christopher and Michael, Banks. (1996). Handbook of conflict resolution: The
analytical problem-solving approach. London: Pinter.
Miller, A. Christopher. (2005). Glossary of terms and concepts in peace and conflict studies.
Puerto-Rico: United Nations’ University for Peace.
Muhammad-Baba, A. Tukur (2014). The imperative for peaceful co-existence of Nigerian
people for sustainable development. Presentation during the World Peace and Understanding
Day organized by the Rotary Club of Sokoto City at the Congregation Hall, UDUS.
Otite, O and Ogionwo, W (2014). An Introduction to Sociological Studies, Ibadan; Nigeria,
HEBN Publishers Plc.
Pruitt, G. Dean and Kim, S. Hee (2004). Social conflict: Escalation, stalement and settlement.
New York: The McGraw-Hill Co.
Reardon A. Batty (1988). Comprehensive peace education. New York: Teachers College
Press.
Reychler, Luc. (2008). Sustainable peace building architecture. In L., Kurtz. (Ed.),
Encyclopedia of violence, peace and conflict. Vol. 3, 2nd ed. pp. 2028.

Ross, Marc Howard and Jay Rothman. (Eds.). (1999). Theory and practice in ethnic conflict
management: Theorising success and failure. London: Macmillan Publishers.
Rummel J. Rudolph. (1981). The just peace. California: University of California Press.

Page 26 of 26