DISCUSS THE THEORIES IN INTERNATIONAL CONFLICT

INTRODUCTION

The statistics of war are so appalling that they raise a question everyone ought to ask: are such levels of suffering, imposed by human beings on each other, really necessary? Aren't there better ways of managing and resolving the differences between people, and groups of people, about war and violent conflict? Conflict is a characteristic of human existence. It is part of the dynamic of life that drives us into the future. But it needs to be managed constructively. When associated with violence, destruction and killing, it is no longer a healthy part of living. Violent conflict solves few problems, creates many, and breeds more unhealthy conflict to come.
Conflict has characteristics of its own, and it is possible to analyse its structure and behaviour. When conflict is understood, it's easier to find ways to predict it, prevent it, transform it, and resolve it.

CONCEPTUAL CLARIFICATION OF TERM

CONFLICT

Conflict is a part of social interaction when state delegates on issues on what concerns them, it becomes a conflictual situation. Conflict might be at the class level, local government level, state or even international level. Conflict do occurs when few or more parties does accept a particular situation the party might be individual or within states. Conflict may be based on companies or businesses that involves companies of two different state

DEFINITION OF TERM

CONFLICT THEORY

Conflict theory suggests that human behavior in social contexts results from conflicts between competing groups. Conflict theory originated with the work of Karl Marx in the mid-1800s. Marx understood human society in terms of conflict between social classes, notably the conflict in capitalist societies between those who owned the means of economic production (factory or farm owners, for example) and those who did not (the workers). Subsequent thinkers have described different versions of conflict theory; a common theme is that different social groups have unequal power, though all groups struggle for the same limited resources. Conflict theory has been used to explain diverse human behavior, such as educational practices that either sustain or challenge the status quo cultural customs regarding the elderly, and criminal behavior.

DIFFERENT CONFLICT THEORIES

THEORIES OF SOCIAL CONFLICT

The nature, causes and the impact of conflicts have been extensively written on by scholars. Depending on the school of thought to which they represent, such explanations have tended to place a lot of emphasis on one particular or a set of related theories while diminishing the importance or explanatory relevance of other competing theories the condition under which conflicts occur, and sometimes the condition for their resolution. These theories are explained below:

STRUCTURAL CONFLICT THEORY

This theory has two main sub-orientations; the first is the radical structural theory represented by the Marxist dialectical school with exponents like Mark and Engels, V.I Lenin etc, the second is the liberal structuralism represent by Ross (1993), Scarborough (1998) and the famous Johan Garltung (1990) on structural violence. Structuralisms thus sees incompatible interests based on competition for resources which in most cases are assumed to be scarce, as being responsible for social conflicts (Collier, 2002:2)

The solution to these types of conflict to the Marxists is that the contradictions will end in a revolution-civil war, or some form of violence leading to the overthrow of the exploitation system. Liberal structuralisms call for the elimination of structural defects with policy reforms.

REALIST THEORY

Realist theory originates from classical political theory and shares both theological and biological doctrines about an apparent weakness and individual inherent in human nature. It thus traces the roots of conflict to a flaw in human nature which is seen to be selfish and engaging in the pursuit of personalized self interest defined as power.

Morgenthau (1973:4) and realist after him like Walt, argue that the imperfection in the world, namely conflict, has its roots in forces that are inherent in human nature, that human nature is selfish, individualistic and naturally conflictive, that states will always pursue their national interests defined as power, and that such interest will come into conflict with those of others leading to the inevitability of conflict. Actors hence should prepare to deal with the outcome and consequences of conflict since it is inevitable, rather than wish there were none. This theory greatly justified the militarization of international relations and the arms race. The theory has been accused of elevating power and the state to the status of an ideology, hence has had tremendous impact on conflict at the international level.

BIOLOGICAL THEORY

Biological theories has given rise to what may be referred to as the innate theory of conflict which contends that conflict is innate in all social interactions, and among all animals, including human beings. It argue that humans are animals, albeit higher species of animals, and would fight naturally over things they cherish. John Dollard (1939). The thinking is that since our ancestors were instructively violent beings, and since we evolved from them, we too must bear destructive impulses in our generic make up. Thomas Hobbes, St Augustine, Malthus and Freud are all classical biological theorists.

Further alienation to biological theories are shown in the difference between “expected need satisfaction “and “actual need satisfaction” (Davies,1962:6) , where expectation does not meet attainment, the tendency is for people to confront those they hold responsible for frustrating their ambition. This is the central argument that Ted Robert Gurr’s Relative Deprivation thesis addressed stating that “the greater the discrepancy, however marginal between what is sought and what see

PHYSIOLOGICAL THEORY

Physiologists share the biological and hormonal origins of aggression and conflict in individuals with realists, but add by providing the conditions under which this happens. Scott (1978) noted that the physiological sources of aggressive behavior are a function of several factors including human nature and environment.

In essence, humans are naturally capable of being aggressive but do not display violent behavior as an instinct. When violence occurs, there is the possibility that it is being manipulated by a combination of factors within and outside the individual’s control.

ECONOMIC THEORY

Economists largely assume people in conflict to be fighting over, not about, something that is material. The question then becomes; is the conflict a result of greed (intention to ‘corner’ something) or of grievance (anger arising over feelings of injustice). Collier (2003:4) printed out that some people (commonly referred to as “conflict entrepreneurs”) actually benefit from chaos; while overwhelming majority of the population are affected by the negative impacts of conflicts. He also pointed out that while the prospect of pecuniary gains is seldom the principal incentive for rebellion, it can become for some insurgent groups, a preferred state of affairs.

PSYCHO-CULTURAL CONFLICT THEORY

The role of culturally induced conflict is emphasized by this theory. It contends, therefore that even though there are different forms of identities, the one that is based on people’s ethnic origin and the culture that is learned on the basis of that ethnic origin is one of the most important ways of explaining violent conflict. Identity is thus seen to be the reason for social conflicts that take long to resolve despite the belief that ethnicity is the biggest source of identity-based conflicts , this school of thought agree that this does not mean that conflict is unavoidable wherever there are ethnic differences.

HUMAN NEEDS THEORY

 The position of human needs theory is similar to that of Frustration-Aggression and Relative deprivation theory. Its main assumption is that all humans have basic human needs which they seek to fulfill, and that the denial and frustration of these needs by other groups or individuals could affect them immediately or later, thereby leading to conflict (Rosati et al. 1990). ‘Basic human needs” in this sense comprise physical, psychological, social and spiritual needs. In essence, to provide access to one (e.g. food) and deny or hinder access to another (e.g. freedom of worship) will amount to denial and could make people to resort to violence in an effort to protect these needs

Even though needs scholars identity a wide range of human needs, some of which they consider to be basic human needs, they are agreed on the fact that the frustration of these needs hampers the actualization of the potentials of groups and individuals, subsequently leading to conflict

RELATIONAL THEORY

Relational Theories attempt to provide explanations for the violent conflicts between groups by exploring sociological, political, economic and historical relationships between such groups. Thus, the belief here is that cultural and value differences are as well as group interests all influence relationships between individuals A number of conflicts grow out of a past history of conflict between groups that has led to the development of negative stereotypes, racial intolerance and discrimination. Such a history of negative exchanges between groups may make it difficult for efforts to integrate different ethnic and religious groups within the society to succeed because their past interactions make it difficult for them to trust one another. Within the West African sub-region for instance, it has been difficult to get groups like the Hausa/Fulani, Igbo and the Yoruba in Nigeria

SYSTEMIC THEORY

Systemic theories provide a socio-structural explanation for the emergence of violent social conflicts. The position of this theory is that reason(s) for any social conflict lie in the social context within which it occurs. As Johnson (1966:12-13) noted in the case of political violence, “any analytical penetration of the behavior characterized as ‘purposive political violence’ must utilize as its tool a conception of the social context in which it occurs.” This paradigm turns our focus to social factors and the effects of large scale (usually sudden) changes in social, political and economic processes that would usually guide In trying to cope with the different challenges and crises of modernization, most governments that find it difficult to gain the legitimacy needed to attract support from the people usually resort to unconstitutional means and force rather than processes that are in line with the rule of law, in an effort to surpass the legitimate demands of the people, prevent opposition and civil society groups from criticizing policies that they do not agree with, and generally attempt to dictate the terms on which peace will be attained.

CONCLUSION

There are however similarities among the social theories which the various theorists agree. One of such areas is that all of them recommend approaches that recognize the needs and interests of both sides, hence strategies that are non-confrontational and those that remove feelings of bitterness in the process of settling disputes between individuals, groups or nations.

In conclusion, Kelman (1993:3) shows the way forward in his observation that each perspective only adds to the pool of available knowledge on conflict resolution processes: “Although (they are) analytically distinct as static points of departure, there is sufficient overlap among…conflict orientations to blur their fine points of distinction”.

Conflict scholars can thus combine one or more points of view in the process of analyzing social conflicts or helping political leaders to develop the right policies for dealing with them

REFFERENCES

Azar, E ‘Protracted International Conflicts: Ten Propositions’. Quoted in Rabie M. (1994), 

              Conflict Resolution and Ethnicity, London: Prager.

Burton, John (1990) Conflict: Human Needs Theory. London: Macmillan.

Cohen, Percy S. (1968) Modern Social Theory. London: Heinemann.

Collier, Paul (2003), Breaking the Conflict Trap: Civil War and Development Policy.  

            Washington: The World Bank,

Coser, Lewis: The Functions of Social Conflict. New York: Free Press.