Allow me to welcome you on your first day at the PASSIA seminar on ‘Diplomacy and Conflict Resolution’. I have heard from PASSIA’s partners in this seminar, Ailie Saunders from the Royal United Services Institute for Defense Studies and Dr. Joel Peters from Reading University, about your high qualifications and your commitment, as well as your interest in becoming PASSIA fellows.

This seminar comes as a part of PASSIA’s series of seminars in international affairs, in which we focus on training and educating Palestinian graduates on specific topics through intensive workshops and writing assignments, providing them with all the tools necessary to meet with and benefit from high caliber lecturers, experts and diplomats. PASSIA’s dedication in these endeavors is part of the collective responsibility of Palestinian non-governmental organizations in building a democratic independent state.

I hope that one day you will become members of the Palestinian diplomatic core and I would like to emphasize how important it is for you to use this opportunity to deepen your knowledge about these topics and also your attachment to Palestine. You should be proud of being a people with a just cause, namely the united struggle to build a better future in our homeland. Having said that, it should be noted that we are an integral part of the Arab World and our national movement went through three stages. The first stage was the international phase, which goes back to World War I. The second phase was the Arabization of the Palestinian cause, or the Pan-Arab phase, which started with the end of World War II. The third phase was the Palestinization of the cause beginning in the early 1960’s.

Allow me here to introduce some ideas as an introduction to this seminar. Last night, I read an article about the late Egyptian president Jamal Abdul Nasser. The author quoted Abdul Nasser saying,

My point here, my dear fellows, is that you too will discover during the course of this seminar how deep-rooted you, as Palestinians, are in the Arab World in terms of history, culture, economy and security. The late President Abdul Nasser wrote in his famous monograph, ‘The Philosophy of the Revolt’, that he considered himself as being part of three overlapping circles: the first being the Arab dimension, the second the African, and the third the universal. This seminar will focus on the Arab dimension in terms of the evolution of the Arab states and their position, interests and needs, as well as where they meet and differ and why they sometimes fight each other. The question is: How do you see yourself within that concept of the three circles? Are you a Palestinian first, an Arab second, and a Muslim or Christian last, or what? Some may say: I am a Jerusalemite first because I was born in Jerusalem, I belong to a very holy city, I live in the center of the world and it is the closest spot to heaven. Only then, I will look for an identity, Palestinian or Arab, and within that context I will identify my religion as Muslim or Christian.

I am not expecting you to go that far now. I am asking you to build your relationships with each other as one Palestinian team, working together as colleagues and friends, committed to learning and benefiting from this opportunity and trying your best to meet the challenges set by the lecturers or diplomats. I want to encourage you to have confidence and faith in yourselves and to never, never, lie to yourselves. The truth is the light that will guide you to a better understanding in this political game of diplomacy and conflict resolution. I am happy to inform you that PASSIA managed to invite highly qualified diplomats and academics: Americans, Europeans, Israelis, Canadians, Arabs and Palestinians. I hope we will maintain this endeavor in other seminars and I wish you all the best.

The focus of the seminar is a technical approach to conflict resolution, to negotiations and so on, but there is a much broader picture. Nowadays, it is not only the problem itself, and it is not only the technical questions of how to resolve it. There are also the broader more general issues, the so-called New World Order that consists of many shaping factors such as public opinion, NGOs, the media, international institutions and so on. We have to ask what the interests of the parties are. And there are not just political interests: there is also the question of ‘face saving’, of domestic constituencies and so on. You see how this point relates to the subject of the seminar.

I think it is a very good idea to invite both sides to lecture in the seminar, e.g., Ron Pundik, whom you title as a moderate, but you must not forget that, on his side, he is not considered a moderate, but a liberal extremist. Do not forget the real extremists on both sides.

I think this indeed is an important time for such a seminar to take place. The next six months will be crucial for the region, thus we need to engage ourselves in dealing with these issues. This interim period is regarded as a confidence building period. We need to be pessimistic in our analysis and optimistic in our action.

The final status negotiations will offer the possibility to build a Palestinian state. I do not view the partnership with the EU as a form of political patronization because of the political maturity of the Palestinian people: here, we find a feeling for democracy, openness, and civil society, which are all important features of the place in which one lives. Let me add that the notion of a state is different now from what it was in the 18th century: the notion of sovereignty, the notion of security, the concept of ‘human security’ have all totally changed. You will not have to go through all the painful experiences that other states had to go through. You can start right from the beginning by creating an open society with horizontal networking and different kinds of balancing authorities at every level.

The Diplomatic System -
Role and Function of Diplomacy
Dr. Raymond Cohen, Head of the International Affairs Department,
Hebrew University, Jerusalem

Attempting to talk about diplomacy in an hour is like visiting Jerusalem in a day, so these will just be some preliminary remarks, and I hope Dr. Adam James will go further into the details.

Diplomacy lies at the heart of international relations. It can be considered the master-mechanism of international affairs, a system for managing relations between states. Diplomacy acts like the control tower of an international airport that directs and controls the flow of traffic and maintains the order through its radar system, its regulations, and its instructions. The diplomatic system works in the same way: it orders the international system and allows international society to function more or less smoothly through a system of laws and norms of behavior. The international society is bound together by diplomacy that maintains order, prevents collisions, and permits the conduct of business and affairs between states.

Often the concepts of foreign policy and diplomacy become entangled or are confused. Whereas foreign policy concerns the substance, the content of one state’s relations with other states or actors, that is, its goals, values and interests and how to translate these into trade, treaties and actions, diplomacy concerns the process. Diplomacy is the instrument, the key mechanism by which states conduct relations across borders; it is the means to achieve the objectives of foreign policy.

Question: Can diplomacy be described as the art of how to deal with the other side?

Answer: Yes, diplomacy is conducted by a corps of trained diplomats that have certain skills. In diplomacy, it is the diplomats, that is, the professionals and not the politicians who play a key role.

Question: Why are foreign policy and diplomacy, which are both carried out by the foreign ministry, regarded as being so different?

Answer: The idea since the beginning of Western diplomacy in France in the 17th century has been that there should be cohesive and coordinated foreign policy, and that the foreign minister is responsible for this coordination and cohesion. As a result, there has been a unified chain of command in the diplomatic service, according to which the diplomat serves as an agent who, with no set of objectives of his own, is duty-bound to do the best to serve the interests of his state, just as a lawyer is expected to represent the interests of his client.

In order to understand the meaning of diplomacy better, let us look at its history. Diplomacy had its cradle in the Near East, in Mesopotamia, at least as far back as 2500 BC. A mechanism to conduct the affairs between the city states of that time, such as trade, alliances and fighting was needed, as well as representatives that could travel to each other’s capital and meet and conduct affairs as soon as contact between states was established. In order to conduct these affairs, archives, protocol, the institution of messengers and a rudimentary law developed between the city states. The diplomat was considered the representative of the state’s sovereign; the moment states had affairs in common, they had to have representatives and rules in order to settle their affairs with one another.

What were and remain the tasks of diplomacy? The first task has always been to negotiate agreements, originally those related to trade, diplomacy, war and alliances. Nowadays, in an interdependent world, diplomacy’s tasks are related to the whole spectrum of international relations, as there are many points of contact among states such as tourism, trade, finance, treaties, telecommunications, etc.

Negotiations are at the heart of diplomacy because they are a ‘magical process’ in which two parties that do not have mutual interests finally reach a mutual beneficial agreement - in contrast to war, where we have a one-sided, non-legitimate outcome. The outcome of negotiations is based on mutual consent; negotiations can thus be considered as a method of joint decision-making. They are the only way to achieve change on the basis of consent, and therefore legitimacy, and they are therefore at the heart of the peaceful conduct of international affairs. Some writers, such as the famous Howard Nicholson, say that diplomacy is almost synonymous to negotiations.

The second important role of diplomacy is that of communication. Diplomacy serves the transmission of positions, views, opinions, and policies in an accurate and acceptable way. There exists an elaborate system of communication through documents, papers, forms of speech, gestures, etc. States communicate extensively to inform others, to coordinate their positions, to mobilize support, and to justify or to disqualify other positions. This generally works quite well because all states have an interest in being considered equal and therefore in upholding the rules.

The third role of diplomacy is the acquisition of information. Even though today there are many sources of information, the diplomat as a professional observer that has access to authoritative information is important.

The fourth role is that of staking out legal positions. The diplomat is the lawyer for his state’s position and makes legal claims on behalf of his country.

The fifth role is that of representing the sovereign. This is of special importance nowadays, in a time of newly emerging states that seek international recognition. The diplomat as a symbol of his national community is honored and given full recognition. Protocol is so important in diplomatic relations; it ensures that business is conducted without unnecessary arguments or difficulties.

Question: What kind of policy is behind the appointment of diplomats?

Answer: In established states, there is usually a well-functioning mechanism for appointing diplomats; political appointments are less important. In new states, loyalty to the regime, of course, is most important. There must be absolute confidence in the ruler’s representatives abroad. This is illustrated by the dismissal not long ago of Oren Shahor, one of the Israeli representatives in the talks with the Palestinians because he was accused of having leaked information. Now, whether or not the accusations were true is not so important; the important thing is that Netanyahu no longer had any confidence in his representative. It is crucial for the ruler to have confidence in his diplomats. In the case of the Palestinians, I naturally assume that all the representatives are very close and loyal to the Palestinian Authority.

Question: You said that diplomacy is a system for managing relations among states. Is it then applicable at all to the Palestinian-Israeli case or can it only function between two states?

Answer: Indeed, the negotiations between Israel and the Palestinians are somewhat special because Palestine is not yet a state. According to the definition a diplomat is always the representative of a state, but in terms of function, there are many bodies that act as diplomats. The Palestinian representatives act as if they were diplomats, and their function is the same.

Today, states conduct business with many entities other than states that have quasi-diplomatic functions, such as ai [amnesty international], Greenpeace, multinational companies, the EU representatives, or private citizens acting as diplomats in secret negotiations (e.g., Hirschfeld and Pundik in the Oslo talks), etc. This has been the case since the Middle Ages when churches and guilds, for example, sent their representatives to negotiate with states. Today, there is no longer a clear distinction between representatives of states and non-governmental organizations, etc.

Question: I want to ask a question about the diplomat as a person. Is it best that he be a person from inside or from outside the system? Is it preferable for a diplomat to have a military background?

Answer: There has been a long and ongoing debate as to whether generals should or should not become diplomats. In general, military personnel are held in suspicion, because it is assumed that they have the tendency to impose solutions and that they prefer one-sided decision-making. Today, however, a lot of these people are involved in peace-keeping missions or arms reduction talks. Many generals, therefore, have to have diplomatic skills. Often, they also have the confidence of the authorities. Throughout history, they often played a great role as diplomats. For example, one of the most distinguished American diplomats was Vernon Walter.

In addition, not only foreign ministries send out representatives. On a negotiating team, you will find representatives of all the ministries with an interest in the matter. The foreign ministry is mainly left with the task of coordination, the representation of the national perspective, and the provision of local knowledge and communication skills.

Question: For me, diplomacy has always been associated with peace. Is that an accurate point of view?

Answer: On the one hand, diplomacy is a peaceful way of communication, but this does not mean that the conduct of diplomacy rules out war or that war automatically ends diplomatic relations. For example, Syria and Israel are involved in a diplomatic process at the same time as violence is used to foster political goals.

Question: Is espionage justified by the diplomat’s task of acquiring information for his country?

Answer: Diplomats legitimately collect information. The difference between diplomats and spies should be stressed and is emphasized by diplomats themselves. It is in the interest of the states not to confuse the two fields. If a diplomat is accused of being a spy, he is useless in the host state and may as well go home.

Question: What about the flexibility of an ambassador to open up a secret channel or to sign an agreement on his own?

Answer: There are all kinds of channels through which negotiations are conducted and often local staff, such as the ambassador, are included in the negotiation team; they are sometimes even the head of the team. Also, there is a lot of flexibility to set up channels. If there is a will, there is a way. A lot of negotiations have been conducted informally in the form of pre-negotiations, and it is here that ambassadors often play their part.

Question: To me, it seems that the diplomat is quite limited by his foreign ministry and by the short period for which he is sent to a host country. It seems that he is only a tool, used to implement the ministry’s foreign policy.

Answer: This, to a certain degree, is true, and often leads to frustration. Diplomats are employees that are bound by regulations. They are instruments that negotiate on the basis of instructions. Of course, the more competent they become, the more influence they possess.

Diplomatic Law, Methods and Immunities
Dr. Alan James, Professor of International Relations, Keele University, UK

Diplomacy is conducted within the legal framework of international law. Therefore, let us look first at international law, then at diplomatic law as a part thereof.

It is remarkable that states can coexist without a central government or legislature and that, generally speaking, they accept a body of law providing the legal criteria for conduct in the international arena. This law comes from custom and from treaties. As is the case in Britain, where law, which has developed over time, is based on custom, in the international sphere the customary rules of international society are the basis on which states operate. In addition, there is a growing number of treaties regulating all kinds of subjects. This codification process is a rather recent development, which began after World War II. While customary law is binding for all the states, treaties are only binding for the signatories.

Is this really law? The central characteristic of law - the binding - is fulfilled by international law. This has to be distinguished from the observance and enforcement of international law. States accept that international law binds them; they do not argue about this fact and if they dispute a certain law, they argue only about the interpretation of its content. States occasionally do not observe international law when it is not in their interest, although they know that they are legally obliged to obey it. Only when rules are accepted can they be broken.

Generally speaking, international law does not suffer as a result of not being centrally enforced. States consider it wise to obey the law because it is based on the principle of the mutuality of interests, interconnecting duties and rights. Hence, states themselves will suffer if the law is broken. As they want to rely on the rules in the future, they usually obey them. The second reason for states observing the law is that other states are generally capable of making them obey their obligations, and, in the event of transgressions, can take serious measures, such as initiating a campaign against the offending state’s representative in international institutions or cutting monetary aid, etc. The third reason is that states usually care a great deal about their reputation and are sensitive to insults or perceived insults. Consequently, international law is generally observed.

What is the function of international law? International law sets a normative framework for behavior in the international sphere. It regulates the methods of doing things lawfully, e.g., how to create a treaty. It also sets the rules for what must be done, what must not be done and what may be done, i.e., the legal freedom.

Diplomatic law is a part of international law. For a long time it was customary, but with the emergence of a large number of new states in the 50’s and 60’s, it was felt that there was a need to codify the norms concerning the conduct of diplomatic relations and diplomatic institutions. This was done in the 1961 Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations, which serves as the basis of diplomatic law and regulates the privileges and communities of diplomatic institutions and diplomats. The Vienna Convention has been signed and ratified by almost every state in the world. Furthermore, the view of lawyers and experts in this domain is that it has become customary law and thus binds all states.

The key articles of the Vienna Convention are the following:

The idea of diplomatic immunity and privilege is to enable the diplomat to carry out his work efficiently in the absence of pressure from the host state. Of course, the principle of the mutuality of obligations is applicable, so that host governments have a great interest in respecting the immunity and privileges of the diplomats sent to their country.

I will give a few examples to illustrate the impact of these articles. In the late 1970’s, during the events of the Iranian revolution, a group of students took over the US Embassy in Tehran and held its staff hostage for 444 days. The fact that not a single state, including the ones sympathetic to the new regime, supported this action shows that it was considered a breach of a basic principle, namely the inviolability of embassy premises. It was also condemned unanimously by the International Court of Justice in The Hague.

Another example that illustrates the importance of the inviolability of the diplomatic premises, persons and baggage and the respect for this inviolability, even in difficult situations, is the case of the Libyan Embassy in London. When a British police-woman was shot at from within the embassy premises and killed in 1984, negotiations with the embassy staff, who at the time considered themselves a ‘popular committee’, were held for an entire week until they agreed to leave the premises voluntarily. The embassy was not stormed by the British police.

The third example concerns a Nigerian government official who, following the military coup in Nigeria, fled to live in London, from where he was subsequently abducted. A few days after the abduction, a Nigerian diplomat appeared at the airport with several large crates and attempted to leave Britain. As the crates did not bear a diplomatic seal they were opened and the former official was found unconscious in one of them. The accompanying diplomat claimed diplomatic immunity in order to avoid arrest. This, however, was not accepted as he was not accredited to Britain and immunity applies to accredited personnel only. He was taken to court, accused of abusing diplomatic immunity and sent to prison.

The Vienna Convention sets the legal framework within which diplomats act. Even when states are at war with each other, diplomacy can be pursued. This was illustrated during the Iran-Iraq war, when diplomatic relations were upheld for quite a while despite the fact that the two countries were at war. Although, nowadays, there are many diplomats all over the world, diplomatic conduct functions quite well. The rules, in general, are obeyed, because they are in the best interests of all the various states.

Question: With regard to the enforcement of international law, what is the role of the veto in the Security Council? Doesn’t it allow some states to stand above international law?

Answer: For most of the time, international law does not need to be ‘enforced’, as states act on its basis out of self-interest. But when some specific threats or kinds of pressure are needed, these may be supplied by states acting individually or collectively. Inasmuch as the use of the veto may prevent the Security Council from taking action on behalf of the UN in a matter of peace and security, the veto may to that extent obstruct the collective enforcement of international law. But that does not mean that a state judged to be in breach of international law is somehow exempt from the requirements of the law. On the contrary, it is still bound by it. And there is no reason why - if the necessary political will is present - states should not, either individually or collectively (in a forum other than the Security Council) take action against the offending state.

Question: What is the international legal situation concerning embassy asylum? Does the host state have the right to arrest somebody who resorts to seeking asylum in a foreign embassy?

Answer: You have touched on a very important and controversial matter. The case of people seeking asylum in an embassy was not mentioned in the Vienna Convention of 1961 as no agreement was reached during the negotiations concerning the right to asylum or the obligations of the host state. Now, the receiving state is obliged to help the person seeking asylum to leave the country safely but of course, only in cases of political asylum. Providing asylum is, however, considered a nuisance by the embassy staff, especially as embassies are not designed to allow people to live there. Thus, embassies will try to prevent people from entering easily as, once inside, it is difficult to throw them out. As I said, there are no clear agreed upon rules concerning embassy asylum, except for in the Latin American countries.

Question: Is there immunity for private citizens, for example, for those individuals that play an important role in mediation or negotiations? Can they be granted immunity?

Answer: Yes, states can do anything they want and they will usually offer their representatives support and protection. Other conventions regarding the immunity of NGOs and special missions, etc., already exist. In a case such as that of the private negotiators in Oslo, the states concerned would agree upon these matters.

Question: Is the diplomat totally immune even if he commits a crime? What about the case of the Nigerian diplomat?

Answer: If the diplomat had been accredited to Britain, Britain could have asked Nigeria to waive his immunity, but it would have then been Nigeria’s decision to do so and make him subject to British legal prosecution. If Nigeria had decided not to do so, then Britain could have declared the person persona non grata so that he would have been obliged to leave the country within 48 hours.

Question: Do the same privileges concerning immunity apply to honorary consuls?

Answer: There is a special convention regarding this. Probably, immunity will only cover his official acts. There are different levels of immunity relating to the different

levels of missions and diplomatic functions.

Question: I think that law always needs an enforcing authority or a power to be applied. Is this not the role of the Security Council?

Answer: No, international law is not observed because of some authority but because of the principle of mutuality and the interests of all the states concerned.

Question: What is the role of international law in the case of a treaty between two states that has not been respected by one side?

Answer: Usually, in such a case, the protesting state’s legal advisors would make a claim on behalf of the state and the two states would then try to find a solution, e.g., by negotiation or, if both states agree, by arbitration. If this does not resolve the conflict, the complaining state is entitled to retaliation.

Question: What is the connection between sanctions and UN resolutions and international law?

Answer: The UN has in some cases over the years imposed sanctions on states. This is done through UN Security Council resolutions that normally cite the broken legal norms in their preamble. So, the UN sanctions are based on and justified by international law, as was the case in the sanctions against Libya in connection with the Lockerbie disaster. But as I pointed out earlier, it is not only this kind of enforcement that makes states abide by international law, the adherence to which is in the interest of all the states in a functioning international society.

The Art and Practice of Diplomacy
Dr. Alan James

Can we really talk about the ‘art’ of diplomacy? This would imply that certain kinds of skills can lead to certain results. Diplomacy is about state interests, and if the interests of one state are opposed to those of the other, then charm and skills do not suffice. The diplomat is defending the interests of the state, and the winning side is dependent not only on skills but on many other factors.

However, being a good diplomat requires certain personal qualities such as patience, as a diplomat has to put up with other diplomats and to socialize inside the com-munity. The diplomat is always ‘on duty’, always the representative of his state. He has to master the art of gossip. He often has to participate in extremely difficult negotiations about details and items that are sometimes never realized. He needs to be sensitive to cultural differences and to possess a tolerance for social and quasi-social gatherings. He also has to accept that he is a tool, meaning he has to defend his country’s line at all times and to accept and follow his government’s instructions. Only at a high level is he able to influence his country’s policies himself. Thus, it takes a special person to be a diplomat. The fact remains that the result of negotiations will not be determined by the diplomat’s skill, but mainly by the underlying interests of the state.

Diplomacy, which means official contact between states, can take place at different levels according to the relationship between the states involved. Possible stages in the development and diminution of diplomatic relations and contact include the following:

The emergence of a sovereign state, meaning a territorial entity with a constitution separate from other constitutions, is the precondition for the establishment of diplomatic relations. The driving force in the development of new states since World War II has been de-colonization.

Once the sovereign state has emerged the question of recognition emerges. Any new state, before it can enter into diplomatic relations with other states, has first to be recognized by these other states. This is a unilateral act by the recognizing state; often, however, it happens at the same time as the establishment of diplomatic relations, which is a bilateral act, but it does not have to be so.

For example, it is possible to establish consular relations before establishing diplomatic relations.

The crucial stage is when states establish diplomatic relations. This occurs when two states in effect say that they are willing to talk to each other at an official level. It is always a formal, bilateral decision to enter into diplomatic relations. It is of extreme importance to establish diplomatic relations because they allow permanent, easy and free communication between the two states, meaning that states can communicate with one another at any time without the slightest difficulty: this is why international relations in general function so smoothly. There are various ways in which states can maintain diplomatic relations with each other. According to the sending state’s interests in business and trade, its strategic interests, and the number of residents, etc., in the host state, the level of the diplomatic mission will differ. (See points 5 to 11.) Thus, the existence of diplomatic relations between two states does not rely on one state having an embassy in the other.

One possibility is to have a non-resident mission, which means that diplomats are accredited to the host state in order to facilitate communication, but reside in another state in order to save resources. Many African states, for example, have a resident mission in one of the European states while their ambassador is also accredited to the other European states.

Very common nowadays are special missions, which are appointed to settle or to negotiate a specific matter.

There are three categories of resident missions: a mission headed by an ambassador (an embassy), a mission headed by an envoy or a minister (a legation), or a mission headed by a chargé d’affaires. The second and third types of mission are rare nowadays because the sending states all want to be represented and therefore treated at the highest level.

Thus, the resident ambassadorial mission is nowadays the prevalent means of representation so usually, when two states are in diplomatic relations, each has a resident ambassador in the other state.

In order to show a country’s displeasure with the host country’s actions, various diplomatic measures can be taken by the sending state according to the gravity of the problem. The sending state, for example, can temporarily withdraw the head of mission, an action referred to as calling the ambassador for consultations.

In theory, the level of the head of mission can be downgraded, but this is very rarely done.

The next possibility is the withdrawal of the mission, which can be temporary or permanent, but this does not necessarily mean a break in diplomatic relations.

The most severe step is the breach of diplomatic relations. This used to be quite uncommon and states only took such a step upon declaring war, but since World War II it has become quite common, especially during the Cold War period. The problem is that, once again, the sending state itself loses the opportunity for easy, official talks with the host state, which entails the danger of a further deterioration of relations.

Thus, in a case where there are no diplomatic relations or they have been broken, states can still use a protecting power to protect their nationals or an interests section in order to allow communication between the two states. In this case, a third state would represent the sending state’s interests or allow the establishment of an interest section in a friendly embassy. The US, for example, has an interest section in the Swiss embassy in Cuba to conduct communication with the Cubans. This underlines the importance of having easy access to communication, even when very strained mutual relations exist.

Other, but rare forms of contact include the conduct of diplomatic functions by a consular officer.

A second rare form of contact is the conduct of intermittent diplomatic contact which could be direct or indirect and, for example, take place in a third state’s capital.

A total absence of diplomatic contact is a further possibility.

What is the importance of diplomatic relations? States are entities that as such cannot talk to each other and cannot have direct relations, thus contact is only possible through accredited representatives. Diplomacy serves as the communication system of international society. Communication between states is much easier when it is through diplomatic relations, as opposed to through the back door.

The head of a mission is always accredited by the head of state. (In order to exemplify the question of accreditation, letters from the Queen of England to the American President concerning the appointment of a new ambassador to the US were displayed and explained.)

Question: Palestine has missions at different levels in other countries. What status do they have? Do the representatives have the same privileges and diplomatic immunity as other ambassadors?

Answer: Actually, I myself would like to know more about the status of the Palestinian representatives. The Vienna Convention regulates the relations between states. The general view is that Palestine is not a state, thus the Convention cannot be applied directly. ‘Normal’ diplomatic immunity doesn’t apply automatically to the Palestinian representatives, but practically it might exist, depending on whether the host state chooses to extend immunity to the Palestinian representatives. Remember, the host state can extend immunity as it wishes. It also has the right to decide whether it considers the Palestinian representative an ambassador, as is common in most Arab states.

Why is this so important? It is important because the host state has to know how to treat foreign diplomats. Following the Napoleonic Wars, the ‘Residence Rule’ was introduced to ease matters of protocol. According to the rule, ambassadors were seated at official occasions according to their date of arrival in the country. In earlier times, ambassadors had been seated and treated according to the relative position of their state in terms of its level of decline or rise, which caused a lot of problems.

Now, how this applies to Palestine is the question. There must be some special arrangements on how to treat Palestine’s representatives, because it is not an acknowledged state and thus, does not really fit in to any one category. Palestinian representatives are generally treated today as if they were representatives of an acknowledged state. This shows the flexibility of diplomacy that allows life to catch up with theory.

Question: Why do states sometimes have an embassy and a consulate in the same host state?

Answer: The purpose of a consulate differs from that of an embassy. The main purpose of a consulate is to assist the nationals of the sending state, e.g., with marriages, visas, and trade matters, etc. Therefore, the embassy is usually in the capital of the host state, where foreign policy is made, whereas a consulate would be situated in an industrial or coastal city, according to the agreement between the two states. Today, it is common to have a consular section at the embassy. If the interests of the sending state demand it, there can even be more than one consulate in the host state. An example of this was the creation of the United Arab Republic in 1958, when the foreign embassies in Damascus closed down or were changed to consulates because Cairo was then considered the capital of the whole entity.

The Structure and Role of a Foreign Ministry
and of Diplomatic Missions
HE Richard Dalton, British Consul General, Jerusalem

I will talk about the structure of the British Foreign Office as an example of a foreign ministry as well as about the structure and tasks of an embassy.

Let me start with the key objectives of British foreign policy and therefore the main tasks of a British mission. Those tasks include the protection of security for the nation and its nationals, prosperity, that is pursuing trade policy and promoting a climate for investment, etc., as well as the preservation of stability and order, which is a fabric that requires continued maintenance and communication.

What is the role of the diplomat? In Britain, the diplomat is acting on behalf of the Queen as the head of state, represented by the foreign minister. The diplomat obeys orders from above, from the foreign ministry; he is the servant of the public represented by the elected government. In a case where he disagrees with the orders of his government, he can argue and maybe convince the minister of his standpoint; if not, he has to accept the order or to resign. But, on the other hand, he can also influence the orders that are given because the political decisions depend on his preparatory work. He informs his government about the current situation and prepares options for political decisions. But, of course, this always has to fit in with the overall policy of the government. In an unclear situation, it is always his duty to seek instructions from above.

The diplomatic service has functions in different fields such as economic foreign policy implementation, trade services, foreign policy implementation, management/ administration of the mission, control of entry to the UK (visa service), defense policy, consular duties, administration of overseas aid, promotion of educational and cultural relations, communication, and external broadcasting.

Protocol can be seen as the good manners in international relations. Its function is to ensure that people who need access to officials of the host or sending state get this access and it allows the apt treatment of misunderstandings, special events, etc.

The structure of a typical embassy or, in the case of the Commonwealth countries, a high commission, is as follows: the mission is led by an ambassador (high commissioner) with a personal assistant and his deputy, the counselor, with his personal assistant. The embassy has four main sections: the consular section providing the link for visitors of the home country, the management section, the chancery or political section and the commercial section promoting business between the two states, as well as different support services, such as secretarial and security staff. About 25% of the work is political work aimed at understanding the society and government of the host state and its main political currents. In small embassies, these sections do not exist and the diplomat himself has to be up-to-date in all fields and understand the full range of diplomatic work.

Question: From what we have heard so far, the life of a diplomat is terribly hectic and has a lot of disadvantages. Would you agree?

Answer: It is a 24-hour job. You have to be available 24 hours a day, seven days a week although, of course, usually you do not work that long. Also, there is what we call a ‘mobility obligation’, meaning that you have to go anywhere you are sent whether you like it or not. But the work is rewarding: you have a lot of change, not only because you change the country you are working in, but also because you change the department and therefore the field of work.

Question: Diplomats need certain skills. Are these a natural talent, or can they be learned?

Answer: Now, the question of nature or nurture: you do need certain personal characteristics to be a good diplomat, such as integrity, flexibility, adaptability, and no extremist views. The recruitment in Great Britain looks for these abilities, not for a special education. (But, of course, a higher education is a pre-condition.) Then, the diplomats are trained on the job (learning by doing) and in special training sessions for particular missions. So, if you want, both nurture and nature are important in the making of a good diplomat.

Question: Is a diplomat representing a small or poor country treated differently than one representing an important, influential one?

Answer: Formally, all ambassadors are equal and only distinguished by the rule of seniority. But, in the competition concerning access to the important people in the host country, those countries that have more significance to the host state naturally have an advantage. This access, however, also depends on the ability of the diplomat.

Question: We learned that a diplomat is mainly a tool of the government to implement its foreign policy. Isn’t your work frustrating sometimes?

Answer: In the Middle East, this is unfortunately true. We share in the frustrations of the Middle East peace process. Also, as a representative of a middle rank power such as Great Britain you need to be most effective. Sometimes, there are no or little achievements and this is indeed frustrating. But it also depends on the department in which you work. For example, working in a commercial section can be very satisfying.

Question: What advice would you give to Palestinian diplomats?

Answer: In Palestine, it seems to me, the relationships between the PLO/Palestinian Authority and the representatives often are more on a personal level. I think the Palestinian diplomats are doing quite a good job even though they certainly lack staff and resources and there is not the same level of exact guidance from above as in other nations. They have a difficult stand because they do not have a foreign ministry and therefore, it is hard to conduct a cohesive foreign policy.

Question: What is the relationship between the different foreign representatives in Palestine?

Answer: There is wide cooperation on aid and economic assistance to the Palestinians. For example, regular meetings take place on the issue of institution-building. There is only very limited conflict between the representatives, mainly concerning particular political issues.

Question: I heard something about a ‘consular lunch’. What is this?

Answer: The consular lunch is a special feature of international life. Here, in Jerusalem, the Consul Generals meet regularly at this opportunity to discuss current affairs on the issue of Jerusalem. For example, they have a unified position on the status of Jerusalem in that the issue is not settled, in that occupation and annexation are opposed to international law, and in that the Israeli settlement policy in East Jerusalem contravenes the Geneva Convention.

Question: Can you give an evaluation of British foreign policy towards the Palestinians?

Answer: Great Britain has a special role in the Palestine Question. We are not only interested in stability in the region and in a successful and peaceful resolution of the conflict. We also acknowledge our special responsibility, but we cannot turn the clock back. We recognize the right of the Palestinian people to self-determination and we think that Palestinian political activities in East Jerusalem are legitimate.

Question: What about the recognition of a Palestinian state?

Answer: We would recognize a Palestinian state immediately if it came as a result of the peace process negotiations. However, we could not accept a preemption of results by the Palestinians. We acknowledge the right to self-determination, but it must come through negotiations, not through unilateral acts.

Question: What was the real reason for the Balfour Declaration in 1917?

Answer:There were three main factors that led to the Balfour Declaration: World War I, the influence of the Zionist leaders in London and the sympathy for the idea of a Jewish homeland. I stress, it was the sympathy for a homeland, not for a Jewish state.

Question: I want to ask something about another field of British policy. How did Great Britain get out of the beef crisis?

Answer: The beef crisis is not only a serious crisis for the British, but for the EU as a whole. We are, at this time, not out of the crisis by any means. There is still a ban on the export of British beef. The whole subject involves a problem of judgment concerning human safety.

Question: What is the relationship between Great Britain and Saudi Arabia? What do you think about the raping and killing of foreigners in Saudi Arabia?

Answer: First of all, we have a close and good relationship with Saudi Arabia and we are engaged in trade. Concerning the question of fundamental values, we want states that have signed international treaties on human rights to apply these standards and live up to their undertakings. Both positions are known to the Saudi Arabian government.

Question: How do you see the future of Northern Ireland?

Answer: We can only reach a solution through negotiations. The major obstacle at the moment is the IRA’s breach of the cease-fire and the renewed use of violence. Northern Ireland is in a free association with the UK; it is not forced to be in this union, but the majority supports it.

Question: Why does Israel have so much political influence? Is it because the Israeli diplomats are so good?

Answer: Israeli diplomats and the Israeli government are very effective in putting across their ideas. It is a very effective system.

Question: When you compare them to Palestinian diplomats, who is more convincing?

Answer: As I said, Palestinian diplomats are highly valued, but the problem is that there are not so many of them due to the lack of resources. You see, most international decision-makers want to remain friends with both parties. But in reality, the truth is not always in the middle, even if there is a desire to be balanced. This is the current situation. There is no balanced attitude, there is much more sympathy for the Palestinian positions. However, we think that sanctions against Israel would not be useful at this point.

Summitry
Dr. Alan James

First, I want to relate summitry to the broader picture. Today, there is a lot of summitry, but this has not always been the case. In 1919, the first big collective summit was held in Paris, but only after World War II did summitry really proliferate. Examples of summitry as collective summits are the opening sessions of the UN General Assembly or the Commonwealth summits that take place every couple of years. In general, summitry concerns the meeting of two or three leaders. A classical example would be the meeting in Yalta.

Why are there so many summits?

Summitry has become possible through the development of technology and transport facilities.

With everyone talking about democracy throughout the world, it is assumed that the elected leaders should be involved in big decisions, that they should be seen making important decisions.

Summitry can be useful at the domestic political level, in order to gather domestic support.

Finally, the joy of travel as an employment privilege should also not be forgotten.

Summitry is an example of the ‘open diplomacy’ of the 20th century. The request that diplomacy should be open was made by Woodrow Wilson in his 14 points since he believed that it was the practice of secret diplomacy that led to the World War I. He did not, however, rule out the possibility of coming to secret agreements; the negotiations themselves should not be in public. Thus, what he was talking about was ‘open covenants arrived at secretly’. Diplomats insist that negotiations can only be successful when they are confidential. The important change is that nowadays, results are usually published.

What are the advantages and disadvantages of summitry? The advantages are that summits offer the possibility to establish good personal relations between leaders. They can also be a very visible sign of a rapprochement or good intentions, as was the case with Sadat’s visit to Jerusalem. They offer the opportunity to settle major problems quickly. The disadvantages are that bad relations or antipathy between the leaders may reflect upon the relations between the two countries. Thus, sometimes it seems preferable for the leaders to keep out of such meetings. Also, the symbolism may be greater than intended or misinterpreted by one side, as was the case with the Nixon summit in China in 1972. It might also be that problems are indeed settled too hastily and mistakes are made, as happened in the arms reduction negotiations between Kissinger and the Soviets. Leaders may not prepare for the meeting thoroughly or be sufficiently briefed.

What are the implications for diplomacy and diplomats? The claim that diplomats have been downgraded and lost their function due to increasing summitry is going too far, and it overestimates the influence of diplomats in the past. Often their former role is glamorized. In fact, due to other developments, the role of the diplomat has even increased in importance. Faster forms of communication, for example, allow the diplomat to have more influence in the foreign office. As a result of the improvement in transportation, diplomats are nowadays called home more often to report about certain situations and their input concerning foreign policy has consequently increased. Also, diplomats have an important preparatory role in summitry. Thus, it can be concluded that the importance of summitry has brought a dramatic change to the diplomatic scene but it has not overturned the role of diplomats.

The functions of a diplomatic mission are mentioned in Article 3 of the 1961 Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations. The main functions are representation, protection (of interests and nationals), negotiation, reporting and promotion of friendly relations. Has summitry taken over these functions? Most of these functions have not been taken over by summitry, and diplomats still have an important task in the permanent representation of their country, in the promotion of friendly relations and in reporting to their ministry. Only they are responsible for protecting the country’s nationals in the host country. Most negotiations, in addition to the preparatory work for summits, are carried out by diplomats, who are also responsible for the implementation of summit results.

A further point that should be added is communication. Diplomats serve as the ‘voice boxes’ of their countries and enable states to communicate with one another. It is important that this not only happens at summit meetings, but is an ongoing function that can best be fulfilled by a resident mission. This is especially important when messages have to be passed from one state to the other. With the help of diplomats this can be done at the appropriate level and with the apt honor but while still transmitting the country’s feelings on the matter.

Today, many important matters are dealt with at a multilateral level and in international forums, such as the UN, the Arab League, the NATO, the OAU, etc. At the UN, for example, the permanent representative has a different job than the ambassador in a mission: his task is not only to represent his country, but also to defend his country’s interest through lobbying in the different forums of the organization. He spends most of him time involved in negotiating, reporting, and promoting friendly relations. He is not accredited to a state but to the organization.

In conclusion, it can be said that the old system of diplomacy is still the backbone of international relations and that the embassies have not lost their importance in representing the state’s interests in the host state. Bilateral relations are still at the heart of inter-state business. Summitry, in this context, acts as an occasional addition, a ‘firework in the sky’.

Question: Does the diplomat have the authority to sign treaties?

Answer: Yes, the ambassador has the power to sign treaties. However, he needs to be given specific authorization by his country to do so, and almost always, treaties are ratified by parliament, which has the ability to overturn the ambassador’s signature. More important than the signature are the negotiations and the input that leads to the agreement, and here, once again, the ambassador can have quite an impact.

Question: It seems to me that the diplomat is more involved in implementing foreign policy than in influencing it.

Answer: It is true that diplomats mainly implement foreign policy, but they still have a considerate measure of influence. They are part of a larger mechanism that, in the end, leads to foreign policy formation. Actually, the American policy of containment was formulated by the then American ambassador to Moscow.

Question: We have been talking a great deal about the functions and privileges of diplomats. What are the dangers of being a diplomat?

Answer: Being a diplomat is not without its dangers. Diplomats, for example, are often prospective targets for terrorists, and although they are usually protected by the host state’s police and all kinds of electronic devices they are sometimes the victims of attacks. A perfect example is the ongoing case of the Japanese Embassy in Peru.

Question: The Vienna Convention is over 35 years old. Have any new functions for diplomatic missions developed over this period?

Answer: Actually, the functions have not changed very much, although responsibility for communication could be added, as I explained earlier. On the other hand, the lifestyle of diplomats has changed a lot. Today, diplomats are traveling more and there is a greater need for protection.

Question: The US Ambassador to Israel is Jewish, the Israeli Ambassador to Jordan is a scholar in Arab studies and the Israeli Ambassador to Uganda has a military background. Can we come to the conclusion that the ambassador is usually chosen according to the prevailing interests in the host state?

Answer: The appointment policy differs from country to country. In most European countries, ambassadors are chosen according to their diplomatic training, whereas in the US, ambassadors are mainly political appointees. A military person may have other qualifications that account for him being sent to a specific country; it cannot be automatically assumed that the sending state has a military interest in the host country. For specific military tasks, military attachés are sent to the host state as part of the mission.

Question: American diplomats to the Middle East are often criticized at home because they become attached to the Arab cause, wouldn’t you agree?

Answer: Yes, it happens that in many instances, in different part of the world, diplomats become ‘infected’ by the local point of view, or by what can be called ‘localitis’. The problem, then, is that their reports may be discredited at home. This may also be the case when diplomats marry a national of the host state.

Theories of International Conflict
Dr. Bahgat Korany, Professor of Political Science, Montreal University, Canada

In this lecture, I want to convince you that theory is important and that, in fact, you cannot do any serious work without it; there is a need for generalizing and systematizing in order to make the complexity of the world understandable. So, theory is not only abstraction but a method that assists in the understanding and decoding of complex problems. Now, I will talk to you about theories of conflict, and later, we will go into the theories of conflict resolution. The assumption is that if we do not understand the cause of conflicts, we cannot understand how they can be resolved, because the type of conflict resolution depends very much on the type of conflict.

So what I am talking about today includes the following:

the universal ubiquity of conflicts;

the role of conflict analysis in political and social sciences, the classification and specification of the conflict phenomenon, and conflict analysis as distinct from other aspects of international relations;

main schools of thought concerning the causes of conflict;

a critique of these theories of causes of conflict;

some empirical evidence from history.

Let me start with the first point, the ubiquity of conflict, or the fact that conflict is a widespread phenomenon in political and social life. Conflict is a tangible part of everyday life. Wars, for example, which are a violent conflict, divide or define time for us and shape our way of thinking. We always talk about ‘before the war’ and ‘after the war,’ the pre-Gulf War period or the post-Gulf War period, pre-1967 or post-1967, or the pre-nakba or post-nakba period. The great turning points in history were provided by these struggles among political rivals, which have reordered the international system and propelled history in new and unexpected directions. There is always the question of which state will govern, as well as which ideas and values will predominate, thereby determining the ethos of succeeding ages and shaping the future. The outcomes of these wars affect the economic, social and ideological structures of individual societies as well as those of the international system. Very few events have this quality, and although war is only one aspect of conflict, which is much broader, its effects make the study of conflict very important.

There is another aspect. I want you to correct a common misconception. When people think about conflict, they usually think of it as something negative, which is not always the case. The Chinese, for example, think about crisis and conflict in a very positive way. Crisis is thought of as a situation of birth, as an announcement of a new beginning, of a new life.

Due to the ubiquity and complexity of conflict, the different social sciences are occupied in the analysis of conflict and its causes. Thus, you have psychological theories of conflict, social theories of conflict, economic theories of conflict and of course, political science’s theories of conflicts. And each of us has his or her own theory of conflict because conflict is so widespread that we cannot avoid it. It is difficult for me to give this lecture because there is such a huge amount of literature dealing with the issue, which I will try to systematize, synthesize and present to you in a coherent form. In this lecture, I want to emphasize the international dimension, and the focus will be on international relations and political sciences.

Let me now talk about the first aspect, which is known in the literature as the problem of level of analysis, e.g., micro/macro in economics and the actor/global structure in international relations. When you talk about the foreign policy of Arab states, you are talking about conflict, but when analyzing foreign policy the focus is not on the level of interaction - cooperation or conflict - but mostly on the actor level, on the determinants of foreign policy. Now, in addition to this actor level, there is the level of regional dynamics, and in the discipline of international relations we have a huge debate between these two. Theories try to explain these dynamics with terms such as agents, structure and causality. Often, the structure, the context that one lives in, determines the actions of the agent so that he does not have much choice or freedom when deciding how to act.

One of the main influential theories now says that the structure of the international system is anarchic, there being no central authority. As a result, all countries have to behave in the same way because they are all worried about their survival, irrespective of whether they are a Muslim or Christian, developed or under-developed country. The idea is that you have things coming from above, determining and conditioning everything that you have to do. But when you actually deal with foreign policy, you tend to neglect these structural aspects, because as we say, you open the ‘black box’, you look at the domestic factors, personality factors, the level of development, etc., so you tend to emphasize the agent or actor factors.

Between these two levels of actor and global structure there is a third level that comes into play: the level of interaction analysis. Now, we are really coming to our subject - interaction. If you take social life and political life as a continuum, you have ‘total harmony’ at one end and ‘total conflict’ at the other. We have reached the conclusion that these two extremes hardly exist in social life. Even in a total war, which is the maximum level of conflict, you still have some cooperation among the proponents, for example concerning prisoners of war. Or, there is, for example, the tacit cooperation between Syria and Israel in Lebanon, each side accepting the other side’s main spheres in which it does not interfere. Despite the tremendous hostility among the two countries, you still have some measure of cooperation. Actually, most interaction takes place in between the two extremes in a limited field that is actually closer to conflict than to harmony.

Again, when dealing with the foreign policy of a country, you are basing yourself on what country ‘A’ thinks. Why is, for example, the US doing what it does? How does the health of Mr. Yeltsin influence the negotiations about the NATO membership of the Eastern European states? You are focusing on one country, or one individual, in contrast with the structure of the whole system. What is important about conflict is that it gives us the third level of analysis, which is the interaction between the actor level and the structure.

So let me talk about conflict interaction. There are some classifications that we have to take into consideration, and I will try to give you some background. First, there is inter-state conflict and intra-state conflict or domestic conflict. Then, there is violent conflict and non-violent conflict, which - even without taking into account the other kinds of typologies - leads us straight away to four types of conflict, which are as follows:

Intra-state, non-violent conflict: this kind of conflict exists in all democracies, and is part of normal democratic behavior. This does not mean that examples of such kind of conflict are non-violent, nor that they are unimportant. They can even change history. Examples are the conflicts in Canada or Belgium between the different ethnic groups that demanded separation and independence or the peaceful strife for power in elections.

Intra-state, violent conflict: civil wars, for example, in Algeria, in Basque country, in Egypt or in Afghanistan are conflicts of this type, although often this is not really clear, for example, in the case of Lebanon. The reason is that in politics you do not have cases of either/or, but you move according to a continuum of ‘more or less’. This is also true concerning the involvement of outside forces.

Inter-state, non-violent conflict: examples of this type of conflict are the Cold War, trade wars, and the Syrian-Israeli relationship since 1973.

Inter-state, violent conflict: this is the typical type of war. But here also we have to distinguish between low and high intensity wars (according to the amount of arms used and the number of casualties), and short-term and long-term wars (according to their length). All of these types of conflict are based on one basic distinction: the dichotomy between ‘us’ and ‘them’, and this is actually the basis for the definition of conflict.

Let us now talk about the causes of conflicts. Here, we have many different schools of thought. I want to talk about the three main schools, and first of all I want to divide them into two main dimensions: the ones that put emphasis on subjective factors and the ones that put emphasis on the objective factors. The subjective ones favor a psychological approach. In fact, in the 1950’s, in UNESCO, there was a huge discussion about this approach saying that wars start in people’s minds, that the basis of conflict is mainly psychological while the resolution is psychological therapy. Therefore, once you have solved the psychological problem, you have solved the conflict. Sadat saw the Arab-Israeli conflict in such a way and tried to resolve it by coming to Jerusalem and speaking in front of the Knesset. Thus, conflict is mainly seen as the result of the fact that people look at each other in the wrong way. If I think that you don’t like me I will interpret your actions as being against me and I will end up being antagonized and react in a hostile way, so mutual misconceptions will continue to exist until we are finally in a state of conflict. In this case, conflict is defined as the opposition of will and attitude. This is an example at the individual level, but there are also examples at the collective level. Sadat was actually crossing the line between the individual and the collective level.

Now, at the collective level, we have, for example, Samuel Huntington’s theory on The Clash of Civilizations, which was published in 1993. With the end of the Cold War, he says, the New World Order will be dominated by a much bloodier war between the West, on the one hand, and between Islam and Confucianism on the other. He bases all this analysis on cultural terms, on the fact that these are groups that think and perceive history differently. The clash between them is inevitable. Similarly, all ethnic wars or conflicts have subjective factors. Although I am categorizing, there is usually more than one factor that determines a conflict. The important thing about these subjective theories of conflict is that, usually, the different sides demonize each other. We have the phenomenon of the mirror image, meaning that each side perceives itself as entirely white and the other side as entirely black. Thus, people who follow the subjective school of conflict theory concentrate on bringing people together when they try to resolve conflicts.

Now, the objective school of conflict does not deny the subjective factors, but it does not accept that they form the basis of conflict. There are two main schools of thought: political theory and economic theory. Conflict is defined as a question of real issues that divide people, and these real issues have to be settled by finding appropriate formulas. According to these schools, conflict is a competition for scarce resources, which do not have to be material; they can also be ‘intangibles’, such as prestige or leadership. Again, I want to stress that the fact they are not tangible does not mean that they are unimportant.

Political explanations of conflict dominate today’s literature. Let us have a look at the two main political theories of conflict: the realist/neo-realist theories of international relations. By simplifying, we can say that they start from the following point: the international system is an anarchical system, which does not have a central political authority. We live in a state of anarchy, and as a result of this anarchy, every individual and every state needs to defend itself. Eventually, therefore, you reach a security dilemma, an inevitable state of conflict. You do not have a choice in this; it is a structural theory. Peace, then, is like a truce. In this respect, a French thinker, Raymond Aron, defined history as a march to madness. Peace is like a truce that does not last, a breathing-phase before going to war again, before going into the next cycle. History is perceived as being cyclical. Tolenby, one of the greatest historians of the 20th century, looked at history since the ancient Greeks and found that there was a major war almost every century. Thus, the time dimension is very important.

So, what is the basis of this cyclical history of war? I want to explain to you the theory of world leadership, the basis of which is the following: because of the anarchy that exists in the international system, you have from time to time the rise of major powers that try to control the system and define the rules according to which everybody has to work. But then, due to the so-called ‘law of uneven development’, at a certain point, the power becomes exhausted and starts to decline and you have a challenger. The war comes at the point where the holder of power faces the challenger in order to decide who will be the future leader. We have lots of historical analysis and empirical evidence to prove this, such as Germany’s bid for hegemony in Europe. The basis of this uneven development can be better understood by comparing it to ‘life’ as a process of being born, growing up, rising to maturity and becoming old and weak, before finally being replaced by somebody else. This is why we talk about the ‘cyclical’ theory of leadership. Why does an old leader weaken and decline and another one rise to take his place? The answer is because the existing leader has overstretched itself - we talk about strategic overstretch - and he is not using many of his resources efficiently, which allows another country, with a better management of resources, to become stronger and conquer the leadership. A good example is the Yemeni war from 1962 to 1967: although it took place during a period of Egyptian hegemony in the region, the Egyptian economic power was in decline, which prevented the Egyptians from effectively asserting control. This Egyptian economic overstretching then became more obvious in the defeat of the War of 1967. In much of today’s literature, economic factors are often named as the reason behind the decline of regional leadership. Thus, the leader’s legitimacy declines when his assets, such as his economic power or intangibles, become less. It is possible, however, for a weakening power to rise again. This becomes clear when we look at Germany, which suffered a terrible defeat in both world wars, but which is today one of the most influential powers in Europe if we concentrate on the economic field.

All of us know that conflict is not a function of political differences only but also of economic ones. In fact, some well-established theories emphasize economic bases as the most important - or even only - causes of conflict. Among the economic theories the most well-known and influential are the Marxist theories. Among these, the most developed one is Lenin’s explanation of conflict in its violent form, i.e., war, or what Lenin called ‘inter-imperialist wars’.

In Imperialism, the Highest Stage of Capitalism (written before World War I but only published in 1917), Lenin affirmed a correlation, a cause-and effect relationship, between advanced capitalism and war. According to Lenin, capitalism had become very advanced by the beginning of the 20th century, not only at the industrial level but also through financial concentration and the development of trusts. As a result of this continuous advance of capitalism, imperialist competition becomes more ferocious. Every capitalist country rushes to solve economic problems and to secure as many resources and markets as possible. The result of this rush is an inevitable collision, i.e., inter-imperialist wars. This is how Lenin explained the coming of World War I in 1914.

Whatever we think about Marxism and Capitalism, Lenin’s theory is important because it has had a huge impact on social scientists in the Third World and also in the West. Since the works of the Egyptian Marxist Samir Amin are relatively known here, I will concentrate on the four-volume study of the evolution of the world system since the 15th century by Immanuel Wallerstein, Professor of Sociology at the University of New York, and head of its F. Brandel Center.

Wallerstein’s basic thesis is that there are core countries or dominant powers that simultaneously try to achieve dominance in all fields such as agriculture, finance and industry. For them, the most important thing is to shape the rules in these areas. This idea has been expanded by Chase-Dunn, a lecturer at John Hopkins University, who states that dominant powers try to extend their economic power to the political domain.

All the economic theories thus have their base in Lenin, but they add sophistication to the theory and add to the data through empirical research. There might be psychological or ideological barriers to accepting the economic theory, but it should be acknowledged that most conflicts have economic roots. Economic factors are crucial in conflict theories and one does not have to be a Marxist to acknowledge this.

Summarizing political and economic theories of conflict, it can be said that countries go through uneven development, which leads to changes in the distribution of power. The power holders become challenged by the second runners and this leads to conflict, often in the form of war.

Question: In my opinion, the economic theories do not explain very well why conflict arises because they do not consider psychological factors.

Answer: These theories concentrate on one single cause for explanatory reasons. In reality, conflicts always have more than one cause. Actually, scholars from the Third World have been challenging these theories because the focus of most research has been on European powers. This gives me the opportunity to talk about another theory of conflict. These scholars say that the structures in the Third World are different and that one has to look at many factors at once. They introduced the concept of ‘social protracted conflict’ for a multidimensional conflict that has a historic base, which has led to a special type of ‘abnormal society’ where different communities live separated but intermingled. Therefore, the focus of research should be on the social structure, not on diplomatic history. Factors to be studied in this kind of conflict are economy (classes), identity (religion, culture, ideology) and political factors of state-formation.

In light of this theory, a discussion is taking place as to whether the Arab-Israeli conflict is over. This conflict embraces two basic aspects that need to be resolved: the need for peace treaties in the region and the question of mutual recognition between Israel and the Arab states. These issues have almost been settled, therefore, the conflict as we knew it is over, although there is still another face - the Palestinian-Israeli dimension. This has become a chronic, protracted conflict, which might never be resolved or, at the very least, will take a long time to be resolved. In such a case it might be more apt to talk about conflict management rather than conflict resolution. The "reality" then is much more complex in the Third World than many of the established monocausal theories assume. In fact, history seems to indicate a multi-causal basis of conflict.

Empirical research about the causes of international conflicts conducted by a Canadian researcher covering the time period 1648-1989 showed the most important sources of conflict were the following:

territory 25,5%

ideology 14%

commerce, colonial competition 13%

sympathy issues 10%

state creation, consolidation 8%

The territorial dimension was by far the most important in the beginning but declined over time, although, throughout the period covered and along with state creation, it always remained the most important cause of conflict. In the period after World War II, the two dimensions increased to more than 50% due to the de-colonization processes in the Third World.

In conclusion, it can be said that we cannot escape the historical fact that state-making has almost always been associated with war-making. It is probable that the struggle for state-making and the consequent fragmentation will continue in the 21st century, while an increase in social protracted conflict is to be expected.

Question: What about revolutions? How do they fit into the classifications?

Answer: Revolutions are generally considered domestic conflicts. Only the external effects of such internal wars are interesting for international relations specialists.

Question: But what, then, about the Palestinian revolution?

Answer: The Palestinian revolution is not a revolution in political terms. It is considered an anti-colonial war or struggle, and therefore it is an international conflict.

Question: Can we say that the conflict going on in Yugoslavia is a social protracted conflict?

Answer: Yes. Here, the concepts of identity and of religion play a major role, which makes the conflict hard to resolve.

I have taken most of the time assigned for these lectures to give you an overview of conflict diagnoses and causes, of conflict types and bases. I wanted you to have a brief idea about a huge amount of literature relating to different social sciences, different ideological visions, and different geographical areas (East, West and South). Once we understand the conflict phenomenon, its different typologies and multiple causes, we will be able to comprehend the enormous literature on conflict-management and conflict resolution.

Theories of Conflict Management/Conflict Resolution
Dr. Bahgat Korany

The most important condition for being able to find adequate means to resolve or manage a conflict is the correct analysis of the causes. A conflict is a situation where you have subjectively or objectively incompatible wills between two parties with each of the parties trying to impose a unilateral solution to the problem. Each of the parties will continue to do so as long as the cost-benefit ration is not too negative. It is assumed that the characteristics of the parties are selfishness and rationality, but the cost-benefit ratio is often difficult to evaluate in social protracted conflicts because of their multi-dimensional nature. Also, after the end of the Cold War, the rules have become ambiguous, and the formerly clear categories, the conceptual basis has disappeared. There is now a debate about new global rules going on, evident in the articles of Huntington (The Clash of Civilizations) and Fokoyama (The End of History).

There is also a global trend of decline in military conflict caused by the proliferation of legal means to settle conflicts and the rise in international regimes, that is norms, rules and procedures that govern the relations between countries, as well as the decline in bellicosity, the idea that you can decide conflict by war.

Talking about conflict resolution, a clear distinction should be made between managing, that is controlling and de-escalating conflicts, and resolving, that is ending conflicts by terminating the underlying causes. The five major ways of settling conflicts are as follows:

negotiations, which can be direct or indirect, multi- or bilateral, formal or informal, open or secret, but there is always the need for the will to negotiate, an agenda, preparedness and a perspective;

fact finding, which is usually done in cases of technical issues, for example in the Israeli-Egyptian conflict concerning Taba;

third-party intervention by an international/regional organization, individuals or NGOs;

conciliation;

peaceful settlement of disputes according to the statute of the International Court of Justice and the UN Charter. This can involve arbitration, bilateral commissions or other means; the condition is that the parties commit themselves to accept the judgment of such an institution.

The approach to be chosen depends on the type and phase of the conflict. In social protracted conflicts, third party intervention and mediation is especially important. Often, outside help is needed to bring the two parties together. Mediation encompasses three major blocs: the parties (with their special objectives), the decision to mediate (from the side of the parties and the side of the mediator) and the techniques and strategies of mediation. In order to predict the outcome of such mediation, the determinants of each bloc have to be analyzed. Mediation will only be successful when a formula is found that can be accepted by all the parties and when the right or "ripe" moment for mediation is reached. This is often the case in a situation of a deadlock between two parties, when both wish to get out of a stalemate that is very expensive to maintain, or when a catastrophe can be clearly seen ahead.

Question: What is the difference between a mediator and a facilitator?

Answer: It is mainly a semantic difference. In general, a facilitator may offer his Good Offices, but becomes less involved in the issue itself. A mediator is part of the negotiations, making proposals, etc.

"‘Ripeness" and the Resolution of Conflict
Dr. Joel Peters, Lecturer, University of Reading

I would like to start by raising a couple of questions about the concept of ‘ripeness’ that will allow us to understand the meaning and the use of this term in the study of negotiation and conflict resolution. Ripeness essentially deals with defining the right moment for mediating and resolving a conflict. At what moment in time can we determine whether the conditions are suitable for bringing the parties to a conflict together to resolve their differences? Is it the case that some conflicts are so complex that they are just too difficult to resolve and will never ripen? Of course there is an implicit assumption when talking about the idea of ‘ripeness’ that conflicts somehow can be managed, that they can be resolved through the efforts of concerned parties. The question then is when is the appropriate time for a third party to intervene? What kind of conditions are necessary in order to become involved?

There are certainly clear conditions for successful mediation by a third party. It is absolutely necessary that both sides have the will to make peace. In the US, for example, there is a debate as to whether Warren Christopher’s efforts to mediate between Syria and Israel throughout the last months were wasted because the two parties did not have the will to peacefully resolve the conflict; that is to say that the conditions were not ripe for third party intervention. This, however, leads us back to the question of how to identify and be certain that the conditions of a conflict are conducive to its resolution.

Conflicts often need to be resolved and one cannot simply sit on the sidelines and wait for ‘ripeness’ to suddenly occur. Thus, the next questions to be raised are what brings the parties to the table and how can one create the conditions to ripen the conflict so that it may be resolved? William Zartmann, one of the leading writers on negotiation, refers to the "hurting stalemate," which affects both sides. In this situation the continuation of the conflict, of the status quo, is of no benefit to either side. The Israeli-Palestinian peace process, the Oslo Accords, which President Yasser Arafat often refers to as the "peace of the brave," can also be seen as ‘a peace of the weary’: this is a peace process that has emerged following the mutual realization by the two sides that the cost of not finding a solution is too high.

There are three levels of analysis - the domestic, the regional and the international environment - that have to be taken into account when trying to assess the ripeness of a conflict. For example, at the time of the Madrid Conference in 1991, none of the parties really wanted to take part in the negotiations or lead them to success, and they only attended the conference due to pressure from the US. Whilst international and regional conditions demanded that efforts be directed to resolving the Arab-Israeli conflict, there remained a wide gap in the positions of the parties, which displayed little real desire to resolve their differences. All these different levels have to be taken into account when trying to assess the ripeness of a conflict.

However, the Madrid Conference and the subsequent meetings in Washington should not be seen as useless. Negotiation is more than a bargaining process: it is also a learning process that involves a change in perceptions. The aim of negotiations is to transform conflicting outcomes into shared, cooperative outcomes. This means that in a ripe situation, the concerned parties have already changed their outlook on the conflict; most importantly, they have understood that a negotiated settlement is the best outcome for both sides.

Now, when we are talking about ripeness as a policy option, we have to ask: how can ripeness be identified? How can the conditions be created, and how can they be ripened and pushed on the domestic level? What are the mechanisms that create a new environment that is conducive to conflict resolution? In order to reach a situation of ripeness, one has to ‘re-frame the conditions’ so that the parties can see that reaching a negotiated settlement will be mutually beneficial. So, one does not have to wait for things to happen, but can create these conditions. There is a tragic element involved in this, however, in that in most cases, the hurting stalemate is a precondition for the parties to see the need to negotiate and resolve their differences.

One can see this, in a sense, when you look at the Arab-Israeli peace process. In the Madrid talks, it just did not make sense for the Palestinians to be subsumed under the Jordanian delegation. Moreover, the restrictions placed on the Palestinian representatives were a hindrance to the negotiations because the Palestinians always had to wait for their orders from Tunis. Thus, the Israelis eventually learned that they had to accept the PLO as a direct partner in negotiations if they wanted them to move forward. Now, obviously this should have happened much earlier, but it did not because the conditions internationally, regionally and domestically were not ripe. But when the parties were ready, they re-framed conditions, they created back-channels and mechanisms to enter serious negotiations. What was needed was to create diplomatic space, a diplomatic environment that would allow the parties to work together.

The general idea of the Oslo Accords is a gradual process, the idea of phases and stages. If you look at the agreements closely, you see that they are in many respects very similar to the Camp David Accords. So why did the PLO reject the Camp David Accords in 1979? The answer is that at the time the conditions were not conducive. One also has to see that it was a learning process and that only changed perceptions made it possible to bring things ‘off the shelf’. The conditions at that time for Israel and Egypt were ripe at the international and the domestic level: here, a perceptual factor also comes into play. Egypt, after the October War, felt its power was equal to that of Israel’s and, as a result, agreed to come to the table. The Americans at first were very skeptical, but they quickly realized that the conditions were conducive, and promptly became involved.

Now, with regard to Israel and Jordan, one can say that they could have made peace many years earlier. The two countries have for many years been engaged in some sort of cooperative relations, but only in the 90’s did the conditions become ripe enough at a domestic, regional and international level for them to sign a full peace treaty. Much of the agreement was ready, so-to-speak, for a long time, sitting there at the side and waiting for other processes to develop at a regional level.

On the Israeli-Syrian track, one of the questions is whether the new US Secretary of State Madeleine Albright is prepared like her predecessor to travel back and forth between Syria and Israel in order to try and create a conducive environment, to create the conditions, a framework, to enable negotiations to recommence between the two sides. This is the same in the Israeli-Palestinian context: should the negotiations be pushed, or should one just leave things as they are and wait for the right moment to occur, when they will take place anyway? There are moments in which one has to re-frame the issues. The Hebron Agreement, in a sense, has re-framed the issue and created a learning process between the Palestinians and the new Likud-led Israeli government, which prior to Hebron had no experience of negotiating face-to-face with the Palestinians. Ripeness is not only a matter of the right moment; one has to create the conditions for ripeness at the three mentioned levels, to try to create the framework, the perceptual environment that allows perceptions to change. This leads to the idea that we can manage conflicts.

Question: What I understood is that for a conflict to be resolved, ripeness is needed. You also said that Madeleine Albright was supposed to create conditions of ripeness. Now, what are the conditions of ripeness - that both parties are finally ready to talk to each other? Every time there is a crisis, the whole process appears about to collapse. This means that this peace process is not based on ripeness. Yes, the parties talk to each other, but the perceptions have not changed, and everything is still the same. I believe that this process has been imposed on parties that are not yet ready to deal with it.

Answer: I would say that what actually led to the Madrid Conference was the perception of the necessity, especially at the international level, of the need to try and resolve the Arab-Israeli conflict.

Question: One reason for ripeness on the Palestinian-Israeli track that comes to mind is the war in Kuwait. Iraq’s power was perceived by the Palestinians as literally the last possibility to confront the Israelis.

Question: There should be a clear distinction between creating conditions and imposing a settlement or imposing the outcome of the peace process. This might lead to a short-term solution, but in the long run, it will create many more conflicts.

Question: I think that in the Palestinian-Israeli conflict, the international environment was the decisive factor in bringing the parties together. The regional environment following the Gulf War, the changes that took place after the end of the Cold War, the US interests in the Middle East and the emergence of the idea of a ‘New World Order’, were the decisive factors in bringing Arabs and Israelis together in Madrid.

Question: I think the Madrid Conference was an absolutely necessary factor in the ripeness of the conflict. The Gulf War, the Intifada, the end of the Cold War and the collapse of the Soviet Union made the conference a necessity. It helped to create suitable conditions for peace in the Middle East by bringing the parties to the negotiation table and allowing the formation of committees, etc.

Question: When we [the Palestinians] went to Madrid, we had already reached the moment of ripeness. This does not mean that we really wanted the negotiations, but we were convinced that they were our only option and that we had to accept the situation as it was, i.e., we had to fight for what remained: Yaffa was not coming back. On the regional level, we could not count on Arab help, we could no longer believe that the Arab World would come to the rescue of the Palestinians and free them. Domestically, we were burned out, and we could not go on with the struggle much longer. This is what you call ripeness! But we did not create these conditions. It was like this and we reached the point where we were convinced that it was time. We knew that if we were to wait any longer, we would end up with nothing. Is this what you call ripeness?

Question: The question relates to the identification of the conditions for solving a conflict by the concerned parties and the identification of those conditions at an early stage. The critical problem is identifying the ‘ripe’ moment.

Question: I think ripeness is a vague concept. However, the most important thing as far as I am concerned is that for ripeness to occur, the two parties must be convinced that there should be a settlement of the conflict. When parties enter negotiations, there is always a high risk that they will fail; successful settlement is not guaranteed. Therefore, the importance of negotiations and especially the role of a mediator in negotiations has a great deal to do with re-framing perceptions.

Question: The role of mediation is to get the parties together. I think that the Israelis and the Palestinians wanted to talk to one another but were in need of help to bring them together and allow this to happen.

Question: I think the Palestinians embarked on the peace process and went to Madrid because they had no other choice. They were desperate; they had no power. The Palestinians had suffered for five years during the Intifada; they were just at the brink of losing everything, and they were unable to continue to endure such a terrible existence. But global public opinion shifted during the Intifada and the Palestinians gained a great deal of sympathy, which gave the Palestine Question a positive push.

Mediation and Conflict Resolution:
The Role of Third Parties
Dr. Charles Hauss, Professor, Public and International Affairs Department,
George Mason University, Washington DC

During the following workshop we will learn about conflict resolution in theory and practice and, especially, of the role of third parties in conflict resolution. Talking about conflict resolution, I will tackle the following main points: Why is a cooperative approach to conflict resolution better? When is the right time for intervening? What are the principles for understanding conflict? What are the practices of third party intervention? What are the factors affecting the outcome?

When we look at the Arab-Israeli conflict today, we have to realize that it is part of a broader context, of a new reality of global interdependence. There are five characteristics that make conflict in this new reality different to how it was before:

Exercise 1: The subjective and objective elements of conflict

‘Discuss in a small group for five minutes why the Arab-Israeli conflict has been so hard to resolve’. Factors mentioned were as follows:

‘Discuss in the same group an interpersonal conflict, for example, a personal relationship that has fallen apart or problems with your parents’. Factors mentioned were as follows:

Looking at the resemblance between the answers given in exercise one and two, it becomes clear that on the left side, real problems between the two parties involved have been listed; they comprise objective factors or realities. On the right side, psychological factors have been listed. It is amazing, that in an international and an interpersonal conflict, these factors do not differ a great deal. A conflict consists of both kind of factors. The right-hand column, the psychological factors, or modes of thinking, however, influence and worsen the objective factors of conflict. Objective factors or realities usually cannot be changed easily. The only things that can be changed, or where progress is at least easier, are the subjective factors.

The problem of the complexity of today’s world and the mode of thinking is exemplified by two statements made by Albert Einstein: "You can never solve a problem at the level you created it," and, "The unleashed power of the atom has changed everything save our modes of thinking and thus we drift toward unparalleled catastrophe." There is a need, then, to bring in line the ‘modes of thinking’ with the new reality.

Exercise 2: The nine dots problem

Most people fail to solve this problem because they impose a condition on themselves which is not stated: namely, that they can draw the lines only within the square created by the dots, or that lines must begin and end on dots. Once people understand that this is not a condition, the problem is much easier to solve. The exercise shows that sometimes you put restrictions on yourself that are not necessarily given by the situation. To find a solution to the problem you have to leave the constrictions that you put on yourself.

In most conflicts, the main problem is not to find an intellectual solution to the issue, but how to reach agreement on the solution package. Therefore, the negotiation process, the process of conflict resolution is important. The following rules that should be observed for successful conflict resolution have been proposed by Roger Fisher in his book Getting to Yes: Negotiating Agreement Without Giving In (London, 1991) for a business environment:

Do not assume trust, or, as former US president Reagan put it, "trust but verify."

Seek common interests. Look for the goals that you share and tackle these issues first. In the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, these could be issues of transportation and infrastructure. Start with issues that can be solved, as this allows a process of confidence-building to begin.

Separate people from issues. Personal antagonisms make conflicts harder and block negotiations. You need to step back from personal feelings.

Focus on principles rather than specific demands. An agreement should first build on principles, not on details.

Treat the other side with respect. This was done by Arafat in the negotiations with the Israelis and indeed led to the Israeli recognition of his role.

Put yourself in the other side’s shoes. This is not a question of sympathizing with the other side, but of understanding its needs and the reasons why it is taking a certain position. For example, in the case of the Israeli obsession with security, the legacy of the Holocaust is an important factor. If Palestinians are conscious of this, it will make it easier for them to understand Israeli needs, but this does not have to mean that they accept them.

Take the initiative. If you want to resolve the conflict, you need to be constructive. You have to ask yourself, what canIdo to change the situation.

Assume it will take time and that there will be setbacks. Whatever strategy you choose, it will not work without setbacks.

Conflicts in international relations are often more complicated and more difficult to resolve because there are real as well as perceived imbalances in power. However, the principles mentioned apply equally as well. It is vital, first of all, to get things started. There are two approaches to conflict resolution, track 1 being the interaction of state officials, track two the diplomacy by non-officials. It should be kept in mind, however, that no approach works 100% and that not a single action, but only a multi-level approach can be successful. The most important condition for conflict resolution is to be constructive: you have to respect the ones that disrespect you. This puts them into a very difficult and uneasy situation so that they have to respond.

What are the different stages of peace and conflict? (See Appendix A: Stages of Peace and Conflict) When does it make sense to apply mechanisms of conflict resolution and what are these mechanisms?

It is obvious that you should work on the conflict to resolve it during its early stages while tensions are still rising: in this part of the curve, you have the greatest leverage. Early options of conflict resolution can be preventive diplomacy, monitoring of a situation, the establishing of so-called ‘trip wires’ and crisis or even coercive diplomacy. As a conflict reaches its climax, it becomes much more difficult to resolve. Then, you have to wait for ripeness, a stalemate. At this stage, it is most important to reach a cease-fire to prevent the loss of human lives and to provide humanitarian relief. Often, the reaching of a hurting stalemate alone is not enough, and there is need for leaders who are open to change at the same time. Coercive diplomacy might be applied. Probably third parties will be needed to resolve the conflict in a later stage. But the most important condition is the political will of the parties involved to resolve the conflict.

Mechanisms applied in the context of conflict resolution might range from preventive diplomacy, to coercive diplomacy and humanitarian intervention, to peacemaking and peacekeeping. In any case, it is important to apply the appropriate mechanism according to the phase of the conflict. The aims of intervention at all times should be to reduce escalation and to help both parties to recognize the benefits of restraint and de-escalation. Confidence building is critical at all stages.

Conflict resolution has three main goals:

to provide humanitarian relief;

to stop the fighting;

to end the conflict permanently.

In this respect, problems of humanitarian relief were discussed, such as the sometimes counterproductive effect of stabilizing a situation, the problem of media attention, the problems related to directing aid and the long-term effects of humanitarian aid.

A lesson that should be learned from earlier conflicts is that it is always better to tackle a conflict early. This is rarely done because we have a tendency to avoid conflict, to not address it early enough because it is an awkward issue to tackle or because one party has a stake in preserving the status quo and in not tackling the conflict. This is an issue that should not be forgotten in the Palestinian context and especially in the dealings of a future Palestinian state with conflicts arising with the outside world.

There are different processes that can be started in order to resolve conflict:

negotiations between the parties to the conflict;

mediation, i.e. third party intervention. Conditions that have to be fulfilled by a third party are impartiality and the fact of being respected by the conflicting parties. The problem in international relations is that these requirements are rarely satisfied. The US, for example, is a mediator in the Middle East with the necessary resources, but it is not considered impartial;

arbitration.

There are promising examples of successful third party intervention, such as in the case of the OSCE intervention in Macedonia or the NDI (National Democratic Institute, Carter Center) election monitoring in North Korea. This kind of non-governmental intervention has become a growth industry, for example, in the US.

There are several factors of a conflict that affect the outcome of conflict resolution processes, such as the following:

the depth of the antagonism;

the positions taken by the two sides;

the role of other actors;

the quality of the third parties, if used;

the changing global climate; and

the political will.

 

The peaceful resolution of conflict does not always work. Actually, it has a poor track record. But there have been some successes at all levels in recent years. And, most importantly, all the alternatives are worse.