OPINION
Concept of International conflict : Issues and Crisis
C By: Talal A. Daous Advisor to the Secretary General
We have to understand that dispute or conflict does not unfold fully in blank surprise
www.oic-oci.org
onflicts, from the point of view of international politics, has punctuated human history since antiquity, where they take different forms and names as the issue or problem or case and other legal or political titles, but what concerns us here is that international conflict may take two forms: The case (issue, problem ...etc.) and the crisis. The first form is an ongoing cold conflict that the international community coexists with for long years such as the Kashmir issue and the question of Palestine. The second form, the crisis, is a hot conflict which may cause collision such as traditional war or may cause unrest and instability, as well as disrupts the balance of power and leads to a state of polarization and clash of international trends. Also, it may shake up international or regional security, which calls for the inevitable intervention by the Security Council and major powers in some instances. The term ‘international conflict’ as the International Court of Justice defines as the «difference of views between two parties or more, on a particular issue, or a conflict of interest in any matter”, are characterized as a highly complex socio-political phenomenon that is caused by mobility, dynamics, multilateralism and diversity of inner and outer influences, which may involve a multiplicity of causes, manifestations and dimensions. It is also worth mentioning that it is so difficult to monitor conflict interactions when they take a turn for escalation. The reason for international conflict could be defined by three basic driving concepts: Competition over resources, capturing geo-sites, and collective identity characterized by ethnic, national, or religious drivers or the sum of these together. We have to understand that dispute or conflict does not unfold fully in blank surprise. The surprise is merely in time or method of application. But, it is necessary for the conduct of countries facing crisis to control their reactions, anger and emotions, in rational ways by using legitimate methods. So policy decision-makers and men of diplomacy have to govern their disposition as required to control the entire matter in scientific and practical steps. By ignoring this premise, they could end up in confusion, improvisation and unpredictable action and reaction policies. I will here list some of these manifold theories briefly: - Game Theory: each party involved in conflict lists all the possibilities and procedures which the other party is likely to think of as well as all possibilities and actions and moves that he thinks of, and then determine in light of that his steps with guesses of the reactions or actions the other might take. - Theory of Containment: This theory changed from limiting the communist doctrine in Russia and within the Eastern bloc, into the present day concept of «containing» the conflict and limiting it to the narrowest possible circle as a necessary input to control it and then to give ample opportunity to find a solution. - Theory of Massive Retaliation: This theory is based on military capacity and military thought to deal with international conflicts with total destruction or total disability. - Theory of Flexible Response: requires non-deterministic dependence on military capability by itself. - Confrontation Theory: confronting conflict by methods of force and decisiveness. It often means in the present day the use of military force in any form, so as to prevent the imposition of the status-quo policy imposed by one of the parties of the conflict. - Economic Theory: this theory is applied in modern times in various forms as a method with the highest impact. The objectives for this theory are: To increase the suffering of the opponent country’s nationals by increasing the lack of living necessities, and to decrease the production capacity of the opponent State. - Zero Theory: This theory seeks to achieve an acceptable degree of equilibrium between the opponents in order to push forward the principle of negotiation and agreement. - Curtained Destruction Theory: how a State is able to make a second strike after receiving the first strike. The success or failure for applying these theories is linked to the availability of other factors, that is to say if some of these factors are absent or neglected, the effectiveness of these theories could be in doubt. The most important of these factors to consider when moving to address international conflict are: Does not conflict with other State strategy; Taking into consideration the general international order; Arms must be used in accordance with an international resolution to legitimize the State›s move; Ability to mobilize media to gain domestic and international support; Assurance of appropriate general internal and external circumstances; And the move has to have clear and acceptable objectives. However, most international disputes and conflicts are resolved at present in three ways, may be separately or complementarily, as follows: the legal process, the political process, and by using all components of the State’s capacities, including military force.
OIC Journal May - August 2014 19