Interstate And Intra-State Conflicts: Main Causes And Effective Ways Of Resolution

The state is the only entity eligible to make use of “physical violence” by this, it can always be involved in every conflict. But this does not presuppose that conflict can occur within the state alone since by being actors of the international system, states are bounded by different linkages, as well as their participation in their international organizations, for example, thereby affecting one another. While this is true, states are not homogenous – they differ in size and power, and by this, states interaction does not surmise a constantly amicable relation among them at all times, and eventually, a conflict can emerge, and there would be serious disagreements or rancor, and for the worst, war – and there is no impossibility for war to emerge given that states train military organizations. Thus, interstate and intra-state conflicts are considered as political realities of states, and even of the international system since then. But either it is an interstate or intra-state conflict, it is vital that both conflicts must be addressed properly and be given equal importance. Though understanding the implications and ways of resolving conflict is not an easy feat – it induces the understanding of the causes of conflict, its resolution, and of state’s prospects both in the domestic and international levels. In status quo, a number of central questions concerning the ultimate cause of conflicts need to be addressed. An overarching query that remains to be a common subject of debates is lies on the most effective conflict resolution in addressing the ultimate causes of conflict. To answer this question, there needs to be some considerations, and defining conflict is a good first step. Ramsbotham argues that a conflict is identifiable whenever a severe disagreement arises between two or more parties, in which their demands cannot be met by present resources. Conflict is also defined by Galtung as a social situation whereas there exists a simultaneous pursuit and-or defense of incompatible goals by two or more parties. Emphasized in these definitions is ‘incompatibility’, which hinders actors in achieving their goals. Ramsbotham et al. explains that in order for a conflict to exist, the following three components must be involved: actors, action, and incompatibility.

Although there are different types of conflict, this paper will only focus on the interstate and intrastate conflicts only. The former pertains to conflict that exists within the state itself; while latter is a conflict between states. Hence, in these types of conflicts, states will be considered as the actors, and their pursuit is their action, and their common goal will be the incompatibility. In general, this paper seeks to discuss the common denominator of all the causes of conflict and will trace conflict’s ultimate cause. It also seeks to find the most effective conflict resolution that can address this ultimate cause. Moreover, on how this tool can ensure sustainable and desirable peace will also be included in the discussion.

Many scholars have approached the causes of conflict from various perspectives, and the usually perceived as common causes of conflict are culture, race, religion, land or territory, and, type of government. Focusing on these common causes alone would result to a very limited understanding or view and a deceptive notion of how conflicts really emerge.

Considering the definition of a state which is a sovereign institution governing peoples within its territory and those who have sought allegiance to their vested institution, the paper argues that the common denominator with all the causes of conflict is that they are the elements of a state. A state’s population is comprised of people and so, race, culture, and religion will be under this element since these are all related and essential to people. Culture is a ‘set of beliefs and values’ that is shared by people; race is where people belong insofar as a commonality is observed among them; and religion is a system of beliefs central to people’s lives. Meanwhile, land or territory is owned by the state and controlled by the government. And the government, in any type of it, is endowed with authority to regulate and govern, or i.e. has sovereignty. These elements are vital for a state to function. When these elements are in dispute or in conflict, so thus the state is also affected. And this is important for actors for they are guided by the idea that putting a state’s element in conflict would be beneficial in advancing their interests.

Therefore, the ultimate cause of conflict would be interest. Therefore, the ultimate cause of conflict would be interest. This is parallel with the philosophy of Hobbes and Hume. Hobbes enumerates three principal causes of quarrel in a state of nature: competition for gain, fear of insecurity, and defense of honor; whereas Hume lists down two underlying conditions for human conflicts: relative scarcity of resources and limited altruism. Availability of scarce resources should not only concern economic matters, but also all sorts of positions that can be of an actor’s interest. Thus, conflict makes actors to yield a huge priority in its interests’ pursuit and defense such that – when in conflict, national interest must be defended by state leaders, and scotch others’ interests. Interest is present in both interstate and intra-state conflicts. While it is true that an intrastate conflict occurs when national interest, the interest of a nation as a whole, independent from all other kinds of groups, is in conflict with public interest or the wellbeing of the general public, there lies a hidden interest that indeed generates conflict. Zartman argues that internal conflicts begin with the collapse of normal politics. For instance, the Revolutionary United Front (RUF) in Sierra Leone had challenged its government due to its dissension with the state and over how the government operates oppressively. RUF created its notoriety of ruthlessness by decapitating leaders and by ingraining dread among the civilians through raping of women, including children. But despite the Lomé Peace Agreement in 1999, the RUF continued in conquering the state and in taking control the diamond mining sites. In a nutshell, The RUF seeks access to particular resources in a country through means of removing the incumbent government by force. Using a conflict tree, in this civil war in Sierra Leone, it can be said that domestic discontentment, repressive government and contending control over diamond mines are the root causes of the conflict. The effects are death of leaders, hostility, violence, fear among civilians, and weakening legitimacy of the state. While the government has control over its land and resources, and it is in its interest to uphold and defend this, the militant group RUF had challenged the government to further its interest which is to control the diamond mining sites in Sierra Leone. Hence, it can be said that it is RUF’s interest that pushed them to enter into conflict with the government. The two have incompatible interest over control at the diamond mining sites.

Another example is the ethnic tension in Burundi between Hutu majority and Tutsi minority that escalated into a civil war in 1993 after a Hutu president called Melchior Nadadaye was killed by Tutsi extremist. In a conflict tree, exclusion from political power, manipulation of history, favoritism, and colonialism are some of its root causes, while cycle of revenge and violence, fear, mistrust and prejudice, and culture of exclusion and domination are the conflict’s effects. However, the ultimate cause of the civil war is their interests — interest of each party to dominate. While this ethnic tension was used to advance their interests, it must be noted that their ethnicities just aggravated their conflicting interests. Truly, the occurrence of intrastate conflict lies on the drive of two or more parties to compete for state control in establishing revolutionary projects, or to secure common needs, or just to advance factional interests.

On the other hand, the ultimate cause of interstate conflict is the common interest among states. For instance, Geopolitik conflicts pertain to pertinent territories that is of interest by at least one states that can escalate to dispute, clashes, and even war. Given the increase in interdependent cross-border transactions, borders had progressed toward becoming an issue of shared interest, as it increases chances of controlling particular areas, even an entire continent. This type of conflict can result in protracted territorial dispute. For example, the Ethiopian Eritrean conflict of 1998-2000 waged war over Badime plains in pursuit of their own interests. Although this border dispute was listed as the official reason, it veiled a more profound and more unpredictable issues and hegemonic desires. It is not the land or the border itself that caused the territorial conflict, but it is the interest of the two to control it that drove them into war. After conflict, states aim over accomplishing for ‘restoration and normalcy.’ However, this is not achieved at all times. Some may result to division or creation of a new state, for example in a territorial dispute. Either intra-state or interstate conflict, there needs to have the best conflict resolution tool that can and will not only address this ultimate cause of conflicts but can ensure sustainable and desirable peace as well. Since then, arbitration has been utilized because of much of its success to settle territorial disputes. Some of its noteworthy success are the dispute over the Rann of Kutch between Pakistan and India, and the Egyptian-Israel debate about the Taba territory. Since then, arbitration had proven its effectively. While it was often used settle territorial disputes since then up to now, it is been used for other types of conflicts as well. Others had been attracted by its effectively in settling conflicts. Indeed, even George Washington perceived and valued arbitration, and this is demonstrated in his last will: “these two to choose a third” Wallesteen argued that, ‘responsibility’ is expected among actor at the end of the conflict, and by responsibility, he identified it with for the need for ‘court procedures’, as well as the need for ‘international criminal legislation.’ Hence, this paper argues that the best conflict resolution tool would be arbitration due to the following reasons.

First, since it is under the supervision of organizations, and it is directed as per the arrangements of the law, formal arbitration is a reasonable, and inexpensive strategy for conflict settlement. Second, the presence of an internationally concurred system additionally implies that there are specific techniques for the settlement of interstate conflicts. For instance, having arbitration on ‘ideological issues’ would imply that there is an eligible authority to choose the ‘correct’ and 'right' interpretation and translation of specific thoughts.

Third, arbitration can ensure a quick and still and sensible resolutions to an apparently intractable dispute. Example of which is the Abyei Arbitration wherein the “award” broke the stalemate among the actors, and empowered them as well to proceed to peace agreement.

Last and foremost, arbitration creates an extension of a collaborative bargaining. This is how it can ensure sustainable and desirable peace for the conflict resolution does not end within the arbitration alone. It is a continuous process until peace will be achieved. What is good about this tool is its process itself. The clearing of actor’s claims, and having a legitimate authority to interpret and give ‘award’ i.e. decide which claim is right in an arbitration guarantees enlightenment among actors for their conflicting claims for their dispute had been finally judged. But this does not mean that peace will be achieved abruptly, for the after-arbitration-processes will help in achieving this. And through this, actors will be given more time to engage with one another to achieve their ends. One thing that is good with arbitration is that, unlike other tools, arbitration is done first with a legitimate authority to interpret what the conflict really is, and to elaborate each actor’s proposition with regard to its real interpretation. The arbitrator helps the actors in having a perspicuous understanding about the conflict, and what should be done. Hence, with this, actors can engage with one another by not having a one-sided view. And they are guided by the ruling of the court and suggests the idea of compromise between actors. And through this, through their negotiations after the arbitration, peace can be achieved and indeed not impossible too. While today, the aftereffect of courts dependence upon ‘common law contract’ and upon the principles of agency is a development of a trend by courts to make arbitration provisions binding even on parties to non-signatories.

In general, this paper had argued that the common denominator with all the cause of conflicts if that they are all elements of the state. And these are used by the actors in conflict to further their interest. Interest is the root cause of all the causes of conflicts. It is persistent in both interstate and intra-state conflicts. Moreover, it is argued that the best conflict resolution tool is arbitration. To further understand everything, the issue on the territorial dispute between China and Philippines at the South China Sea will be used as case study using the conflict tree approach.

In a conflict tree, territorial settlements and conflicting claims can be deemed as the root causes of South China Sea dispute since for China’s claim is based on history, while Philippines’ claim are based on legal claims and international law. Territory is not the ultimate cause, but instead, interest. The both two states have similar interest on the said territory. And it is this interest that drove the states into conflict – their interest to dominate and control over the abundant resources in the sea. While some of its many effects are military and power show-offs, fear, and threats of war. While arbitration was used in this conflict, similar to the best conflict resolution tool argued, amidst China’s acts of ignoring the ruling of the international court, the arbitration case still has positive effects.

It might not fix the dispute immediately, but its effects are essential steps in settling this conflict. One of it effects is that it had clear their contending claims, and the ruling has been the new basis when pertaining to the South China Sea issue. Another is its best effect, which is the negotiation. This 2018, China had at last concurred with ASEAN, in which Philippines is a member, to move with negotiations with respect the South China Sea issue. While there are still a lot that needs to be done in this issue, it is yet better than not doing anything for it would provide for dangerous societies, or its re-emergence, and even war in the future. The effects of arbitration provide essential steps and hopes that conflict can be and are resolvable, which will lead to attaining peace. The need to resolve conflicts only forms a part of the bigger picture – that is to protect our own states, the international system, and the whole world. But, conflicts are indeed inevitable; and that we all live with it, may there be peace or no peace. Moreover, conflicts are everywhere, causing a lot of negative effects that put everyone and everything at risk.

Hence, celebrating these would result to significantly more perilous precedents. What needs to be considered is a greater collaborative effort be brought by both international and local authorities to prevent the existence of any types of conflict. While this may be too ideal, remembering this would be helpful, “Peace cannot be kept by force; it can only be achieve by understanding.”