The reconceptualisation of conflict management

This article argues that there has been increasing inaccuracy in defining the concept of “conflict management”. The term has been given a far narrower meaning than it deserves. Historically, it has been understood to mean the containment or suspension of a conflict. The linguistic and conceptual meanings of “management” in disciplines such as “business management” are much wider than the conventional meaning of the term in conflict studies. Conflict management covers every action taken by the parties to the conflict to handle the situation. Therefore, the definition of the term should be extended to cover a whole discipline, which includes the initiation of a conflict, its escalation, the ensuing complications, containment, resolution and transformation as sub-topics. Introduction The end of the Cold War brought a new momentum to the study of conflict management. One of the main reasons for this was the proliferation of violent conflicts in regions such as Eastern Europe. The level of domestic ethnic conflicts, as well as of ethnic conflicts between communities and neighbouring states, attracted much interest among researchers. The momentum stimulated the development of the theoretical framework of conflict studies and, in particular, the conceptual framework. Criticism has been 1 According to David Garnham, some evidence suggests that the world has become more secure. He quotes statistics showing that since the last year of the Cold War, the number of major armed conflicts causing more than 1,000 fatalities has declined steadily from 36 in 1989 to 32 in 1991, 30 in 1995, 27 in 1996, and 25 in 1997. See, David Garnham, Studies in International Conflict and Crisis Management (Abu Dhabi: The Emirates Center for Strategic Studies and Research, Emirates Lectures Series, 25, 2000), p.1. 2 Hamad, Ahmad, Azem, “The Reconceptualisation of Conflict Management”, Peace, Conflict and Development: An Interdisciplinary Journal, Vol. 7, July 2005, available from http://www.peacestudiesjournal.org.uk. growing regarding the methods used in handling conflict. Assertions have been made that many of the researchers and consultants who advise the decision-makers on handling conflict lack the background of theoretical and scientific methodology. Several proposals have been made to devise new concepts and methods for studying conflict. I shall argue in this article that a large part of the problem with what is known as “conflict studies” stems not only from the lack of appropriate concepts, but also from the definition of some basic concepts in the field. Inaccuracy in defining concepts has led, in turn, to problems in the methodology of studying and handling conflict. This study argues that there has been inaccuracy in defining the concept of conflict management. I believe that the concept has been given a far narrower meaning than it deserves. A more comprehensive definition would cover the study of the various dimensions of the conflict. Indeed, it could describe a whole discipline, in which conflict resolution, transformation and prevention, along with other handling patterns such as escalation, complication and initiation, would be sub-topics within the wider frame of conflict management. It would encompass understanding, containment, settlement, resolution, transformation, and other associated concepts and theories of conflict. To present my argument, I have divided my research into four sections: 1. The conventional meaning of conflict management. 2. Criticism of the concept of conflict management. 3. Retrospection in the development of the concept. 4. Conclusion: reconceptualisation of conflict management.