CONFLICT AND CONFLICT RESOLUTION

Mrs. Tasneem Sikander

Abstract
This paper theoretically evaluates the reasons behind
conflict and also provides the methods of conflict resolution.
When states seek to preserve and increase their power and
stature relative to each other, rather than to cooperate and
coexist, they come inexorably into conflict. The existence of
conflict in the global system has obliged states to develop
techniques for the resolution of their disputes. The UN has
also taken over the responsibility for resolving international
disputes but it has not proved successful in resolving the
underlying issues but merely put a lid on extensive violence.
The author provides a thorough academic debate an about
resolution of conflict(s) by adopting various means and
channels. The author has provided evidence from the
contemporary history.
Introduction
The states system is inherently competitive. States interact
with each other in the contemporary system in numerous
fields such as trade, international security, tourism, cultural
exchanges, control of nuclear weapons etc. When
governments of nation states collaborate with each other,
some areas of disagreement will arise. Insofar as states seek to
preserve and increase their power and stature relative to each
other, rather than to cooperate and coexist, they come
inexorably into conflict. Enhancement of prestige,
aggrandizement of power and promotion of ideology are
objectives that have attracted opposition and conflict because
of their lack of specific content and clearly defined limits.
The existence of conflict in the global system has obliged
states to develop techniques for the resolution of their
disputes. The methods have been developed over the centuries
for the conflict resolution. It can be resolved either through

Margalla Papers 2011 155

 Conflict and Conflict Resolution

pacific methods and if not then through forcible or coercive

means. The UN has also taken over the responsibility for
resolving international disputes but it has not proved
successful in resolving the underlying issues but merely put a
lid on extensive violence.
Interactions between states in the contemporary system
are numerous and diverse. We often classify them according
to issue areas, such as trade, international security, tourism,
technical cooperation, cultural exchanges, control of nuclear
weapons and the like. Virtually all the relationships contain
characteristics of conflict. Even in the most collaborative
enterprise between governments, some areas of disagreement
will arise. The parties to an international conflict are normally,
but not necessarily the governments of nation states. Parties
seek to achieve certain objectives such as additional or more
secure territory, security, control of valuable resources, access
to markets, alliances, world revolution, the overthrow of an
unfriendly government and many other things. In order to
achieve or defend these objectives, their demands, actions or
both will run counter to the interests and objectives of other
parties.
Conflict Perception
All states in the process of interaction confront with each
other. State A on the input end making demands to the State B
on the output end, which is to give response. State A is the
demand maker, stressing on certain demands. Both the
demand maker as well as decision maker are sovereign states.
Decisions taken by State B may not be in conformity with the
demands of State A and are not binding, they have to
compromise and when they fail to do so, conflict arose; e.g,
Pakistan being State A demanded that Kashmir should be
given independence but State B i.e. India does not
compromise thus conflict arose. Holsti has defined conflict as
“a situation involving incompatible collective objectives and
the possibility of armed conflict between two or more
governments”.1

156 Margalla Papers 2011

 Mrs. Tasneem Sikander

Conflict may emerge due to several reasons. It is likely to

result when one party occupies a position that is incompatible
with the wishes or interests of another one. The most
traditional cause of conflict is territory, but territorial control
is hardly the only condition that gives rise to international
conflict. There may also be incompatibilities of position on
issues like tariff structures, the price of oil, the proliferation of
nuclear weapons, or the treatment of minorities in a state.
Conflict may arise in these areas because one government
desires the problems to be resolved in a manner incompatible
with the wishes of another party or parties.
Conflict may emerge out of misperception. It may emerge
because of misunderstanding between two states. Perception
is one of the most important factors in studying conflict.
Perception is indebted to communicational network distorted
and blurred perception is communicated with defective
communication system which may erupt conflict between the
two states. Goldstein has defined conflict in the following
words: “Conflict may be defined as a difference in preferred
outcomes in a bargaining situation.”2 Thus one can say that
root-cause of conflict may be a misperception about the other
state.
Conflict and Crisis
Crisis is the most intense and dramatic form of conflict in
the international system, short of war. Glenn H Snyder has
described the international crisis as: “An international crisis is
a sequence of interactions between the governments of two or
more sovereign states in severe conflict, short of actual war
but involving the perception of a dangerously high probability
of war.”3
Crisis is not necessarily between international states, it
may be domestic or cultural. “Conflict is a situation of crisis at
domestic or international level.” The two states may have
divergent perceptions about each other. Divergences of
outlook give birth to crisis. Divergence means conflicts of
interests and conflicts of behaviour. When interests of two
communities or two states are divergent, crisis situation may

Margalla Papers 2011 157

 Conflict and Conflict Resolution

erupt e.g., freedom movement of Muslims was also a crisis

situation in which more than one community comes into
confrontation.
From the policy maker’s point of view, the salient of crisis
are (a) unanticipated actions by the opponent; (b) perceptions
of great threat; (c) perception of limited time to make a
decision or response; and (d) perception of disastrous
consequences from inaction.4 None of these events or
perceptions are likely to occur unless there has been a
preceding conflict. Thus it is deduced that conflict emerges out
of misperception, disagreement, lack of coordination and
confrontation. Disagreement is the lowest level of conflict
among the states. Crisis is of higher degree. Crisis situation
crops up when states do not agree to compromise. Conflict
can, therefore, be defined “Conflict is a net result of
disagreement between two or more than two states.”
Models of Conflict
Different models of conflict can be distinguished. Some are
core primary models and others are secondary models.
Primary models are basically of two types:
 Non-violent conflicts
 Violent conflicts
Non-Violent Conflicts
Non-violent conflicts are those conflicts which are relevant
to peaceful settlement and can be resolved through diplomatic
channels, international forums like UN, try to build up world
opinion in their favour by using propaganda tactics. For
instance, former Indian Prime Minister Indira Gandhi built up
propaganda world wide against Pakistan in the war of 1971.
Mediation, consultation as well as arbitration are used to
settle the dispute.
Non violent conflict has the same rationale as war, with the
single exception that the states involved conclude that costs
and risks associated with the disputed objectives indicate that

158 Margalla Papers 2011

 Mrs. Tasneem Sikander

the struggle should be carried on at a low level of intensity and

commitment. The example of non violent conflict is economic
conflict that does not usually lead to military force and war
because the states and companies enter into economic
transactions for yields and use of violence would diminish
such dividends. Economic competition is the most pervasive
form of conflict in international relations because economic
transactions are pervasive.5
Violent Conflicts
Violent conflicts are those in which war is used as an
instrument of peace, source of achieving national interest and
employ this tactic to resolve the matter in their own favour.
“War, a condition in which two or more than two states carry
on a conflict by armed forces, is a common form of armed
international conflict.”6 Wars do not usually arise out of
disputes concerning the respective rights of the belligerents,
but arise from conflicts of interest. These conflicts are about
territorial borders, ethnic hatred, revolutions and so forth. All
the states value home territory with almost fanatical
devolution, border disputes tend to be among the most
intractable in international relations.7 States do not yield
territory in exchange for money or any other positive award.
International conflicts over the control of governments are
likely types of conflicts that lead to the use of violence. They
involve core issues of the status and integrity of states, the
stakes tend to be high, and interests of involved actors are
often diametrically opposed. Violent conflicts also arose on the
control of governments of other states. When one state wants
to alter or replace the government of a second state, a conflict
always exist between the two governments. In addition, the
first state may come into conflict with other parties that
oppose changing the second state government.
Secondary Models
Secondary models constitute more than three categories:

Margalla Papers 2011 159

 Conflict and Conflict Resolution

 Balancing Objective Model: This is relevant to

equilibrium restoration and maintenance activity of the
two states. They try to maintain military equilibrium
among themselves and by retaining it try to maintain
the status quo. “The balancing objective conflict is
typical in a multipolar international system
characterized by a wide dispersal of power.”8 Under
such circumstances, the participants in an interstate
conflict seek primarily to restore the disturbed
equilibrium in the system.
 Hegemonic Objective Model: It is a recurring
phenomenon in international politics. It grows out of
the contestant competition of the centre states to
achieve effective hegemony over the rest of the system
and to gain the economic and political benefits that
accompany that position. If balancing objective model
allows status quo, hegemonic model presents a
situation of hegemony which is more offensive.
 Revisionism vis-à-vis Status Quo: A frequently
recurring form of conflict arises when a policy of
expansion collides with the interests of a passive status
quo state. The objectives of contending states are
complementary as compared to the revisionist states.
The revisionist state seeks to take away from the
passive state a particular object or advantage where as
the status quo state seeking nothing new, tries to retain
what it already has.
Conflict Resolution
The existence of conflict in the global system has obliged
states to develop techniques for the resolution of their
disputes. The development and implementation of peaceful
strategies for settling conflicts using alternatives to violent
forms of leverage is known by the general term conflict
resolution.9 The methods developed over the centuries for the
resolution of international conflict may be classified into three
general categories: a) methods of pacific conflict resolution; b)

160 Margalla Papers 2011

 Mrs. Tasneem Sikander

coercive procedures short of war; and c) forcible procedures

through war.
Pacific Methods
The methods of pacific resolution make available a variety
of peaceful substitutes for violence. In general terms, they may
be classified as diplomatic- political or judicial. They are
following:
Diplomacy
Diplomacy is a means to settle international disputes. It is
the art of approaching or persuading the opponent for
resolving an issue peacefully. Diplomacy can be used in
national politics. It can be used to settle the regional and
ethnical disputes peacefully. It involves direct government to
government interactions. Sir Ernest Satow in his guide to
diplomatic practice explained diplomacy as “The application
of intelligence and tact to the conduct of official relations
between governments of independent states.”10
Diplomacy is the process of conducting communication
among states through officially recognized representatives.
The communication is almost continuous among states as
their representatives or diplomats protect state interests and
reduce conflict. Diplomacy has an instrumental value in the
settlement of specific conflicts. States may prosecute their
differences and intensify their conflicts by a great variety of
methods, but tensions between them are most effectively
managed and reduced through diplomatic means.
Diplomatic methods of resolving conflict can be attempted
through direct negotiations, good offices, mediation, inquiry
and conciliation. These different forms of diplomacy are less
formal than either judicial settlement or arbitration. If the
parties to an international dispute are disposed to discuss
their differences rather than to threaten one another or to
fight about them; they will resort to negotiations as a means of
settlement. Direct Negotiations may take the form of bilateral
or multilateral diplomacy. Such negotiations may be

Margalla Papers 2011 161

 Conflict and Conflict Resolution

conducted between heads of states, directly through

ambassadors and other accredited diplomats of the concerned
parties or through an international conference.
When two states are unable to reach agreement and
relations between them become strained it is permissible for
outside actors to offer their services in an effort to facilitate a
settlement. The technique of good offices may be invoked A
“tender of good offices” is a polite inquiry as to whether the
third state can be of service in preserving or restoring peace .it
is often extended at the request of one of the parties to the
controversy and is frequently made after a rupture of
diplomatic relations or in course of war. If it is accepted on
both sides, the third state may transmit suggestions for a
settlement between the parties or may make suggestions itself.
In the latter case true “mediation occurs”. Most conflict
resolution uses a third party whose role is mediation between
two conflicting parties, according to Goldstein.11
Mediation is a procedure by which, in addition to
providing good offices, a third party participate actively in the
negotiations. It tries to reconcile the opposite claims and to
appease mutual resentments developed by the contending
parties. The mediator may not impose its own solution on the
dispute but is expected to take a strong initiative in proposing
formulas. In the first convention of the first Hague Peace
Conference of 1899, it is provided that “the function of a
mediator was declared to be that of reconciling the opposing
claims and appeasing the feelings of resentment which may
have arisen between the states at variance.”12
Most of the today’s international conflicts have one or
more mediating parties working regularly to resolve the
conflict short of violence. There is no hard and fast rule
denoting what kinds of third parties mediate in what sort of
conflict. Today the UN is the most important mediator on the
world scene. Some regional conflicts are mediated through
regional organizations such as the European Community and
the Organization of American States. Mediators may actively

162 Margalla Papers 2011

 Mrs. Tasneem Sikander

propose solutions based on an assessment of each side’s

demands and interests.
As there is a lack of any procedure in both methods for
conducting a thorough investigation into the facts of the law,
hence these steps may be considered as preliminary to the
more specialized techniques of conciliation and inquiry.
Inquiry designates the resolution of conflict through
establishment of a commission of inquiry. Such a group,
consisting of an equal number of members from each of the
disputing parties plus one or more from other states, act to
facilitate a solution of the conflict. Thus, in case of disputed
boundaries, boundary commission may be appointed to
inquire into the historical and geographical facts which are the
subject of controversy and thus clarify the issue for a
boundary agreement. The commission of inquiry does no
more than determine the facts of a dispute by means of
impartial investigation.
Conciliation is a procedure that combines inquiry and
mediation. It signifies the reference of a dispute to a
commission or committee to make a report with proposals to
the parties for settlement, such proposals not being of a
binding character. According to Judge Manly O. Hudson
“Conciliation is a process of formulating proposals of
settlement after an investigation of the facts and an effort to
reconcile opposing contentions, the parties to the dispute
being left free to accept or reject the proposals formulated.”13
Conciliation multiplies the pacifying effects of both
mediation and inquiry in the resolution of troublesome
disputes. It is the most formalized diplomatic and political
method of settling international conflicts. It is particularly
useful for serious political disputes because its flexibility
makes it more adaptable to varying circumstances than more
rigid judicial or legislative procedures. Its object is always
peace by compromise not justice by law.
Conflict situation can be resolved through bargaining
process between two or more than two states. Bargaining is
one of the prepositions for resolving the severe conflict which

Margalla Papers 2011 163

 Conflict and Conflict Resolution

develop from severe crisis. Deterrence is also a bargaining.

Bargaining is the adjustment or syntheses of the divergent
perceptions or the divergent vital strategic goals with the main
purpose of retaining major self interests.” Bargaining may be
defined as “tacit or direct communication in an attempt to
reach agreement on an exchange of value-that is, of tangible
or intangible terms that one or both parties value.”14
Judicial methods
Judicial methods of resolving conflict are an attempt to
regularize the terms and procedures that form the basis of the
disposal of disputes. The two judicial procedures are
arbitration and adjudication. Solutions are reached on the
basis of law and in some cases equity but they explicitly
exclude political compromise because only legal disputes can
be judicially resolved. The awards of arbitration and the
decisions of an international court are binding on the
disputing parties and hence these procedures are described as
decisional or binding.
 Arbitration: The procedure known as arbitration is
one of the oldest methods used by western countries to
settle international disputes.15 It means reference of a
dispute or conflict between the states to a third party,
freely chosen by the parties, who make an award. If
both sides agree in advance to abide by a solution
devised by a mediator the process is called
arbitration.16 In that case both sides present their
arguments to the arbitrator who decides on a fair
solution. For example the Israelis and Egyptians
submitted their border dispute over the hotel at Taba to
arbitration when they could not come to an agreement
on their own.
 In its simplest form, arbitration involves the
negotiation by the parties to the dispute of a bilateral
treaty, known as compromise, in which they state
clearly the question to be arbitrated, name the
arbitrators and set forth the rules of procedure and
principles of law to be applied. When a dispute is not

164 Margalla Papers 2011

 Mrs. Tasneem Sikander

submitted to the judgment of a single arbitrator, such

as the sovereign of a third state, a tribunal is set up
consisting usually of one or two nationals of each of the
disputing states, plus one or more nationals of outside
states. These may be named in the compromise. One of
the outsiders usually acts as umpire. As C.C Hyde
defined arbitration as “an impartial adjudication
according to a law and that before a tribunal of which at
least a single member, who is commonly a national or a
state neutral to the contest, acts as an umpire.”17 The
tribunal reaches decision by a majority vote and
submits a written statement of the award to the
respective disputants. An arbitral award is binding
upon the parties. However it can be rejected on certain
grounds. The process of arbitration is identical with
that of adjudication except as to the method of
choosing judges.
 Adjudication: International disputes can be settled
by a properly constituted international judicial tribunal
applying rules of law. The only general organ of judicial
settlement at present available in the international
community is the International Court of Justice at The
Hague, which succeeded to and preserves continuity
with the Permanent Court of International Justice. The
court is supposed to decide the case(s) on the basis of
international law and jurisdiction usually extends only
to legal issues.18 That government will not agree to this
method of conflict resolution which has a weak legal
position in a contentious situation.
 Most of the conflicts have important legal aspects, but
one or both of the parties do not wish to characterize
the situation in legal terms because their political
objectives and actions are not compatible with existing
legal principles or jurisdiction. In other cases, a
justifiable dispute is not handled by legal procedures
because of greater tensions and conflicts between the
two states. There is also problem of the sources of
modern international law and governmental attitudes

Margalla Papers 2011 165

 Conflict and Conflict Resolution

towards that law. There must be considerable common

interest between the opponents before the procedure
can be used. Both the parties must agree that
settlement should be based on rules of international
law and it should be an award outcome, whereby one
party wins and one loses, rather than a compromise.
But these prerequisites are seldom found
simultaneously in conflicts and crises
Coercive Procedures Short of War
States turn to coercive but non violent methods of settling
a dispute if pacific procedures fail to produce satisfaction.
Among the non violent coercive techniques are the recall of
diplomats, expulsion of opposing states’ diplomats, denial of
recognition of a regime, breaking off diplomatic relations and
suspension of treaty obligations. More obviously “unfriendly”
is the class of actions involving force short of war: blockade,
boycott, embargo, reprisal and retorsion.
 The Pacific Blockade: It appears to have been first
employed in 1827; since that date there have been
about 20 instances of its employment.19 It is also a
measure involving force short of war for the settlement
of dispute. However, it is sometimes employed in
peace. In times of war, the blockade of a belligerent
state’s ports is a very common naval operation. It is
generally designed to coerce the state whose ports are
blockaded into complying with a request for
satisfaction by the blockading states.
 Retorsion: Another hostile strategy but short of war
for resolving the conflict is retorsion which means an
unfriendly but legal act by another state. It does not
involve the armed force. The best known instance of
retorsion is the severance of diplomatic relations, e.g.
the US broke off diplomatic relations with Iran when its
citizens seized the US embassy in Tehran in 1979. Other
acts of retorsion involve revocation of diplomatic
privileges or withdrawal of fiscal or tariff concessions.
An unusual act of retorsion was President Jimmy

166 Margalla Papers 2011

 Mrs. Tasneem Sikander

Carter’s refusal to allow athletes from US to participate

in 1980. Olympics held in Moscow. His decision was a
protest against the Soviet Union’s invasion of
Afghanistan in 1979.
 Reprisals: Another hostile method is reprisals. These
are methods adopted by the states for securing redress
from another state by retaliatory measures.20 It means
coercive measures adopted by one state against another
for the purpose of settling some dispute brought about
by the latter’s illegal or unjustified conduct. The
coercion can be non violent such as the seizure of
property or a naval blockade, or violent as in the case of
an armed attack. Reprisals are usually thought of as
illegal whereas retorsion consists of retaliatory conduct
to which no legal objection can be taken. Reprisals are
only justified if their purpose is to bring about a
satisfactory settlement of a dispute.
The UN Role
The UN successor to the League of Nations, has taken over
the responsibility for resolving international disputes. One of
the fundamental objects of the organization is the peaceful
settlement of the disputes between states. According to Article
1 of the UN charter, “The major purpose of UN is to maintain
international peace and security and to bring about by
peaceful means and in conformity with the principles of
justice and international law, adjustment or settlement of
international disputes or situations which might lead to a
breach of the peace.”21
In this connection, General Assembly and Security Council
have also been assigned responsibilities. The General
Assembly is given authority to recommend measures for the
peaceful adjustment of any situation. The Security Council
acts in two kinds of disputes, (a) disputes which endanger
international peace and security and (b) cases of threats to the
peace or breaches of peace, or acts of aggression. In the former
case, the Security Council may call on the parties to settle their
differences through arbitration, judicial settlement,

Margalla Papers 2011 167

 Conflict and Conflict Resolution

negotiation and conciliation. It may also suggest appropriate

methods of settling the dispute. In the latter case, the Council
is given power to recommend measures to be taken to restore
international peace and security and it may call on the parties
to comply with certain provisional measures. Under Article 41
to 47 of the Charter, the Security Council has right to give
effect to its decisions not only by coercive measures such as
economic sanctions but also by the use of armed force against
states which decline to be bound by these decisions.22
Although this organization has been instrumental in
solving colonial conflicts by helping the territories in question,
to achieve independence and establish viable governments,
but in other case it has not resolved the underlying issues but
merely put a lid on extensive violence. It has taken peace
supervisory functions in Kashmir, Suez, Middle East and
Cyprus, sanctions against Rhodesia but it has not been able to
achieve a settlement or compromise outcome. Violence in
many crises have been reduced but not completely controlled.
It has a much less enviable record in actually resolving
conflicts.
Forcible or Coercive Means of Settlement
When states are unable to solve their disputes amicably, a
solution may have to be found and imposed by forcible means.
The principle forcible modes of settlement include war,
terrorism etc.
 War: It is described as the right of state to make war as
an ultimate means of self help, when other measures of
obtaining redress for alleged wrongs were unsuccessful;
had until the year 1920, a recognized place in
international law.23 War in not a primary tool to get the
conflict settled, states do not indulge deliberately in
war, it is a last resort. War has its own instrumental
value in the settlement of conflict between more than
two states. The scope and functions of wars lent
credence to the assumption that force and politics
complemented each other. Clausewitz in his book “On
War” asserts that “war is but continuation of politics by

168 Margalla Papers 2011

 Mrs. Tasneem Sikander

other means.”24 Wars, like other forms of conflict, may

be either balancing-objective or hegemonic objective.
In other words, a war may either be fought according to
the rules and seek to restore the status-quo or it may
threaten to destroy the system by altering relationships
drastically and permanently. The balancing-objective
form of war is known today as limited war, and
hegemonic-objective type is total war.
 Terrorism: It is basically just another step along the
spectrum of violent leverage, from total war to guerilla
war. Terrorism refers to political violence that targets
civilians deliberately and indiscriminately.25 Like other
violent means of leverage, terrorism is used to gain
advantage in international bargaining situations.
Terrorism is effective if it damages morale in a
population and gains media exposure for the cause.
Outcomes of International Conflict
Outcome means any sort of final result of the conflict,
different from procedures of the formal diplomatic means.
Following are the possible outcomes or settlements of conflict:
 Avoidance: When both the states pursue
incompatible goals, values, interests, or positions, one
possible solution is for one or both parties to withdraw
from physically or bargaining position or to cease the
actions that originally caused hostile responses.
 Conquest: It means the final result of the conflict can
be conquest that overwhelming the opponent, through
the use of force.
 Submission/Deterrence: It means that one side has
withdrew from a previously held value, position or
interest because the opponent made effective threats to
push him out by the use of force.

Margalla Papers 2011 169

 Conflict and Conflict Resolution

 Compromise: When both sides agree to a partial

withdrawal of their initial objectives, positions,
demands or actions, it is called ‘compromise’.
 Award: The fifth one is the complicated outcome
based on compromise is the ‘award’ wherein the
opponents agree to a settlement achieved through non
bargaining procedures. An award is any binding
decision effected by an independent third party or
criteria which sets out the substantive terms of
settlement.
Often international conflicts have no formal outcome i.e.
deterrence, avoidance, compromise, conquest or award, but
persist for a long period until the parties accept new status
quo as partially legitimate. Most of the international conflicts
are resolved by becoming obsolete that is both the sides learn
to live with situation over a period of time, even though their
formal positions are incompatible.
Conclusion
The critical point in the conflict occurs when the actions of
one state lead the government of another to consider the
possibility of using force. Mild threats, pressures and reprisals
can often be controlled, but if tensions are high enough and
the actions perceived as extremely threatening, a crisis
situation; where a decision to use organized force may be
required, results. In a crisis, symbolic communication often
increases while overt bargaining and negotiation decrease;
and the behaviour of policy makers may well be vitally affected
by the pressures of time, perceptions of threat and the need to
act quickly. Violence often results. Both the League of Nations
and UN have in fact dealt primarily with crises rather than
conflicts. In resolving conflicts and promoting peace, the
record of UN is not impressive. Indeed, one of the
discouraging facts about international organizations has been
their unwillingness to cope with conflicts before they reach the
crisis stage. It has proved effective as instrument of peace only
in the area of transition from colonialism. It is at the crisis

170 Margalla Papers 2011

 Mrs. Tasneem Sikander

stage probably that formal settlements are least likely to be

attained
Author
Mrs Tasneem Sikander is Assistant Professor of Political
Science at Government Viqar-un-Nisa Post Graduate College
Rawalpindi. She is a graduate of Lahore College for Wome.
She did her M.A and M.Phil in Political Science from
Government College University, Lahore.
Notes
1. K. J. Holsti., International Politics, (New Jersey: Prentice Hall
International Inc, 1995) p-375
2. Joshua. S. Goldstein, International Relations, (N.Y: Harper Collins
College Publishers, 1994) p-137.
3. Glenn H. Snyder, “Conflict and Crisis in the International system,” in
James Rosenau, Keenneth w. Thompson and Gavin Boyd, (ed), world
politics, (London: Free Press, 1976) p-683
4. K.J. Holsti, op.cit; p- 349,350
5. Joshua S.Goldstein, International relations, op.cit; p-149
6. Abdul Aziz Said, Charles O.Lerche, Jr., Concepts of International
Politics in Global Perspective, (New Jersey: A Sunon and Schuster
Company, 1995) p- 120
7. Joshua . S. Goldstein, op.cit., p-143
8. Abdul Aziz Said, Charles O.Lerche, Jr, op.cit., p-122
9. Joshua. S.Goldstein, op.cit., p-171
10. Frederick L.Schuman, International Politics, ( NY: McGraw Hill Book
Company, 1969) p-170
11. Joshua. S. Goldstein, op.cit., p-171, 172
12. Frederick L.Schuman, op.cit., p-154
13. J.G. Starke, Introduction To International Law, ( London:
Butterworths. 1984) p-489
14. Srydee, Glenn H. and Paul Diesing. Conflict Among Nations:
Bargaining, Decision Making and System Structure in International Crisis
(Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1977)
15. Gerhard von Glahn, Law Among Nations, (N.Y: Macmillan, 1981) p-
523
16. Goshua. S . Goldstein, op.cit., p-172,173
17. Frederick . L. Schuman, op.cit, p-157
18. K.J. Holsti, op.cit., p-372
19. (Walter R. Thomas “Pacific Blockade: A lost Opportunity of the
1930s?” in 62 U.S. Naval War College International Law Studies (1980)197
p 198.
20. J.G.Starke, op.cit., p-495
21. K.J. Holsti, op.cit., p-373

Margalla Papers 2011 171

 Conflict and Conflict Resolution

22. J.G. Starke,op.cit., p-493

23. Charles G. Fenwick, International Law, (New York: Appleton Century
Crofts,1948) p-541
24. Conway. W. Handerson, International Relation Conflict and
Cooperation At The Turn Of 21st Century, ( Boston: Mcgraw Hill Int.
Companies 1998) p-130
25. Joshua.S.Goldstein, International relations, op.cit; p-169

172 Margalla Papers 2011