Chapter Two

Basic Concepts in Peace

and Conflict Studies
Kingsley C .W. Udegbunam

Introduction
The evolution and maturation of the discipline of Peace and Conflict Studies (PCS) has also led to the
emergence of specialised terms used in the field. As with the nature of the field itself, the concepts are
equally multidisciplinary in nature. They are to be found in various disciplines in the social sciences,
humanities and even sciences. However, these concepts have been found to be central to discourses on
PCS and have therefore been collected to form the terms and concepts used in the field. Some of the
institutions that have embarked on the collection and publication include the United Nations University
for Peace (UPEACE), the United States Institute of Peace (USIP) and the London Early Warning
Network. This chapter is intended to take students and reader through some of these terms and concepts.
It is generally expository in nature and only a critical where necessary.

Peace
This is one of the two key concepts in PCS and it has elicited controversies from scholars, practitioners,
analysts and even the lay people. From science to religion, the concept of peace seems valued and seems
elusive. The term “peace” is believed to have its root in the Anglo-Norman word pas which means
freedom from civil disorder (Nwolise, 2009 p.249). The English word became popular from 1300 having
been translated from the Biblical term pax and Greek word eirene, rooting from the Hebrew Word
Shalom which has the same root as the Arabic Word Salaam all meaning a condition of safety, welfare,
security, friendliness, fortune and prosperity (Nwolise, 2009 p.249).
Scholars from different disciplinary orientations have attempted elucidating the concept of peace.
Einstein (1968, p.371) will argue that “Peace is not the absence of war but the presence of justice, law,
order, and even government”. This conception is common in the young field of peace and conflict studies.
In fact, Johan Galtung widely regarded as the “father” of peace and conflict studies toed this line and
developed the widely accepted “negative” and “positive” concepts of peace. Galtung (1990) understands
peace in relation to violence. He identifies three types of violence; direct violence, structural violence,
and cultural violence. The absence of direct violence is what he refers to as “negative peace” while in
addition to the absence of direct violence, absence of structural and cultural forms of violence equals
positive peace. Arguments about this dichotomy still rages between the minimalists or pragmatists and the
maximalists or structuralists, yet the young field of peace and conflict studies is defining its’ scope in the
maximalists tradition.
In his conception of peace, King (1986, p.50) contends thus; “True peace is not merely the
absence of tension; it is the presence of justice”. Howard (1971, p.225) opines that the concept of peace is
often highly emotive and is often abused for a tool of political propaganda. He argues that peace is more
than the absence of war but that it is also “The maintenance of an orderly and just society”. For Webel
(2007 p.8) peace is not the same as pacification nor is the domination of any form to be construed as
peace. Rather “Peace in its progressive or dialectical mode denotes active individual and collective self-
determination and emancipator empowerment”. Francis (2006) of Bradford Peace Studies Department
holds that peace is both the absence of war, fear, anxiety as well as the creation and maintenance of a just
order in the society. Miall (2004) contends that the concept of peace could be divided into the following
six meanings;
1. Peace as the absence of war (absence of direct violence);
2. Peace as justice and development (absence of structural
 violence);
3. Peace as respect and tolerance between people;
4. Peace as Gaia (harmony or balance in and with the
ecosystem and ecosphere);
5. Peace as tranquillity or inner peace (spiritual peace); and
6. Peace as ‘wholeness’ and making ‘whole’ (being
complete).

For the University for Peace (2005), peace is a political condition that ensures justice and social
stability through formal and informal institutions, practices, and norms. The above conception of peace
denotes peace as a social situation, condition or order. However, Ibeanu (2006, p.9) disagrees. He
believes that “Peace is a process involving activities that directly and indirectly linked to increasing
development and reducing conflict, both within specific societies and in the wider international
community”. Critiquing Ibeanu’s position, Nwolise (2009: p. 251) contends that “Making peace a
dynamic process that never ends will give political leaders and their defence and security forces an
unregulated field to commit blue murder unabated”. He argues that any definition of peace should possess
quantifiable indices that will help pin the real enemies of peace. He thus proposes plural ‘peaces’ since
the concept cuts across different societies, epochs, civilisations, and academic disciplines. Nwolise’s
position is supported by historical findings reflected in Adolf’s (2009) work.
Dating back to Pre-history, and relying substantially on the works of primatologists,
anthropologists, and archaeologists, Adolf (2009, p.2) traces the various forms, dimensions, and levels of
“peaces” in major world civilisations, worldviews and cultures. However, it is important to state that
Ibeanu’s position implies the need to continuously search for and work towards achieving peace. Indeed,
the search for peace thus becomes a process because some peaceful societies might degenerate into
conflict. Similarly, societies in search of higher level of peace (some kind of positive peace) will continue
to build on their existing level of achievements. At the individual level the search for peace is indeed a
process and in fact a daily quest that its achievement is not always guaranteed. Nwolise’s worry is simply
that Ibeanu talks about peace as a process without providing checks against abuse by dictatorships.
Nwolise (2009) further opines that peace is in levels. He identifies inner or personal peace, family
peace, community peace, group peace, national peace, regional peace, world peace, and universal peace
as the levels of peace. This typology aligns itself with Adolf’s individual peace, social peace and
collective peace. However, a typology or categorisation of peace does not really satisfy the quest for an
inclusive definition of peace. And qualifying peace as either hot peace or cold peace; cruel peace, tenuous
peace, armed peace, guided peace, or active peace, as Akpan (2011: p. xxxii) would prefer falls short of a
definition of peace. In fact, some other scholars have also freely used adjectives and terms to attempt to
explain peace. They include “warm peace” by Miller (2001), precarious peace by George (2000), stable
peace by Boulding (1978), and civil peace by de Soysa and Fjelde (2010). While this approach to peace,
no doubt enriches our understanding about the nature and dynamics of peace and peaceful relationships, it
does not still explain what peace really is. For Trostle, peace is “A state of well-being that is characterised
by trust, compassion, and justice” (Sandy and Perkin, 2003, p.15). Trostle’s definition of peace is in the
maximalist tradition and very much appealing. It captures both the minimalist (proponents of negative
peace) and maximalist (proponents of positive peace) traditions.
Notwithstanding, there is also a spiritual dimension to the meaning of peace. The basis for this
claim is the fact that man is not purely a material substance devoid of any spiritual element. Some
philosophers may argue in favour of materialism (whether in the form of physicalism, functionalism,
epiphenomenalism, to mention but a few), such arguments have not been able to dispel universal religious
consciousness and daily spiritual or psychic experiences that cannot be reduced to or dismissed as purely
material phenomena. Thus if man is a composite of two fundamentally different realities such as material
(body) and immaterial (soul- mind or spirit) and a creation of a spiritual creator, then spiritual peace
would mean state of harmony between human beings and this creator. In other words, spiritual peace is
when there is no conflict between humans and their Maker. This is the relevance of religion in the sense
that true religion only tries to ensure constant harmonious relationship between human beings and their
creator.

Peacekeeping
Peacekeeping refers to the UN or regional bodies’ efforts towards public security in conflict zones. It is
the deployment of multilateral forces by the UN through its Security Council (SC) in conflict zones to
maintain ceasefire agreements by belligerents; secure civilian populations, and help restore normalcy in
the aftermath of war or civil violence. It is an attempt to sustain an end to violence by temporary means
by creating conditions for conflict resolution and transformation.
Peacekeeping is not expressly mentioned in the UN Charter but evolved as a creative compromise
of Chapter VI and VII of the UN Charter. Chapter VI of the Charter provides for peaceful settlements of
conflict while chapter VII empowers the UN to enforce peace through economic and military sanctions.
Peacekeeping is thus the “mean” between Chapters VI and VII and some scholars have referred to it as
chapter “six-and-half” (Rambotham, Woodhouse and Miall, 2011).
The UNSC is the only organ authorized by the UN Charter to deploy peacekeeping forces.
However, following the emergence of regional and sub-regional organisational bodies as discussed
elsewhere in this volume, there have been cases of regional or sub-regional deployments of peacekeeping
forces. However, the UNSC still has to approve such deployment whether before or after deployment.
Chapter VIII of the Charter provides for the involvement of regional arrangements and agencies in the
maintenance of international peace and security provided such activities are consistent with the purposes
and principles outlined in Chapter I of the Charter (http://www.un.org/en/peacekeeping/
operations/pkmandates.shtml).
There are four types of UN peacekeeping operations (PKOs). Type I, which is also known as
First Generation PKOs involves observance where a ceasefire has been brokered (Miller 2005, p 62).
Types II PKOs focus on aiding political transitions in conflict zones while Type III PKOs involves active
actions to create peace. Type IV PKOs contained activities focusing on post-conflict reconstructions or
post-conflict peacebuilding.
In which ever type it comes, UNPKO is initiated by a resolution of the UNSC. The Resolution
contains the mandates of the PKO. All UNPKOs are expected to be guided by the following principles; i.)
consent (parties in conflict must agree to have the operations within their territory); ii) impartiality:
(PKOs are to focus on the execution of their mandates regardless of actors) and non use of force except
in self-defence and defence of the mandate.
The UN PKOs usually conducts the following general operations; Disarmament, demobilization
and reintegration of ex-combatants;
 Mine action;
 Security sector reform and other rule of law-related activities;
 Protection and promotion of human rights;
 Electoral assistance;
 Support for the restoration and extension of State authority;
 Promotion of social and economic recovery and development
Peace Enforcement (PE)
Peace-enforcement refers to multilateral military operations targeted at ending aggression or separating
belligerents with or without the consent of parties. PE requires the deployment of military that uses force
to achieve its mandates. The legitimacy of any PE is derived from the United Nations Security Council
(UNSC) resolution which also contains the mandate of such PE. The UNSC derives its authorities from
Chapter VII of the UN Charter which empowers it to deploy PE when it considers it necessary. The
UNSC could also legitimise authorize a regional organizations such as the African Union (AU) to conduct
PE or give legitimacy to such operations when undertaken by regional or sub-regional organizations.
Peace enforcement is set to achieve any or all of the following objectives:
a. Enforcing ceasefires;
 b. Separatist;
c. Establishment
d. Decommissioning of arms and demobilization of ex-combatants;
e. Protection of human rights;
f. Assistance with humanitarian aids (Miller, 2005)

Peace-building
This term was coined by Johan Galtung (1975) but was popularized by the Broutros-Ghali in 1992
through his treatise, (and 1995 edition) An Agenda for Peace. Broutros-Ghali (1992, p.8) defined
peacebuilding as “rebuilding the institutions and infrastructures of nations torn by civil war and strife, and
building bonds of peaceful mutual benefit among nations formerly at war”. He also identified a range of
peacebuilding programmes such as cooperative projects that contribute to economic and social
development. Peacebuilding thus include policies, programmes and related efforts aimed at restoring
stability and effectiveness in a post-conflict society. Lederach (1995) contends that the concept of
peacebuilding should be understood as a comprehensive concept that covers, generates, and sustains the
full array of process as approaches and stages needed to transform conflict toward more sustainable,
peaceful; relationships.

Conflict
From the Latin word confligere which is translated “to clash or engage in a fight,” a confrontation
between two or more actors (Miller, 2005). Conflict also refers to a clash of values, choices, and interests
within an individual, between two or more groups or between states. Conflict could be intra or
interpersonal, intra or intergroup, intra or international, and global.
Conflict is inevitable in social interactions. It is on this premise that many scholars would argue
that conflict is intrinsically neutral (neither positive nor negative) but handling could make it either
constructive or destructive. If positive, the society benefits because it could lead to social change. Where
it is negative then it becomes harmful to the society and therefore needs to be resolved, transformed or
managed.
Conflicts do not occur in a vacuum. There are as numerous causes of conflicts as there are
conflicts. Each conflict is unique thus requires a careful analysis to enhance understanding. Causes of
conflicts are generally classified into four categories. Conflicts could be caused by resources. These
resources could be tangible such as money, gold or oil and intangible such as struggle for power or
respect. Conflict could as be caused by values. Values in themselves do not cause conflict but the defence
of one’s value against another may lead to conflict. For instance, most religious conflicts and violence are
as a result of clash of religious values. Usually clash of values is as a result of disrespect for other
people’s values or beliefs. Conflict could also be caused by communication gap within and among
groups. This is predominant in interpersonal or family conflicts. Improper communication, poor listening,
noise, and ambiguous messages could lead to communication breakdown which in turn may degenerate to
conflict. And then conflict could also be caused by psychological needs. This is when there is a
misperception of the other person and the denial of the quest to meet psychological needs. For instance,
the denial of care in the form of attention and show of love to one’s spouse could result in conflict.

War
This refers to an armed confrontation between two or more parties with the intention to compel “a change
in the nature of their political and other relations” (Igwe, 2007 p. 468). For Clausewitz (1833/1997) war is
not merely a political act, but also a political instrument, a continuation of political relations, a carrying
out of the same by other means. War is intended to defeat, harm or vanquish the enemy (Akpuru-Aja,
2006). Ironically, war is fought peace and it is usually declared by one or all of the parties involved. War
is conducted by conventional forces and guided by certain laws-laws of armed conflict or international
humanitarian law, as contained in the Geneva Conventions and Protocols.
War Crimes
War crimes refer to the violations of the provisions of the regulations for the conduct of war. Civilians,
especially women and children constitute victims of many war crimes. Acts such as murder, torture, rape,
deportation, hostage taking, and forced labour in war situations (Miller, 2005 p.80) are considered war
crimes because they are prohibited by the 1949 Geneva Conventions and the Geneva Protocol of 1977.
The above acts when committed against prisoners of war (POW) are also considered war crimes. War
crimes also include the destructions of non-military objects such as hospitals and the use of outlawed
weapons.

Violence
Many scholars discuss violence in two broad types; direct and structural violence. However, a more
detailed typology is adopted in this chapter. They are physical, structural, psychological, cultural,
environmental, and spiritual violence. Physical (direct) violence is seen to refer to physical harm done by
an identifiable subject to an object of the action. Physical injuries or pain inflicted by a person or group of
persons on a specific person or group are seen as direct or physical violence. Killings and beatings from
whatever conflict situations are clear examples of physical violence. Thus all the acts of wars, killings,
brutality, genocide, battery are manifestations of direct violence. Physical violence could further be
classified as either personal or mass violence. Personal violence are usually acts of violence committed
in inter-personal relationships and may take the form of rape, robbery attacks, beatings, etc. Mass
violence are harms done in situations such as wars, genocide, revolutions, to mention but a few. Jeong
(2000, p.20) further explains that physical violence is “usually personal, visible, manifest and non-
structural”.
Structural violence are harms done to persons and groups as a result of the nature of political or socio-
economic structures or policies in the society. Galtung (1969 p. 117) captures structural violence thus:

We shall refer to the type of violence where there is an actor that commits the violence as
personal or direct, and to violence where there is no such actor as structural or indirect.
There may not be any person who directly harms another person in the structure. The
violence is built into the structure and shows up as unequal power and consequently as
unequal life chances.

Structural violence manifests in the form unemployment, poverty, repression, social alienation and other
social conditions that may make life unbearable and unfulfilling for people. These are structures within
societies that impede the full development of people’s potentials and consequently create misery for them.
Many African and other developing states are structured along this line. They simply lack the structures
that could facilitate the development of the potentials of their citizens.
Psychological violence refers to imaginary harm that people are scared of. It is the fear of the
unknown that pervades the society and characterised by fear and sometimes spontaneous reactions over a
non-existing situations. For instance, fear of terrorist attacks make many people to avoid public places
especially places of worships in most countries grappling with terrorism. Objects such as bags or
containers carelessly dropped by an unknown person could cause panic and sometimes such panic could
lead to a stamped where lives are lost. In recent times in Nigeria, sighting a Fulani herdsman could evoke
fear; seeing a well-bearded man on a low trouser could cause panic; wearing a flowing gown and sitting
in the airport lounge waiting to board could see people distancing themselves from you for fear you may
be a terrorist; the children that run to “take cover” at the sound of their father’s vehicle’s horn are
experiencing psychological violence. A wife whose heart skips at the voice of her husband is
experiencing psychological violence. Students who panic inside a lecturer’s office may be experiencing
psychological violence. The workplace environment where workers are too afraid to say their mind but
will rather allow things to go wrong because of fear is under psychological violence. The clergy who
browbeat their congregation into “sowing seed” to prevent evil from befalling them are subjecting them to
psychological violence. All these are the manifestations of fear of the unknown.
 Cultural violence are justifications of any form of violence. Jeong (2000) argues that cultural
violence are the sources of other types of violence because it produces value justification and
legitimisation of the instruments of violence. For instance, many African and Asian cultures justify
structural violence against women. Physical harm to the girl child in the form of genital mutilation is
justified by cultural practices. At a time in Eastern Nigeria, the killing of twins (physical violence) was
sanctioned by cultural beliefs.
Environmental violence are harms and injuries done to celestial bodies and the ecosystem by
human activities. An aspect of PCS known as Environmental Conflict is already devoted to the study of
environmental violence and its management. Environmental degradation and pollutions constitute harms
to the environmental and result in the destructions of the ecosystem. The impact of environmental
violence such as global warming and climate change and their many effects on natural and agricultural
resources equally have the capacity and sometimes aggravate conflicts within human society.
Spiritual violence are harms or injuries caused to humans by either spiritual beings or other
human beings through spiritual forces. This point may be objected to by some social and natural scientists
who deny the existence of spiritual forces. Notwithstanding their objections, the experiences of people in
Africa with witches and wizards and potency of charms cannot be sincerely denied. It is a common belief
among Africans that witches and wizards can inflict harm on human beings and when this is done it
constitutes spiritual violence. When fellow human beings engage the services of spiritual powers to harm
others it constitutes spiritual violence. Instances of such incidence abound in our society and dismissing
them as superstitious does not provide solution to the problem.

Conflict Prevention
This refers to efforts geared towards ensuring that conflict situations do not escalate when they occur. It
entails identifying and avoiding situations that could lead to violence. It involves containing obvious
tension and preventing existing tensions from escalating as well as removing the sources or roots of
danger before its occurrence. Conflict prevention thus seeks to satisfactorily handle grievances among
parties in order to avoid eruption of violence or resurgence of de-escalated conflict. This could be
achieved through removing the sources of conflicts, social justice, peace-keeping, preventive diplomacy,
to mention but a few.

Conflict Management
Conflict management refers to the controlling and mitigating an obvious conflict situation in order to
ensure that the potential of such conflict situations to escalate and assume destructive dimensions are
limited. Conflict management acknowledges that certain conflicts cannot be resolved. Consequently, such
conflicts are to be controlled, handled, and mitigated in such a way as to control the damage it could
cause. Conflict management approaches could include military and non-military actions aimed at
containing conflict situations that have become intractable. Sometimes, conflict management becomes a
means to an end, where the end is to create opportunities for conflict resolution.

Conflict Resolution (CR)

This refers to various approaches aimed at resolving conflict through nonviolent means. Conflict
resolution implies that the deep-root of conflicts have been addressed and transformed. It means
conflictants no longer view each other as enemies or in conflict, as hostile behaviour and attitudes have
ceased and the issues in the conflict positively resolved to the acceptance of conflict parties.
A few issues need to be raised and addressed about the ambiguity of the term, conflict resolution.
The first is that there are scholars who think that conflict resolution as described above is utopian. They
support their position by arguing that conflict is inherent and therefore inevitable in human social relation.
If this is the case, they would argue, then conflict resolution is a misnomer. A response to this argument is
to admit that no legitimate quarrel exists about the fact that conflict is an inevitable social phenomenon.
Thus no one would really advocate or claim that conflict as a phenomenon could be resolved, removed
from human society. Conflict is a social necessity; only violent conflict is to be avoided. As such, I argue
that conflict resolution does not mean the removal of the phenomenon of conflict from human society; for
that will be impossible. However, the resolution of individual conflict is tenable. It is in this sense that
most analysts use the term, conflict resolution. It may not be easy but empirical evidence support the
theoretical postulation that conflict can be resolved.
The second issue refers to those who also argue that conflict resolution refers to a specialist field
of study. This particular concern has been properly addressed in chapter one and therefore need not
consume our time here. Notwithstanding, conflict resolution can also refer to the intention to resolve
conflict. In this sense it is a practice component of PCS. Used in this sense it would also capture the
professional field of conflict resolution.

Conflict Transformation
Conflict transformation is a deeper level of conflict resolution. It refers to changes (usually positive) in
the conflict situations. It focuses on addressing underlying structures, cultures, and institutions that
nurture social violence. Conflict transformations may take place through intentional or unintentional
actions of policy makers and other stakeholders. Deliberate efforts at transforming conflicts situations
produce opportunities for actors to resolve their conflicts and achieve social engineering and
development. Peace scholars identify the following as the components of conflict transformations;
 actor transformations – internal changes in conflictants that may lead to the emergence of new
leadership, new goals, new actors, and new constituencies;
 issue transformations – altering the agenda of conflicts issues that may result in constructive
compromise and de-linking or re-linking issues.
 rule transformations - the entire structure of relationships and power distribution in the conflict
are transformed
 context transformation – change in the national, regional or international environment of the
conflicts
 structure transformations – change in power relations, power structures, and market of
violence(Vayrynen, 1991; Miall, 2004).

Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR)

As its name implies, ADR seeks to move the resolution of conflict from litigation, which usually results
in a win-lose situation to other processes that promises better outcomes. ADR thus refers to a range of
procedures and approaches other than litigation that aims to identify resolutions to conflict that will be
mutually accepted to the conflictants (Miller, 2005 p.14). The non resolution of root causes of conflict by
litigation processes is at the root of the emergence of ADR. Other reasons include cost of litigation,
external actors’ involvement in a given conflict, complex and rigorous judicial procedures and the fear a
just outcome. In addition to these weaknesses inherent in litigation, benefits of ADR that makes it
appealing include, ownership of the resolution processes by the conflictants, possibility of resolving root
causes of conflict and obtaining justice, consumes less material and immaterial resources such as money
and time. Types of ADR include mediation, negotiation, arbitration, and conciliation.
Arbitration refers to a means of resolving conflicts or disputes where conflictants identify their
grievances and demands, identify and agree on the procedural process and willingly submit to an external
entity. The external entity is known as the arbitrator and decides the issue, the outcome of which the
conflictants have agreed will be binding. Conflictants choose the arbitrators or accept the process that
chose them. The parties in conflict are allowed opportunities to and present arbitrators with their
arguments and evidence. They may be represented by advocates if they so desire. The process takes a pre-
established procedure already discussed and agreed by the parties. And arbitrators are expected to focus
on the content of the conflict and the means of resolving them. This is done in good conscience, goodwill,
and objectively.
Conciliation is closely related to arbitration. It is a voluntary referral of a conflict to a neutral
external entity (Miller, 2005, p.22). However, the suggestions of the third party are not binding but could
only help facilitates further co-operation among the conflictants. Conciliation helps conflictants to
establish and open communication line that will help in negotiation. Conciliators focus on identifying the
sources of the conflict and then making suggestions on its resolution to the parties in conflict. A neutral
conciliator usually enjoys the confidence of conflictants and help to guide both parties to negotiating
peace.

Negotiation
Negotiation is a face-to-face discussion aimed at reaching an agreement on a conflicting situation.

Mediation
The word “mediate” is a derivative of mediato, which in turn comes from the Latin noun medius
(mean)and the verb mediare, meaning to separate into halves. Horowitz (2007 p.51) further defines
mediation as “intervention of a third party unfamiliar to the conflict, trustable, unbiased, and intending to
be neutral”. Mediation is facilitated negotiation because it relies on third-party intervention. Mediation is
a process where conflictants voluntarily agree to submit to a third party whose decisions are non-binding
aid in settling their conflict. The mediator cannot coerce or impose judgments on the conflictants but
rather nudges them towards peaceful resolution of their conflict in win-win outcomes. Curle (1986, p.9)
explains that the mediator tries to “establish, or re-establish, sufficiently good communications between
conflicting parties so that they can talk sensibly to each other without being blinded by such emotions as
anger, fear and suspicion”. Sometimes the mediator initiates the peace process; at other times it could be
one of the parties, especially the weaker party that who initiates the peace process. In all circumstance,
conflictants must all agree to submit to the mediator (s).
Mediators can be classified into three categories; Independent Mediators, Social Network
Mediators, and Authoritative Mediators. Independent Mediators could be individuals or organisations
who facilitate peace process among conflictants. These third parties are neutral facilitators whose
involvement in the peace process is as a result of their “expertise, experiences and exposure” (Akpuru-
Aja 2007, p.47). Social Network Mediators refers to mediators who are within the social circle of the
conflictants. The mediators may be friends, family members, or colleagues of both or any of the
conflictants. The basis for involvement in the peace process by these third-parties is because of the social
affiliations that exist between the conflictants and the mediators. The mediators leverage on their
relationship with the conflictants to help resolve their conflicts. Authoritative mediators are individuals,
organisation or states that possess certain level of influence over the conflictants. For instance, the Vice-
Chancellor may use his influence to mediate in a conflict between his subordinates. Similarly, religious
leaders mediate in conflicts among their members because of their influence.

Security
Security refers to the feeling of being free from harm or threats. This feeling may occur in the individual
or in a group. Wolfer (1962, p.159) views it thus “security, in any objective sense, measures the absence
of threats to acquired values, in a subjective sense, the absence of fear that such values will be attacked.
There are two broad categorization of security: traditional security and non-traditional security. Collin
(2007) argues that traditional security makes the state its referent object. That is, what ought to be secured
and that is through military might. In contrast, non-traditional security approaches makes human the
referent object. This is also referred to as human security. The foci of such security are people as
individuals and as a group. Thakur and Newman (2004) contend that human security focuses on
protecting people from life-threatening dangers from whatever source.
There are two schools of thoughts on the nature of human security; the narrow school and the
broad school. The narrow school thinks that the focus of human security should be limited to political
violence against the people by the state or other organized political actors (Kerr 2007). For the
proponents of broad human security, the focus of human security should include other sources of
insecurity to the human populations.
 The wide acceptance, not without controversies, that human security received in the 1990s led to
other concepts in relation to security. These include societal security, common security, regime security,
democratic security, economic security, environmental security and cooperative security. Consequently
Buzan (1991) identified five dimensions of security to include military, political, economic, societal, and
environmental. However, Nwolise (2009) would argue in favour of fifteen dimensions of security. He
contends that Buzan’s view flowed from western experiences and that experiences in Africa would give
rise to the following dimensions of security;
1. military security
2. political security
3. economic security
4. societal security
5. environmental security
6. physical (personal) security
7. psychological security
8. technological security
9. spiritual security
10. image security
11. territorial security
12. legal security
13. treasury security
14. people’s (national) power security
15. global security

Multi-Track Diplomacy (MTD)

Multi-Track Diplomacy narrates a procedural approach that is premised on the assumption that conflict
management and peace-building capabilities reside in many, not the few. John McDonald and Louise
Diamond who co-founded the Institute for Multi-Track Diplomacy (IMTD) developed the concept of
multi-track diplomacy. The concept expands an earlier distinction between Track I (official,
governmental action) and Track II (unofficial, nongovernmental action) approaches to conflict resolution
made by Joseph Montville in 1982 (Olarinde, 2009). McDonald and Diamond (1996) believe that there
are nine response techniques that explain the values of partnership in peace-making activities. These
nine-level multi-track analyses include:

Track 1: Government: This approach entails the use of command functions and deployment of political
capabilities to conflict and peace intervention and management. Track 1 approach is the engine hub of a
given political system, and it sets out agenda for other tracks. It involves the use of security apparatus and
other administrative instruments in enhancing compatible relationships and suppressing hostile human
affairs. The approach is often force- driven and less creative in conflict and peace intervention, especially
in developing world. It is also very rigid and less flexible, but has the advantage of a vast resource that
could be easily mobilized in peace and conflict intervention.

Track 2: Nongovernment and Professional: This approach covers intervention and management
initiatives by nongovernmental or professional individuals and groups. It entails the activities of civil
society groups (such as identity-based groups; issue-based groups, organized labour; media; etc) domestic
NGOs, and peace specialist serving as cutting-edge for conflict management and peace-building in
development initiatives. It is the creative ability of these non-state actors to either act as a stop-gap for
government, or assume responsibility on issues that polarizes government. The track enjoys creativity,
flexibility and relative degree of openness, but suffers from unregulated conduct, inadequate resources,
over-reliance on donor funding, etc.
Track 3: Business: This is a conflict and peace intervention approach that bridges socio-economic
opportunities and responsibilities. It is an effort that promotes enabling business environment in a stable
social order. This track is a response mechanism to the growing apprehension of the need to annex
investment potentials by developing individual and communal socio-economic capacity of host
communities. This track has a vast financial resource available for conflict and peace building
intervention, but often exploits humanity due to greed and corruption.

Track 4: Private Citizens: This approach depicts the several intervention and management strategies that
are adopted by the people themselves to enhance compatible relationships and address hostile activities
on voluntary basis. The track is reminiscent of social contract theorists view that the will of the people is
the ruling force. Track 4 offers incredible opportunity for the display of citizen power, and more
importantly, for ownership of conflict and peace processes. It is particularly desirable in developing world
where communal ties are sufficiently strong to serve either as a platform for harmony and discord with
others. Examples of individuals in this Track include Olusegun Obasanjo, Yakubu Gowon and
Abdusalami Abubakar of Nigeria. Others are; late Julius Nyerere of Tanzania, Nelson Mandela and
Thabo Mbeki of Republic of South Africa, Graca Machel of Mozambique, Jimmy Carter of the United
States, Tony Blair of the United Kingdom, among others. But the track is averse to establishing
partnership with Track 1 (government).

Track 5: Research, Training and Education: This approach is the intellectual hub of conflict and peace
intervention. It is an approach that supports the analytical tool, and generates information on conflict and
peace dynamics for policy and action. The Track enriches understanding of issues, actors, nature,
character, and dynamics of peace and conflict, and lays the foundation for a more enduring human
interaction in a given system. It is the brain of the system, but sometimes portrays information as an end
in itself.

Track 6: Activism: The approach is classified as the “fire-brand” model of peace and conflict
intervention and management. It entails the activities of individuals and organizations that position
themselves as advocates of the oppressed and champions of the marginalized. Track 6 activities are
perceived as confrontational and somehow considered antagonistic of leaders in support of the deprived.
It is a track that seeks to protect and defend the inherent, universal, inalienable, and indivisible rights of
the marginalized. The model defines conflict and peace intervention and management within the confines
of human rights, seeks to reverse policy decisions that are either retroactive or oppressive. But, sometimes
the track generates conflicts and become parties to a dispute.

Track 7: Religion: The engagement of faith-based leaders and groups in conflict and peace intervention
is defined in Track 7. Using value-based initiatives, the track considers the supremacy of the creator over
the human family and focus on justice, equality and service to humanity. In plural societies, Track 7 helps
in building bridges across religious divides and mitigates the capacity of radical religious groups. It raises
the understanding on divergent and compatible issues around value-system. But the Track treats religion
as exclusive of other vital conflicting or harmonious issues in a system, and may also become basis for
violent interactions.

Track 8: Funding: The activities of bilateral and multilateral donor communities in conflict and peace
intervention are covered in Track 8. The impact of Track 8 is most felt in emerging democracies and
developing world due to high incidence of poverty and bad governance. Donors either initiate or buy into
peace-building activities for a variety of reasons. These range from promotion of national interest to
conscious desire to overcome poverty and secure lasting improvements in quality of lives.

Track 9: Media: The crucial roles of the opinion molding organ in peace practice are covered by Track
9. The media is a cross cutting issue that affects other tracks and define the context and dynamics of
conflicts. Media conflict reporting plays vital roles in either escalating or de-escalating conflicts. It often
determines and influences the attitudes and behaviour of conflict actors and stakeholders, and could be a
veritable tool for shaping perceptions towards conflict transformation. But, media actors and stakeholders
sometimes become conflict parties for obvious business purposes.

CONCLUSION
It is very difficult, if not impossible, to discuss all the concepts and terms used in a field of study,
especially in a multidisciplinary field such as PCS. The above selected few concepts that beginners may
familiarize themselves with and from advanced to other concepts and terms. A list of some other concepts
and terms are included in the reference section for those who may wish to study more concepts.

References and further readings

Adolf, A. (2009). Peace: a world history. Cambridge: Polity Press.

Aja-Akpuruja, A. (2006). War studies: foundation of defence and strategic studies. Enugu: Keny &
Brothers.

Akpuru-Aja, A. (2007). Basic concepts, issues and strategies of peace and conflict resolution. Enugu:
Kenny and Brothers Enter (Nig).

Akpan, O. (2011). The Niger Delta question and the peace plan. Ibadan: Spectrum Books Limited., p.
xxxii

Bengtsson, R. (2000). The cognitive dimension of stable peace In A.M. Kacowicz (ed) Stable peace
among nations. Oxford: Rowman & Little Field Publishers.

Boulding, K.E. (1978). Stable peace. Texas: University of Texas Press.

Boutros-Ghali, B. (1992). An agenda for peace. New York: United Nations.

Buzan, B. (1991). Peoples, states and fear. Harvester: Wheatsheaf.

Clausewitz, C. (1833/1997) On war. London: Wordsworth.

Collins, A. (2007). Contemporary security studies. Oxford: University Press.

Curle, A. (1971). Making peace. London: Tavistock.

de Soysa, I. and Fjelde, H. (2010). Is the hidden hand an iron fist? Capitalism and civil peace, 1970-2005.
Journal of Peace Research 47 (3): 28-298.

Diamond, L. & Mac Donald, J.W. (1996). Multi-track diplomacy: a systems approach to peace. New
York: Kumarian Press.

Diamond, L. (1994). Beyond win-win: the heroic journey of conflict transformation. Washington,
D.C.: The Institute for Multi-Track Diplomacy

Diamond, L. 2004. Multi-track diplomacy in the 21st century. Available at

http://www.gppac.net/documents/ pbp/parti/6_multit.htm.

Einstein, A. (1968). Einstein on peace. New York: Schocken

Francis, D. J. (2006). Peace and conflict studies: an African overview of basic concepts. In S.G. Best (ed).
Introduction to peace and conflict studies in West Africa: a reader, Ibadan: Spectrum Books Ltd. Pp. 15-
34

Galtung, J. (1975). Three approaches to peace: peacekeeping, peacemaking and peacebuilding. In

Peace, war and defence: essays in peace research, vol.2. Copenhagen: Christian Ejlers, 282-304

Galtung, J. (1990). Cultural violence. Journal of peace research 27 pp291-305

Galtung, J. 1(969). Violence, peace, and peace research. Journal of Peace Research, 6:10-171.

George, A.L. (2000). Foreword. In A.M. Kacowiez, (ed) Stable peace among nations. Oxford:
Rowman & Little Field Publishers.

Horowitz, S. (2007). Mediation. In C. Webel & J. Galtung (eds) Handbook of peace and conflict studies.
London: Sage.
Howard, M. (1971). Problem of a disarmed world. In. Studies in War and Peace. New York: Vicking
Press.

Ibeanu, O. (2006). Conceptualising peace. In. Introduction to peace and conflict studies in West Africa,
S.G.Best, (ed.) Ibadan: Spectrum Books Ltd. pp 1-14.

Igwe O. (2007). Globe dictionary of politics. Enugu: Keny & Brothers.

Ihejirika, S., Iyamah, M., Mbagwu, J. & Albert, I.O. 2001. Conflict management training manual.
Kaduna: Conflict Resolution
Stakeholders’ Network (CRESNET).

Jeong, H. (2000). Peace and conflict studies: an introduction. Aldershot: Ashgate

Kerr, P. (2007). Human security. In A. Collins (ed) Contemporary security studies. Oxford: University
Press, pp. 91-108

King, L.M. (1986). A testament of hope: the essential writing of Martin Luther King J.R. Oxford: Oxford
University Press.

Lederach, J.P (1995). Preparing for peace: conflict transformation across cultures. New York: Syracuse.

McDonald, J.W. (2004). Using multi-track diplomacy to deal with ethnic conflict. Available at
www.promotingpeace.org/2004/McDONALD.HTML

Miall H. (2004) Conflict transformation: A multidimensional task. In. Berghof handbook for conflict
transformation.

Miller, B. (2001). The global sources of regional transitions from war to peace. Journal of Peace
Research 38: 199-225
Miller, C. (2005). A Glossary of terms and concepts in peace and conflict studies. 2nd ed. Addis
Ababa: University for Peace Africa Programme.

Nwolise, O.B.C. (2009). Peace and security. In. Praxis of political concepts & clichés in Nigeria’s fourth
republic-essays in honour of Dr. Muazu Babangida Aliyu. Ibadan: Bookcraft. Pp. 245-278
Olarinde, N. (2009). Multi-track diplomacy and sustainable peace-building in Nigeria. In. I.O.
Albert (ed) Praxis of political concepts & cliches in Nigeria’s fourth republic: an essay in honour of
Dr Mu’azu Babangida Aliyu. Ibadan: Bookcraft

Ramsbotham, O., Woodhouse, T. and Miall, H. (2011). Contemporary conflict resolution, (3rd ed.)
Cambridge: Polity Press.

Thakur, R. and Newman, E. (2004). Broadening Asia’s security and discourse agenda. Tokyo: United
Nations University Press.

Trostle, T. quoted in Sandy, R.L. and Perkin, R. (2003) The nature of peace and its implications for
peace education. Available at http://02plymouth.edu/- isandy/peacedef.html. accessed 23 October,
2014.

Vayrynen, R. (ed) (1991). Perspectives on the resolution of national and international conflicts in new
directions in conflict theory: conflict resolution and conflict transformation. London: Sage
Publications

Webel, C. (2007). Introduction: toward a philosophy and metapsychology of peace. In. Webel, C. and
Galtung, J. (eds) Handbook of peace and conflict studies. London: Routledge

Wolfers, A. (1962). Discord and collaboration. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins Press.