Lectures Introduction to Conflict Studies
Lecture 1: What is conflict?
What is conflict?
It is very difficult to define conflict. Conflict in itself is a rather abstract term. And this is why
we need adjectives: armed conflict, violent conflict, latent conflict etc.
● The pursuit of incompatible goals by different actors
Conflict analysis models
In this course we will try to make sense of conflict by using theories to get a more structured
answer to the questions that we have
● Models to analyse/understand conflicts
● Difference in focus
● Always a simplified version of reality
○ Simplifications are necessary, since conflicts are very complex
● We provide you with 5 models, each of which looks at conflict from a particular angle
○ → Levy, Jeong, Galtung, DFID, Azar
New and old wars
According to Mary Kaldor there is a difference between the armed conflicts that we see
nowadays compared to conflicts before the end of the Cold War.
What are old wars?
Kaldor’s ideas about conflict are influenced by the writings of Carl von Clausewitz
War made the state, and vice versa
One of the most famous conceptualisations of what war is comes from his writings because
he presented warfare as a political instrument. If there is a conflict between different
communities, for example over natural resources, there are various ways to go about this
conflict. You can have a discussion, diplomacy. You can have economic sanctions at your
disposal. There are all kinds of ways of dealing with this and according to Von Clausewitz,
one of the instruments that states have at their disposal is warfare/ armed conflict. And this
is a very instrumental view of conflict.
1
,Peace of Westphalia
● 1648
Two wars came to an end: the Eighty Years' War and the Thirty Years' War. Two peace
agreements were signed in the German region.
● Emergence of international system of states
And these peace agreements are very important to understand contemporary international
relations. At that time we saw the emergence of an international system of states.
Agreements were made that formed the basis of the international system that we have
nowadays.
● Set of regulations to curb anarchy:
○ Territorial integrity
There are borders and within those borders you have state institutions. One state is not
allowed to interfere in the affairs of another state.
○ Sovereignty
Within the borders state institutions should be able to decide over their own future. At that
time, religion was a very important element.
○ Equality
States are equal
The emergence of states
Why did states come into being? Three explanations:
● 1. The main (re-)distributor of welfare and social justice
● 2. As the political representation of its constituents
● 3. The main provider of security:
(1) internal order (police, judiciary)
(2) protecting external borders (military)
Charles Tilly: Protection rackets
Example: You open up a new restaurant. At the opening a group of men with baseball bats
come in and say: ‘hey nice restaurant. Would be awful if something bad happened
here...Why don’t you pay us $400 a month and we’ll make sure that nothing happens’
→ Protection rackets
There is this so-called security that is being provided but at the same time there is this veiled
threat. Charles Tilly argues that the same thing is happening with states, just on a bigger
scale. We pay taxes in exchange for protection. And the state has the monopoly on the use
of violence. If you don’t pay taxes you’ll end up in jail. So also in states there is this not so
explicit veiled threat of violence as well.
Can I get out of this contract with the state? No you can’t!
→ So there is a form of coercion
● Protection
● War made states
○ Conflict over resources between polities
2
, ■ Lords, vassals and land (fief)
In his book Tilly described the process in feudal times where lords protected vassals in
exchange for part of the produce or money. This protection was usually against other
political communities. There were conflicts between different polities over resources and in
this these lords played a crucial role.
○ State institutions: centralisation, taxation
○ Innovations: expensive; big polities remained
The bigger these communities became, the more difficult it was to provide services, but also
to tax these communities. Conflicts also became more expensive. The biggest and most
powerful communities remained. And eventually these larger communities became the
foundation of what was formalised in 1648.
The emergence of states
Max Weber (20th century): an entity is a state “if and insofat as its administrative staff
successfully upholds a claim on the ‘monompoly of the legitimate use of physical force’ in the
enforcement of its order.”
Ibn Khaldun (14th century): Government: “an institution which prevents injustice other than
such as it commits itself”
The social contract → Hobbes, Locke Rousseau
For a long time, armed conflict (war) has been waged by states (or state actors). It has
increasingly been regulated, but in this particular context.
Geneva conventions
United Nations (Security Council)
Treaties on anti-personnel landmines, chemical weapons, etc.
Clausewitzean Wars (according to Kaldor)
● Actors: National armies or state-financed rebels/mercenaries
● Motivation: Geopolitical (security, guarding borders), expanding territory, ideology,
resources to support public/growth, strengthening war economy
● Spatial context: Battlefields (trenches)
● Human impact (victims): Mainly soldiers
● Economics: Payed with tax money
● Time frame: Declaration of war, conflict, peace truce agreement
New Wars
● Actors: more non-state actors
● Motivation: identity politics, religion, personal financial gain
● Spatial context: everywhere, guerilla warfare
● Human impact (victims): majority civilians
3
, ● Economics: warlords, illicit trade, smuggling
● Time frame: open-ended
● (Means: more advanced versus more rudimentary)
Criticism on ‘new wars’ thesis
● Are new wars really ‘new’?
○ In past wars, civilians have also died (bombings Germany, burning down of
villages, holocaust)
○ Wars have also taken place in cities before, and not just in designated battle
fields
○ Smuggling and illicit trade have also always been part of conflict
○ The Crusades were about identity
→ No, new wars are not necessarily new
Kaldor’s argument is that we may have seen these things before. But the combination
thereof is perhaps somewhat new
● Are new wars really ‘wars’?
The answer to this question really depends on what your definition of war is.
● Newman (2004): Is there a factual change, or is there a change of perception?
→ empirical critique
Nowadays the way that we perceive conflict is way different than before. Before, people
would only see what the government wanted them to see. While now, people are able to
watch live on television how the war plays out. It is a different way of perceiving conflict.
● Kalyvas (2001): Is there a factual change or is it a biased attempt at categorisation
and labelling? → empirical and methodological critique
○ Both recent and historical civil wars have been misinterpreted (bias,
incomplete information) e.g. violence
How are we interpreting and how are we understanding data that we use to understand
historical warfare? That has a lot to do with how we categorise and label violence.
New wars
But after criticism, Kaldor acknowledges:
contest of wills ⇔ mutual enterprise
What Kaldor says is one of the things new wars theory offers is the understanding that many
contemporary conflicts differ from older conflicts based on what Von Clausewitz wrote.
Von Clausewitz, when he was describing warfare as a political instrument, he was describing
a contest of wills. So you have two actors that are in war and one has to win and one has to
lose. So you go to the extremes to make sure that you win and that the other one loses.
4
