War and reconciliation

Reconciliation between countries following a war or a series of wars has attracted little scholarly attention as a phenomenon to be studied even though it receives journalistic coverage and past cases of reconciliation have been extensively described. This paper uses four international events datasets to explore whether reconciliation events have a discernible impact on the relations between countries, and if so, the nature of that impact. The paper describes the objectives of this project, the hypotheses tested, the data used, and the results obtained. The results suggest that reconciliation events have an impact, at least in some cases. However, limitations of the data constrain what can be asserted. The paper then discusses how to continue this research by linking to other research questions and theoretical schools and by focusing our next study on eight cases.

This chapter attempts to provide a basic framework for a sociology of ethnic conflict and reconciliation in deeply divided societies which have suffered from ethnic-related violence. 1 Despite the specialised knowledge and literature on the subject, ethnic conflict and reconciliation has received relatively little attention in sociological debates.

Daniel Moya Urueña (ed.), Sociedades en transición y construcción de paz - Desafíos y perspectivas, 2021

This chapter inquires the (psycho)social capacities of people in post-conflict societies, like hope and forgiveness, that may foster the willingness to engage in inclusive encounters across ethnic or religious divides. Such encounters are needed to deconstruct enemy images and to build trust. Trust is the basic condition for moving beyond mere co-existence into a process of reconciliation involving mutual respect and acknowledgment. Surprisingly enough in many post-conflict areas such (psycho)social capacities are especially strong in first-generation survivors. It appears that those immediately affected are often more willing to forgive than those in later generations. First-generation survivors appear to be more empathic towards erstwhile enemies and also more hopeful that the future will be better. Unfortunately, in second- or third generations the lack of a sense of justice, due to enduring economic disparities and power inequalities, often fosters strong resentment and bitterness. Retributive justice via Criminal Tribunals, though important for stopping impunity, is not what these younger generations ask for, neither does it align with the needs and desires of most first-generation survivors. In nearly all contexts religion appears to play an ambiguous role, sometimes motivating believers to resist reconciliation or even to hinder the investigation of atrocities committed, sometimes enabling them to display an astonishing magnanimity in forgiving others and a willingness to work for a better future. Religious teachings and narratives may motivate believers to show empathy and be hopeful, while religious practices may have empowering effects.

We all know that two world wars were caused to a large degree by territorial, colonial, naval and economic disputes between the Great Powers of Europe, but the quarrels of the smaller states had their share in their conflicts. Learning from the follies committed and determined never to repeat them, solid institutions were established after 1945: the Council of Europe, NATO and the Common Market growing into the European Union.

Social Psychological and Personality Science , 2021

Whether attitudes towards post-conflict justice and reconciliation are complementary or contradictory has been long debated. We posit that the answer to this question is context-dependent. Multilevel analyses of two large-scale surveys among war-affected communities in the former Yugoslavia (total N=11,843), combined with geo-coded data on conflict events, demonstrate that a crucial contextual determinant is the prevalence of asymmetric violence in communities: The more a community was exposed to events of asymmetric violence, which disproportionately affect one group, the more support for justice was linked to rejecting reconciliation. These findings were conceptually replicated with two different data sets and different operationalizations of justice and reconciliation attitudes. Conversely, in one study, the more a community was exposed to symmetric violence, which affects members of all adversary groups, the more justice and reconciliation were perceived as compatible. This study shows the importance of a contextualized approach to understanding intergroup attitudes in post-conflict settings.

Intractable intergroup conflicts require the formation of a conflictive ethos that enables a society to adapt to the conflict situation, survive the stressful period, and struggle successfully with the adversary. The formal termination of such a conflict begins with the elimination of the perceived incompatibility between the opposing parties through negotiation by their representatives-that is, a conflict resolution process. But this is only part of the long-term reconciliation process, which requires the formation of peaceful relations based on mutual trust and acceptance, cooperation, and consideration of mutual needs. The psychological aspect of reconciliation requires a change in the conflictive ethos, especially with respect to societal beliefs about group goals, about the adversary group, about the ingroup, about intergroup relations, and about the nature of peace. In essence, psychological reconciliation requires the formation of an ethos of peace, but this is extremely difficult in cases of intractable conflict. Political psychologists can and should work to improve the state of knowledge about reconciliation, which until now has received much less attention than conflict resolution.

There is today a well-established consensus that belligerents must be disarmed in order to reconstruct shattered states and establish a robust and durable peace in the wake of internal armed conflict. Indeed, nearly every UN peacekeeping intervention since the end of the Cold War has included disarmament provisions in its mandate. Disarmament is guided by the arrestingly simple premise that weapons cause conflict and, therefore, must be eradicated for a civil conflict to end. If the means by which combatants fight are eliminated, it is thought, actors will have little choice but to commit to peace. Disarmament is, therefore, considered a necessary condition for establishing the lasting conditions for peace. To date, however, no systematic quantitative analysis has been undertaken of the practice of disarmament and the causal mechanisms remain underspecified. This paper is a preliminary attempt to fill that gap. In it we outline a series of hypotheses with which to run future statistical analyses on the effects of disarmament programs. The success of negotiations and the durability of peace are, perhaps, the single most salient issues concerning those engaged in conflict termination efforts. We therefore focus the bulk of this paper on a review of the supposed effects of disarmament on negotiating outcomes and war recurrence.

2013

"Many authors have explored the reasons behind conflict recurrence and a range of theories abound. One area which has not been explored in any great detail is the effect of disarmament programmes. This paper theorises that disarmament agreements can reduce the chances of conflict recurrence in two ways. Firstly, it argues that disarmament agreements, government-side disarmament, and third-party support for disarmament implementation can reduce the effect of the commitment problem between previously warring parties, encouraging more pacific relations and reducing the risk that conflict will recur. Secondly, disarmament agreements including an element of 'public' disarmament, such as public ceremonies or awareness campaigns, can reduce the effect of 'cultures of violence', which in turn should have a positive effect by reducing the chances of conflict recurrence. This paper tests the above arguments by using statistical analysis through a serious of logit regressions. The results indicate some evidence to support the argument that the reduction of commitment problems, through implementing government-side disarmament and with the support of third-parties, can help to reduce the chances of conflict recurring. However evidence to support the importance of disarmament agreements alone is not forthcoming, nor does there appear to be support for the idea that public disarmament reduces the chance of conflict recurrence. This paper presents some early evidence to support the idea the idea that disarmament can be effective at reducing the chances of conflict recurrence; however further research, especially larger-n studies and deeper qualitative research, is essential to ensure this theory is subject to further scrutiny."