Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-rdxmf Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-25T13:43:07.696Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Paradigms in conflict: the strategist, the conflict researcher and the peace researcher

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  26 October 2009

A. J. R. Groom
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The purpose of this article is to compare three approaches to conflict, those of the ‘strategist’, the ‘conflict researcher’ and the ‘peace researcher’. Strategic studies, our starting point, are usually seen exclusively within the framework of power politics and the manipulation of threat systems. This approach to conflict is clearly of great importance, especially as it is the one most frequently adopted by decision-makers. It is not, however, the only possible approach, and the lineage of each of the three approaches can be traced back to antiquity.

Type
Research Article
Information
Review of International Studies , Volume 14 , Issue 2 , April 1988 , pp. 97 - 115
Copyright
Copyright © British International Studies Association 1988

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1. Keymes, J. M., The General Theory of Employment, Interest, and Money (London, 1936), p. 383.Google Scholar

2. For an alternative formulation see Alker, Hayward and Biersteker, Thomas, ‘The Dialectics of World Order: Notes for a Future Archaeologist of International Savoir Faire’, International Studies Quarterly (June 1984)CrossRefGoogle Scholar. For a further elaboration of the paradigm adopted here see Banks, Michael, ‘The Inter-Paradigm Debate’, in Light, Margot and Groom, A. J. R. (eds.), International Relations: A Handbook of Current Theory (London, 1985).Google Scholar

3. Carr, E. H., The Twenty Years Crisis: 1919–1939 (London, 1981)Google Scholar, and Schwarzenberger, Georg, Power Politics (London, 1964)Google Scholar.

4. Morgenthau, Hans J., Politics among Nations (New York, 1959), pp. 30–31.Google Scholar

5. Ibid., p. 8.

6. Ibid., p. 25.

7. Ibid., p. 26.

8. Burton first set out his conception of world society in three works, Systems, States, Diplomacy and Rules (Cambridge, 1968)Google Scholar, World Society (London, 1972)Google Scholar, The Study of World Society: A London Perspective (Pittsburgh, International Studies Association Monograph, No. 1, 1974)Google Scholar. His more recent views stressing the role of the individual as the basic unit of analysis can be found in Deviance, Terrorism and War (Oxford, 1979)Google Scholar, Dear Survivors (London, 1983)Google Scholar, and Global Conflict (Brighton, 1984)Google Scholar. For a brief overview see J. W. Burton in Light and Groom, op. cit.

9. Richard Little, ‘Structuralism and Neo-Realism’, in Light and Groom, op. cit., p. 76.

10. See Waltz, Kenneth, Theory of International Politics (London, 1979)Google Scholar, and Keohane, Robert (ed.), Neorealism and its Critics (New York, 1986)Google Scholar.

11. For a telling critique of neo-realism see Ashley's, Richard contribution to a ‘Symposium on the New Realism’, in International Organization, 38 (Spring 1984)Google Scholar.

12. For an analysis of Wallerstein and the dependencia literature see Chris Brown, ‘Development and Dependency’, in Light and Groom, op. cit.

13. See Johnson, Chamers, Revolutionary Change (Boston, 1966)Google Scholar, Huntington, Samuel P., Political Order in Changing Societies (London, 1966)Google Scholar, Eckstein, Harry (ed.), Internal War (London, 1964)Google Scholar, Gurr, Ted R., Why Men Rebel (Princeton, 1970)Google Scholar, Guevara, Che, Guerrilla Warfare (Harmondsworth, 1969)Google Scholar, Thompson, Sir Robert, Defeating Communist Insurgency (London, 1966)Google Scholar, Marighella, Carlos, ‘Mini-manual of the Urban Guerrilla’ (London, International Institute for Strategic Studies, 1971)Google Scholar, appendix; Kitson, Frank, Low Intensity Operations (London, 1971)Google Scholar, to name some who first moved in this direction.

14. See Halperin, Morton H., Bureaucratic Politics and Foreign Policy (Washington, 1974)Google Scholar.

15. See Booth, Ken, Strategy and Ethnocentrism (London, 1979).Google Scholar

16. Lawrence, Philip K., ‘Nuclear strategy and political theory: a critical assessment’, Review of International Studies, Vol. 11, No. 2, April 1985, p. 118.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

17. See Groom, A. J. R., ‘Problem-Solving in International Relations’, in Azar, Edward E. and Burton, John W. (eds.), International Conflict Resolution (Brighton, 1986)Google Scholar.

18. Burton, J. W., ‘The Means to Agreement: Power or Values?’ (Washington, DC, March 1985), p. 23Google Scholar, mimeo.

19. Burton has set out the differences clearly in tabular form from the analytical point of view in the practical terms of the intervention in a conflict by a mediator or facilitator. See Burton, John W., ‘About Winning’, International Interactions, Vol. 12, No. 1 (1986), pp. 87–91.Google Scholar

20. For a discussion of these problems see Groom, A. J. R., ‘Conflict Analysis and the Arab-Israeli Conflict’, in Barber, James, Negro, Josephine and Smith, Michael (eds.), Politics between States: Conflict and Cooperation (Milton Keynes, 1975)Google Scholar.

21. In his interesting article on positive sanctions David Baldwin discusses their comparative neglect in international relations and strategy as well as analysing their means of application and their effect. See his ‘The Power of Positive Sanctions’, World Politics, xxiv, 1 (October 1971)Google Scholar, and more recently his Economic Statecraft (Princeton, 1985)Google Scholar.

22. For synopses of the behaviouralist and post-behaviouralist positions see Easton, David in Charlesworth, James C. (ed.), Contemporary Political Analysis (London, 1967)Google Scholar, and Easton, David, ‘The New Revolution in Political Science’, American Political Science Review, vol. LXIII, No. 4 (December 1969)Google Scholar.

23. Galtung, Johan, Essays in Peace Research, Vol. I (Copenhagen, 1975), p. 256.Google Scholar

24. Helge Hveem, ‘Peace Research and its Institutionalization’, Fourth General IPRA Conference, Bled, Yugoslavia, October 1971, mimeo, pp. 8–9.

25. For an example of this general approach see Schmid, Hermann, ‘Politics and Peace Research’, Journal of Peace Research, March 1968.CrossRefGoogle Scholar For a penetrating comment see Carroll, Berenice A., ‘Peace Research: The Cult of Power’, Journal of Conflict Resolution, Vol. XVI, No. 4 (December 1972)Google Scholar.

26. See Groom, A. J. R. and Webb, Keith, ‘Injustice, Empowerment and Facilitation in Conflict’, International Interactions, Vol. 13, No. 3 (1987)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.