The Importance of Making Amends in the Resolution of Conflict Escalated by Supremacy and Trauma. By Emmanuel Finbarr Tizhe.

Note on how to cite this journal:

Author, Date of the post, WMO Conflict Insight, Title of the post,  ISSN: 2628-6998, https://worldmediation.org/conflict-insight 

The author is reachable at emmafinbar@yahoo.com. He is a Catholic Priest of the Diocese of Maiduguri, Borno State, Nigeria. Currently serving in the Diocese of Gaylord, Michigan, USA. A Ph.D student in Mediation and Conflict Resolution (DMCR) Euclid University.

1)         Introduction

Conflict, in general, can be defined as a disagreement or dispute between parties about particular interests, values, or ideas.  The conflict could be due to each party trying to protect its position in the argument with the hope of emerging victorious over the other.  It is common in our day-to-day lives to experience differences in people’s views and opinions regarding some issue.  Sometimes quarrels and outbursts of anger may ensue which result in physical assaults or skirmishes.  When individuals, communities, or groups project their positions as more acceptable than others, conflict is bound to happen. This adversely affects the relationship and interaction among those involved.

This is often the case when one group claims superiority over another in a dispute and makes the other party feel inferior.  A victim in a conflict can become traumatized because of the experience and continue to see a reoccurrence of conflict in every similar situation.  Circumstances like these can exacerbate conflicts due to the potential of developing hatred, holding grudges, and possibly seeking revenge by one of the parties.

In working toward a resolution, understanding why a conflict started is of utmost importance.  Furthermore, knowing each party’s interests and values can pave a path leading to both parties achieving their goals.  If harm has been caused, it is essential to make amends and restitution for the pain that was inflicted.  Often this involves a third party as it mediates between those in discord.  The purpose is to help the participants see each other’s positions in the dispute from an enlightened perspective.  When this is done with open minds, the parties can better understand each other’s needs and formulate a mutually beneficial resolution while redressing any harm that was done.

In this main paper, I will state the nature of the study’s problem, give a brief historical background, and state reasons why disagreements occur.  Then I will discuss factors responsible for conflicts.  After that, I will reflect on how supremacy and trauma can escalate conflicts before I discuss the role of making amends in resolving conflict. Finally, I will offer my evaluation and proposals before I write my conclusion.

2)         Statement of the Problem

Disagreements usually emerge from differences in views regarding interests, needs, values, and/or ideas.  Sometimes arguments can be quickly resolved, while other times, any solution can be extremely difficult to reach.  A firm and fair resolution can be a challenge between parties when none of them is ready to change its position or open up to truly understanding the other’s views.  When those involved are not willing to listen and dialogue about a possible resolution, a rigid standoff is inevitable.  Unfortunately, it is all too common to see one verbally attack the other, make every effort to push its view as being unequivocally correct, and stubbornly maintain that the opposition is quite simply wrong.

In every conflict, the focus of the disputants is to achieve the purpose for which they stand.  That is, to arrive at some form of positive result in favor of one’s point of view.  In the traditional approach to managing a conflict, the outcome is usually a win-lose, clear-cut judgment.[1]  But from the understanding-based approach, it is a win-win because parties understand each side’s desires to achieve their particular goals.  It allows them to be open and receptive to making adjustments and working together to achieve such interests.[2]

Understandably, many factors can be responsible for conflicts erupting among parties.  Definitely, the influence of supremacy and trauma can escalate a conflict.  Yet, making amends for a wrong done can help restore the relationship and respect for each party by taking responsibility for an offense committed.

3)         Context of Study

When discussing conflict, the most salient feature reflects the disagreement that emerges between parties.  A dispute erupts when each of the participants feels convinced about its position regarding an issue.  The argument is in defense of its stand at all cost, too often making simple situations more complicated than expected.

In some conflicts, challenges are faced which could have been resolved amicably if caution had been taken to understand each other’s interests, ideas, values and/or needs. A significant difficulty experienced in disagreements that can even cause harm to a party is the misperception of each of the participants’ views.  One’s perception determines the understanding of what a conflict is and how one responds.  This affects the reactions of those directly involved in the misunderstanding or those who are only spectators.  More often than not such misguided responses cause more damage than good in resolving the matter.  Ideally, those involved in the dispute are responsible for helping each other have a clearer view of the contested issue to counter the role of overstating harm in the conflict instead of using it to back up their cruel reactions.[3]

The idea of parties sticking to their views and refusing to change their story to integrate other people’s reasoning to be enlightened about an issue only makes achieving a fruitful resolution of the conflict more difficult.  In many instances, parties begin to conceive the notion of being hurt as victims.  Their reaction then becomes that of a punishing one rather than finding a way to resolve a problem more constructively.  They try to influence the issue negatively and do not give chances for their ideologies to be challenged by anyone.  Such people hardly accept their wrongdoing even when they are at fault.  Instead, they always seem to see others as the offenders.[4]

Conflict in itself can be widely diverse and can be categorized into disputes that take place between individuals, groups, or communities.[5] Instead of parties realizing that conflict is bound to happen in every society in the different categories indicated, they often conceptualize themselves as victims who have been attacked, claiming harm.[6] Misunderstanding usually is a confirmation of the diversity in a society.  On the other hand, being open to understanding one another is the best way to build a lasting beneficial relationship that will impact all parties favorably.

Conflicts can range from being an ordinary quarrel to a protracted war and anything in between.  As mentioned before, different reasons, ideas, values, needs, and actions of people in society can lead to contested and opposing incompatibilities.  Nevertheless, not all disputes end in a fight.  However, when a disagreement does evolve into violent activity among people in communities, it could very well be that one party feels neglected in its society.  Matters of human dignity, economic stability and/or opportunity, political access, and power might not have been shared equitably.  All humans deserve and desire to be treated fairly and justly in society.  Inequality is eliminated when the offended party receives the same reasonable rights given to others. Thus, the need to be recognized, which led to the volatile violence, is terminated when those involved are content with acquiring access and rights given to all others.[7]

Generally, a lack of agreement on issues attracts the attention of others.  As such people often take advantage of certain circumstances for their own purposes.  Others get involved because they want to protect themselves, their economy, or their extended interests.[8]  Such people come into a conflict to support a particular side from which they can benefit or form a new party for their self-interests.  This can prolong a conflict and can cause more destruction and obstacles in trying to reach a resolution.

Obviously, complexities with variable intricacies make it more challenging to find suitable and agreeable solutions.  Conflicts become complex by the number of the parties involved, making the challenges even more complicated to arrive at a settlement through negotiations, mediation, or other interventions.  Sometimes, two or more conflicts can be occurring simultaneously in different areas yet be intertwined.  They may actually develop into regional complex disputes if they are in the same geographical area.  Excellent examples are the wars stretching across Africa from Angola to Eritrea.

There are also global complexities in conflicts whereby a less than profound dispute becomes interconnected and more pronounced due to the involvement of major world powers. Their interference often makes situations worse.[9]  The complex nature of regional crises makes them harder to resolve, unlike simple unintrusive disputes.

For parties to achieve their goals through a mutual resolution there has to be collaboration between them to settle their dispute.  They have to be flexible and seek understanding by listening to each other’s needs, interests, and goals.  It is also necessary for them to accept and acknowledge their weaknesses and be ready to rectify or redress them in a conflict situation.  When parties have such motivation, they can achieve benefits and learn from their misunderstandings.[10]

4)         Factors Responsible for Conflicts

Normally, what leads to conflict is misunderstanding, misinterpretation, or misperception among parties.  Many factors in everyday lives are responsible for the problems in society.  Interestingly, cordial relationships among people of different backgrounds and ideologies can be achieved by saying and doing things that can unite them and avoiding that which separates them.

Factors that contribute to causing conflict include the passage of information through words, gestures, writings, and attitudes.  When people communicate so that the language used is not respectful to another party, it can lead to conflict.  The message being conveyed can easily be misunderstood by another when cultural contexts differ in words.[11]

When information is being conveyed, attitude can also be an issue, especially if it makes one party feel inferior to another.  It could be by shunning a person based on past prejudice or stereotyping due to cultural affiliation.[12]  Resolving a conflict in a more appropriate and considerate manner can eliminate the perceived victim from feeling harmed.

False accusations can also lead to the unjust punishment of an innocent party because of unilateral interpretations of an issue.  This can happen when no opportunity has been given for one to explain or clarify a situation.  This gives the impression of one being victimized in a conflict that might otherwise have been resolved if both sides of the story had been told.[13]

Societal needs are other factors responsible for some disputes.  Conflict in society usually results from the inability to meet the people’s demands and relate with the citizens’ way of life in the community or state.[14]  Conflicts and violent activities occur in society when essential needs, including economic, security, identity, recognition, and community needs, are not met and cause harm in people’s lives.[15]  When the people are deprived of the rights that give them autonomy, they can easily revolt.  The grievance of the sense of injustice threatens and can incite them to act aggressively.  Being frustrated and overwrought can lead to harsh and fierce behavior among people as well.  When the autonomy of the group is restored, peace can return.[16]

Control of power is also a contributing factor that leads to war, especially where leaders presume dominance over other nations by being assertive.[17]  When civil wars or conflicts occur within a country, they are almost always about controlling government power.  The reality about this is that it has the same global picture with many faces. Control of government power within a state has international implications, especially when an organization or another nation is concerned about the change of power in a neighboring, near-by, or otherwise interconnected country.  The possibility of the intra-state crisis can produce an international war when other nations are against a country’s interference in the domestic affairs of others.  The impacted nation(s) can quickly attack the interfering government, supporting the opposing side of the crisis in the civil unrest.  In fact, global terrorism has its roots in internal conflicts which extend beyond borders via the interference of other countries.[18]

Other factors responsible for conflicts can be termed environmental factors.  These have to do with everything that has a connection with the surroundings of people in the community and with what the people identify and claim as their property.  Included in these environmental factors are territorial boundaries, geographical location of resources, and damage to land and water supply sources.

  • Territorial Boundaries

Dispute over territory has been a factor in the history of wars since ancient times and has been the cause of many domestic and international conflicts.  For example, the most common debate in an oil region is the issue of ownership where the product is deposited.[19]  Territorial fights are found both inland and offshore.  A long-standing continuous contention about offshore territorial boundaries surrounds that of the Caspian Sea.  The five leading nations involved in the conflict are Azerbaijan, Iran, Kazakhstan, Russia, and Turkmenistan.  Each tries to claim a large portion of the sea to drill oil for itself.  This has been an exceedingly challenging and complicated issue to resolve.[20]

From the earliest stages in history, leaders’ expansionist spirit to acquire more territories for themselves has been a cause of many wars.  Unfortunately, it has lead to the collapse of people’s lives and properties.[21]  Slovenia and Croatia’s secession was much easier than that of Bosnia because they had a clear distinction of which section of their country fell under their territorial boundary.  On the other hand, Bosnia’s multi-ethnic nature made boundary protection arduous and made its secession bloody and protracted until NATO intervened.[22]

  • Geographical Location of Resources

The geographical location of resources can lead to conflicts in areas that threaten the security of various nations.  Those involved in the distribution of oil, which is closely related to the political environment, can experience difficulty with production and transit to the consumption destination.[23]  This is due to the concentration of oil around the same region.  It is said that about ten percent of the world’s oil is in fourteen countries and highly concentrated in five leading producer nations: Saudi, Iraq, UAE, Kuwait, and Iran.[24]

Since the oil is located mainly in the same area, its availability is closely tied to the non-producing nations’ political and socio-economic relations.  These nations depend entirely on the country with the products to address the needs of their government.  To be sure, if any conflict affects the producer nations, it consequently affects the consumer nations’ security.[25]  Violence can also erupt when there is a shortage in supply of the needed resources because it inflicts hardship on the citizens of the dependent nations.[26]

  • Damage to Lands or Water Supply Sources

One of the effects of extracting natural resources is the damage it can cause to community land or sources of water supply.[27]  It becomes a problem when people depend on these resources for their livelihood, whether for food, drinking, or commercial purposes.[28]  In one way or another, the damage devastates the lives and livelihoods of the people.  Without a doubt, the environmental effect of extracting industrial minerals from land can be highly damaging.  The process can contaminate drinking water and kill aquatic life, including fish, often a community’s primary source of food and income.[29]

Another danger experienced from resource exploitation is its effects on food production.[30]  This is often the case in mining for certain elements as the process can damage the land significantly.  Because the topsoil has been destroyed by chemicals or large mining holes, cultivating plants and crops becomes impossible.[31]  Deforestation and erosion further endanger agricultural productivity.  When this happens, it becomes a direct threat to food production since it affects the land.[32]  These adverse effects can trigger conflicts as the citizenry strive to protect their interests, values, and way of life.

5)         Roles of Supremacy and Trauma in Escalating Conflict

Escalation in a conflict refers to the source that influences and heightens the problem.  These are the forces that complicate the disagreement between the parties in a conflict.  They contribute to having an issue misrepresented to the point of being considered harmful to the other party.  When a misunderstanding is allowed to escalate, it deprives the parties of reflecting on the possible cause(s) of conflict.  Instead of confronting the shortcomings of one’s self, families, friends, cliques, individual or group, accusing fingers are pointed at other people.  The role of a victim is then assumed as external forces are allowed to escalate a situation that might have been resolved easily.[33]

Two primary sources of escalation that influence disputes are supremacy and trauma.  When parties claim to be superior to another in a conflict, the lesser class is bound to be treated unjustly.  This can be through the presumed superior party’s actions, refusing to accept and apologize to the lower one even when harm has been done.  They may shun the inferior party from any form of interaction to resolve the fracturing contention.

In the case of trauma, it can be challenging for the victim to adjust to the harm caused and continuously make the wounded see the other as an enemy.[34]  This is because traumatic situations often leave people feeling they have been victimized and treated unjustly.[35]

A party that claims superiority over another in a disagreement always has the feeling that they deserve special treatment, especially when it comes to terms of right and wrong.  Regrettably, such a party belittles others but cannot stand any form of criticism from anybody. They often use sarcasm or cruelty to destroy others, and their understanding of one’s emotional life is shallow.  They do not consider themselves as people who can make mistakes; others do.[36]

Trauma, in its part, usually affects the behavior of the victim that was harmed. This can result from a single event or ongoing and cumulative events.[37]  People living with untreated trauma often behave in very similar ways to the people who traumatized them.  They refuse to hear or engage in information that would alter their self-concepts even in ways that could bring more happiness and integrity to them. [38]  Trauma is an emotional response to a deeply disturbing or distressing event or personal experience.  It can leave the afflicted one with long-term reactions including unpredictable emotions and flashbacks of events.[39]  In his video presentation, Chris clearly stated that people are often left with trauma from a war which affects the psychology of both those fighting in the battle and those living in the battle area.[40]

In both cases of supremacist and traumatized persons, refusal is a shared feature. While the refusal comes from a sense of entitlement in the case of a supremacist, believing they have an inherent right to something, that of the traumatized is rooted in fear and panic that their fragile self finds nearly unbearable to tolerate.  In some events, the supremacists produce the trauma in others which makes them to be seen as a mirror image that reflects their actions.  So much harm has been caused in a traumatized person that he feels endangered, physically threatened, and extremely frightened even if there is no real adversity at the moment – because of his past experiences.

The supremacist and the traumatized differ in the sense that what feels like a right to the supremacist feels shameful to a traumatized.  Even though there are similar behaviors in both circumstances, such as shunning, blaming, projecting, and refusal to repair, their inner feelings are very different.[41]

The best scenario for resolving these cases might be through trying to understand each parties’ position if at all possible.  The refusal from the supremacist and the traumatized to allow communication to flow between them creates a perpetual negative atmosphere and lack of trust.  However, when the barrier is broken, discussions and explanations can help each understand the other and open the chance of changing and correcting what escalated the conflict.

6)         Making Amends in Conflict Resolution

Finding an alternative to resolve conflict becomes impossible due to refusal to make room for discussion on issues between parties for a fair understanding of each other’s feelings or needs.[42]  For example, when those who should be apologizing for their wrongdoing fail to do so, it can be difficult to achieve progress of any sort.

It is rather unfortunate that instead of the initial gesture to serve as an open door for discussion, which can lead to reconciliation, the supremacists often take it unilaterally to confirm that the one who apologizes is the guilty one making the other one to be right.[43]  According to Schulman, an Australian study published in 2013 found that when people refuse to acknowledge that they had made mistakes, they reap more psychological benefits than those who accept their errors.  The study, she said, shows that people who refused to admit wrongdoing felt greater self-esteem and more in control than those who did apologize, even if they were liars.[44]  This is all about making one’s self feel better. Schulman said,

Repressing information about ourselves or our friends, creating scapegoats to avoid our problems, using shunning to unite a clique and create group identity – all of these make people feel better because it makes them feel superior. But the only way to truly get better is to face and deal with each other, sit down and communicate. And I think the difference between these two choices is determined by the groups (cliques, families, nations) one belongs to. If we are in groups that cannot be self-critical and therefore punish difference, we will join in on the shunning, excluding, and cold-shouldering. But if we are in groups that promote acceptance, intervene to create communication, and recognize that people have contradictions, we will be able to face and deal with the true nature of conflict: that it is participatory and cannot be solved by being cruel, spreading rumors, enacting laws, or incarcerating, invading, and occupying.[45]

When an opportunity is created for communication between the victim and the offender, it helps reduce the anxiety between them and gives room for resolution of their differences.  It is always helpful to understand the reason for people’s actions.  When such is identified, it is possible that one may not solely be blamed for the behavior exhibited.  Interactive discussions can assist in developing alternative methods to deal with offenders and, thereby, benefit both the victim and the transgressor in a conflict. Instead of focusing on punishing people, one can try to find out what exactly led a party into such behavior or reaction.[46]

In making amends, what is most important is understanding how the victim feels from the harm perpetrated.  This is because the conflict has created a wound in whom the damage has been done.  Unless the offending party accepts the responsibility, it might be onerous in striving to arrive at a reasonable resolution.  An offender, therefore, should be able to admit fault and be ready to face the victim while agreeing to make reparation.  In this way, the relationship might be restored, and parties might be able to respect and work with each other again.[47]

7)         Evaluation and Proposal

Conflict can be a confusing term by nature because it represents various situations depending on what the case may be at a particular moment.  It also leads to disruption in the natural flow of relationships between parties.[48]  The conflict may be a violent or nonviolent one.  It could be among two parties or within a single individual.  A conflict could be intra-state or inter-states.  Various forms of misunderstanding or disagreement can cause severe pain and anguish both physically and psychologically.

When conflicts occur, it does not necessarily mean that the relationship must cease or that respect has been totally lost between those involved.  Rather, parties should be open to understanding the diversity of human nature and the needs in their society. This helps them live and work with dignity and participate collaboratively for each other’s benefit.[49]  Human uniqueness informs and instructs a person’s reaction to a situation as he sees and understands it from his personal perspective.

More often than not, people engage in disagreement because they want to protect their interests.  Even when they seem to show support to another party in a conflict, it is simply because they focus on a specific target that benefits them in some shape or from the party they are backing.  In such cases, the dispute can become complex as opposed to remaining a relatively simple situation that could have been resolved quickly.

For parties to achieve their intended outcome in a conflict situation, each of them must be flexible about their position.  This will require their readiness to listen and understand each other’s needs and willingness to make adjustments.  In this way, both parties will have the opportunity to benefit from the conflict even when it means not getting all that one desired.  Thus, parties can maintain their relationship and have respect for each other.[50]

Parties should be able to acknowledge their struggles in a conflict and be ready to move toward a resolution.  A third party may be invited to intervene to help them understand how they can work together to succeed in resolving their misunderstanding. Although the parties’ approach to the dispute may be from differing reference points, they need to focus on what is most important to them in a crisis, such as a sense of fairness, interest, and relationship.[51]

It is important to note that in conflict resolutions, the acceptance of parties to agree and coexist can mean seeking to accomplish what is in each of the parties’ best interests.  Therefore, they need to approach the issues of conflict logically and do things together for the sake of peace.  Necessarily, the parties will compromise to win in some matters and lose on others.  Some people may presume the absence or end of war or violence is the only result.  Instead, it should be understood that conflict resolution entails a broader perspective that includes cooperation, justice, and integration among parties.[52]

In a situation where a conflict resulted in causing harm to another party, the offender should be able to accept his faults and make amends for the damage he caused. This is what Amstuts calls victim-offender conference (VOC).  This brings the parties together to face and understand the pain that was created and work toward healing and reconciliation.[53]  Those who understand the benefit of making amends when an offense is committed are quick to create interaction opportunities to resolve the matter.  Peace education process helps provide parties with the knowledge and skills to understand each other’s values to build a less vulnerable society.[54]  In this way, anxiety between the victim and the offender is reduced; mutual respect and relationships are restored. When individuals parties are healed, the larger society reaps parallel rewards as well.[55]

8)         Conclusion

Not all conflicts need to cause harm.  It is possible to disagree with issues that show how parties see a particular problem from different perspectives.  The differences in opinions should not affect the relationship and respect both participants have for each other. Nevertheless, damage can occur because some conflicts can affect people’s lives and relationships.  In such circumstances, those involved need to be tolerant toward the other party’s view to understand where they stand and collectively achieve their stated purposes.  Sometimes, this requires one to accept his wrongdoing and be willing to make amends for pain caused in the lives of others whether intended or otherwise.

Several factors are responsible for misunderstandings and disagreements in society.  The effects of these factors differ and are reacted to in various and sundry ways. Understanding the roles of supremacy and trauma in escalating conflict gives one the knowledge of how to deescalate challenges among parties when they occur. When disagreements erupt and harm is caused, an offender should make amends to settle the problem compassionately.  In this way, a relationship and dignity might be restored between the parties, and they can work together once again when the need arises.

Learning to live with conflict sensibly, handle the thorny issues of disagreement before any escalation or trauma occurs, and being perceptive enough to reconcile differences with firm, fair, and expedient prudence will render all of society more peaceful.  Such is the importance of making amends and resolving conflicts without any escalation whatsoever, but with understanding and true measures to mitigate opposing views whether individually, communally, or globally.

 

Bibliography

Amstutz, Stutzman Lorraine. Victim Offender Conference: Bringing Victims and Offenders Together in Dialogue. Intercourse, PA: Good Books, 2009.

Daniel Erdmann/World Mediation Organization. “Holistic Anthology: Practical Mediation and Conflict Management, 1st Edition,” 2020.

DeWolf, Thomas Norman, and Jodie Geddes. Racial Healing: Coming to the Table for Truth-telling, Liberation, and Transformation. New York: Good Books, 2019.

Draper, E. Stephen. Sharing Water in Times of Scarcity: Guidelines and Procedures in the Development of Effective Agreement Share Water across Political Boundaries. Virginia: American Society of Civil Engineers, 2006.

Fahy, John. The Role of Resources in Global Competition. New York: Routledge, 2001.

Friedman, Gary and Jack Himmelstein. Challenging Conflict: Mediation through Understanding. Chicago: American Bar Association Publishing, 2008.

Galtung, Johan. “Peace Education: Learning to Hate War, Love Peace, and to Do Something About It.” International Review of Education 29, (September 1983): 281-87, https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00597972 (Accessed April 10, 2021).

Gleick, H. Peter. “Water and Conflict: Fresh Water Resources and International Security.” International Security Journal 18, no. 1 (1993), http://booksc.xyz/dl/15600840/0ed2a7 (Accessed April 11, 2021).

Hardy, Janice. Understanding Conflict. Las Vegas, NV: Fiction University Press, 2017.

Hipel, Keith W., Liping Fang, Johannes Cullman, and Michele Bristow, eds. Conflict Resolution in Water Resources and Environmental Management. Switzerland: Springer International Publishing, 2015.

Hunter, Mark D., Takayuki Ohgushi, and Peter W. Price, eds. Effects of Resource Distribution on Animal-Plant Interactions. San Diego, CA: Academic Press, 1992.

Klare, T. Michael. Resource Wars: The New Landscape of Global Conflict. New York: Owl Books, 2002.

Le Billon, Philippe. The Geopolitics of Resource Wars: Resource Dependence, Governance, and Violence. New York: Frank Cass, 2004.

Lederach, Paul John. Conflict Transformation. PA: Good Book, 2003.

Life, V. Christian. Conservation and Recycling of Resources: New Research. New York: Nova Science Publishers, 2006.

Maxwell J. W., and R. Reuveny. “Resource Scarcity and Conflict in Developing Countries.” Journal of Peace Research 37, no. 3 (2000): https://booksc.xyz/dl/50986901/99b86a (Accessed April 8, 2021).

Nye, S. Joseph. Understanding International Conflict: An Introduction to Theory and History, 7th, ed. New York: Longman, 2009.

Schulman, Sarah. Conflict Is Not Abuse: Overstating Harm, Community Responsibility, and the Duty of Repair. Vancouver: Arsenal Pulp Press, 2016.

Stoessinger, G. John. Why Nations Go to War, 9th ed. CA: Wadsworth, 2005.

The Film Archives. “Chris Hedges: War Gives Us Purpose, a Reason for Living – PTSD Treatment and Recovery.” 2003, (Video). https;//www.youtube.com/channel/UCb2EYjrzl6WpNAmPzeihhag. (Accessed April 9, 2021).

Uitto, I. Juha and Alfred M. Duda. “Water Wars? Geographical Perspectives II Management of Transboundary Water Resources: Lessons from International Corporation for Conflict Prevention.” The Geographical Journal 168, no. 4 (2002): 365-78, http://www.jostor.org/stable/3451478 (Accessed April 8, 2021).

Wallensteen, Peter. Understanding Conflict Resolution, 5th ed. Los Angeles: SAGE Publication Inc., 2019.

Weeks, Dudley. The Eight Essential Steps to Conflict Resolution: Preserving Relationships at Work, at Home, and in the Community. New York: Jeremy P. Tarcher/Penguin Putnam Inc., 1994.

Wolf, T. Aaron. “Shared Waters: Conflict and Cooperation.” Annual Review of Environment and Resources 32, no. 1 (2007): 241, https://booksc.xyz/book/37504941/e17f0a (Accessed April 8, 2021).

Yoder, Carolyn. Trauma Healing: When Violence Strikes and Community Security Is Threatened New York: Good Books, 2005.

Zehr, Haward. Restorative Justice. New York: Good Books, 2015.

 

Endnotes

[1] Gary Friedman and Jack Himmelstein. Challenging Conflict: Mediation through Understanding. Chicago: (American Bar Association Publishing 2008), 11.

[2] Ibid., 49.

[3] Sarah Schuman. Conflict Is Not Abuse: Overstating Harm, Community Responsibility, and the Duty of Repair. (Vancouver: Arsenal Pulp Press, 2016), 14.

[4] Ibid., 15.

[5] Janice Hardy. Understanding Conflict. (Las Vegas, NY: Fiction University Press, 2017), 61.

[6] Sarah Schulman, 22.

[7] Peter Wallensteen. Understanding Conflict Resolution, 5th ed. (Los Angeles: SAGE Publication Inc., 2019), 44.

[8] Ibid., 211.

[9] Ibid., 212.

[10] Gary Friedman and Jack Himmelstein, 20.

[11] Sarah Schulman, 23.

[12] Ibid., 24.

[13] Ibid., 25.

[14] Peter H. Gleick. “Water and Conflict: Fresh Water Resources and International Security.” International Security Journal 18, no. 1 (1993): 79-112, http://booksc.xyx/dl/15600840/0ed2a7 (Accessed April 11, 2021).

[15] Dudley Weeks. The Eight Essential Steps to Conflict Resolution: Preserving Relationships at Work, at Home, and in the Community (New York: Jeremy P. Tarcher/Penguin Putnam Inc., 1994), 39.

[16] Peter Wallensteen, 45.

[17] Joseph S. Nye. Understanding International Conflict: An Introduction to Theory and History, 7th ed. (New York: Longman, 2009), 16.

[18] Peter Wallensteen, 133.

[19] Juha I. Uitto and Alfred M. Duda. “Water Wars? Geographical Perspectives II Management of Transboundary Water Resources: Lessons from International Cooperation for Conflict Prevention.” The Geographical Journal 168, no. 4 (2002): 365-78, http://www.jostor.org/stable/3451478 (Accessed April 8, 2021).

[20] Michael T. Klare. Resource Wars: The New Landscape of Global Conflict. (New York: Owl Books, 2002), 98.

[21] J. W. Maxwell and R. Reuveny. “Resource Scarcity and Conflict in Developing Countries.” Journal of Peace Research 37, no.3 (2000): https://booksc.xyz/dl/50986901/99b86a (Accessed April 8, 2021).

[22] John G. Stoessinger. Why Nations Go to War, 9th ed. (CA: Wadsworth, 2005), 122-27.

[23] Aaron T. Wolf. “Shared Waters: Conflict and Cooperation.” Annual Review of Environment and Resources 32, no. 1 (2007): 241, https://booksc.xyz/book/37504941/e17f0a (Accessed April 8, 2021).

[24] Michael T. Klare, 44.

[25] Philippe Le Billon. The Geopolitics of Resource Wars: Resource Dependence, Governance, and Violence (New York: Frank Cass, 2004), 51.

[26] Michael T. Klare, 45.

[27] Keith W. Hipel et al., eds. Conflict Resolution in Water Resources and Environmental Management (Switzerland: Springer International Publishing, 2015), 74.

[28] John Fahy. The Role of Resources in Global Competition. (New York: Routledge, 2001), 2.

[29] Michael T. Klare, 198.

[30] Mark D. Hunter, Takayuki Ohgushi and Peter W. Price, eds. Effects of Resource Distribution on Animal-Plant Interactions (San Diego, CA: Academic Press, 1992), 18.

[31] Christian V. Loeffe. Conservation and Recycling of Resources: New Research (New York: Nova Science Publishers, 2006), 14.

[32] Michael T Klare, 188.

[33] Sarah Schulman, 80.

[34] Ibid., 81

[35] Carolyn Yoder. Trauma Healing: When Violence Strikes and Community Security Is Threatened (New York: Good Books, 2005), 25.

[36] Sarah Schulman, 82.

[37] Thomas Norman DeWolf and Jodie Geddes. Racial Healing: Coming to the Table for Truth-Telling, Liberation, and Transformation (New York: Good Books, 2019), 9.

[38] Sarah Schulman, 83.

[39] John G. Stoessinger, 114.

[40] The Film Archives. “Chris Hedges: War Gives Us Purpose, a Reason for Living-PTSD Treatment and Recovery.” 2003, (Video). https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCb2EYjrzl6WpNAmPZeihhag. Accessed April 9, 2021.

[41] Sarah Schulman, 84.

[42] Stephen E. Draper. Sharing Water in Times of Scarcity: Guidelines and Procedures in the Development of Effective Agreements to Share Water across Political Boundaries (Virginia: American Society of Civil Engineers, 2006), 5.

[43] Sarah Schulman, 271.

[44] Ibid., 272.

[45] Ibid., 274.

[46] Ibid., 276.

[47] Howard Zehr. Restorative Justice. (New York: Good Books, 2015), 33.

[48] John Paul Lederach. Conflict Transformation. (PA: Good Book 2003), 7.

[49] Johan Galtung. “Peace Education: Learning to Hate War, Love Peace, and to Do Something About It.” International Review of Education 29, (September 1983): 281-87, https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00597972 Accessed April 10, 2021).

[50] Gary Friedman and Jack Himmelstein, 93.

[51] Ibid., 162.

[52] Peter Wallensteen, 10.

[53] Lorraine Stutzman Amstutz. Victim Offender Conference: Bringing Victims and Offenders Together in Dialogue (Intercourse, PA: Good Books, 2009), 45.

[54] Daniel Erdmann/World Mediation Organization. “Holistic Anthology: Practical Mediation and Conflict Management, 1st Edition,” 2020, 9.

[55] Sarah Schulman, 169.

Share on facebook
Facebook
Share on twitter
Twitter
Share on linkedin
LinkedIn
Share on telegram
Telegram
Share on whatsapp
WhatsApp

Leave a Reply