Third-party techniques for preventing conflict escalation and promoting peaceful settlement

Dixon, William J.

doi:10.1017/s0020818300033543

Cited by 122 publications

(120 citation statements)

References 28 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

110

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…It describes a situation where two or more actors hold incompatible goals. 19 Despite common usage, the term does not entail outright hostility or war. As described by the SAGE Handbook of Conflict Resolution: "conflict is normal, ubiquitous, and unavoidable".…”

Section: Conflict Between Statesmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…These conflicts are often marked by issues pertaining to sovereignty, nationhood, identity and security, making them prone to rapid escalation and potentially catastrophic consequences. 22 Bercovitch, Kremenyuk, & Zartman 23 borrows from Mitchell 24 and categorises the issues over which states engage in conflict as "(a) issues of resources, (b) issues of sovereignty, (c) issues of survival, (d) issues of honour, and (e) issues of ideology". Others have highlighted the difference between conflict over material interests and conflict over human needs such as security, identity and recognition.…”

Section: Conflict Between Statesmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Managing Conflict at Sea: The Case of Norway and Russia in the Svalbard Zone

Østhagen

2018

Arctic Review

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract:In 1977, Norway established a maritime Fisheries Protection Zone (FPZ) around Svalbard, yet avoided claiming an outright Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ). A dispute with Russia over the status of the Zone arose. In the late 1990s, Norwegian enforcement of fisheries regulations became stricter, as fish stocks were in decline. This led the Norwegian Coast Guard to attempt to arrest Russian fishing vessels on several occasions, resulting in reactions from Russian fishermen, as well as officials in Murmansk and Moscow. In 1998, 2005, and 2011 specifically, incidents had the potential to escalate beyond a fisheries issue. Today, an event in the maritime zone is of concern to both Norwegian and Russian authorities. Given the potential volatility of events in the FPZ, how do Norway and Russia manage to avoid escalation in the case of a crisis? Whereas previous scholarly work has explicitly focused on the legal status of Svalbard and its maritime zones, or looked at how Norway manages fisheries in cooperation with Russia, this article brings forth new knowledge by examining the specific incidents in the Zone and placing these in the wider context of conflict theory. Limited to the Norwegian perceptions of the dispute only, this article adds to our understanding of this specific issue of Arctic conflict management and governance. Based on several years of data collection through interviews, the argument put forth is that Norwegian and Russian cooperation is based on both mutual interests and the socializing effects of cooperative mechanisms, which in turn are key to avoid escalation in crisis-scenarios. In sum, we need to recognise how a combination of economic interests and the effects of socialisation have enabled Norway and Russia to keep conflict levels low, when incidents at sea have occurred.

show abstract

Section: Conflict Between Statesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Conflict Between Statesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Managing Conflict at Sea: The Case of Norway and Russia in the Svalbard Zone

Østhagen

2018

Arctic Review

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…However, there is little study on which agent play a more effective role as preventer. Much of armed conflict literature has focused on one or a few cases of a third-party engagement or preventive effort of a single agent, generally the United Nations (UN) (Dixon, 1996). A particular strategy for conflict management or prevention, such as peacekeeping or confidence-building is also one of main topics (Dixon, 1996).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Much of armed conflict literature has focused on one or a few cases of a third-party engagement or preventive effort of a single agent, generally the United Nations (UN) (Dixon, 1996). A particular strategy for conflict management or prevention, such as peacekeeping or confidence-building is also one of main topics (Dixon, 1996). This article first looks at actions and strategies for preventing armed conflict, and then focuses on how to increase the effectiveness of armed conflict prevention.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

International Actors for Armed Conflict Prevention: A Conceptual Exploration

Othman¹,

Ismail²,

Kim³

et al. 2013

ASS

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The international society is increasingly interested in importance of armed conflict prevention in order to avoid or minimize unnecessary damage. Indeed, many international agents such as the United Nations (UN), non-governmental organizations, and regional organizations maintain efforts and play a major role in field of armed conflict prevention. However, there is little study on which agent play a more effective role as preventer. Based on examination in this article, regional organizations are inherently more likely to embody conditions which help to increase the effectiveness of preventive strategy. Therefore, regional organizations should take initiative, interacting with other international preventive agents and incorporating their actions.

show abstract

“…Yet, there is no record of such interventions. As studies about third parties' neutral interventions have shown (Raymond, 1994;Dixon, 1993Dixon, , 1994Dixon, , 1996, outcomes generally attributed to traditional conflict variables such as power relations between states or issues of contention may actually depend on the undetected-because nonmilitary-participation by third parties.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Danger Beyond Dyads: Third-Party Participants in Militarized Interstate Disputes

Corbetta

Dixon

2005

Conflict Management and Peace Science

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Stuart Bremer often reminded us that third parties—directly or indirectly—affect the initiation, evolution, and termination of conflict. He encouraged scholars to research the phenomenon of joining behavior further and personally investigated it. Questions about joining behavior are indeed deeply intertwined with a variety of theories of conflict. However, existing records on third-party interventions are limited to states' military involvement in conflict. The limitations imposed by the data can lead researchers to biased or incomplete conclusions about many international phenomena. We heed Bremer's encouragement and present here the results of an effort to collect new evidence on nonneutral (partisan) interventions in militarized interstate disputes for the 1946—2001 period. The data we present differ from existing records in that: (1) they provide information on both third parties' military and nonmilitary activities; (2) they broaden the notion of what constitutes a third party by including coalitions of states, intergovernmental organizations (IGOs), and nongovernmental organizations (NGOs); (3) they expand the investigation framework by recording interventions that occur before and after a militarized dispute. We test the usefulness of the data by exploring the issue of major powers' interventions in conflicts, as Yamamoto and Bremer did in their 1980 “Wider Wars and Restless Nights” article. We offer strong support for Yamamoto and Bremer's finding that major powers drag one another into ongoing conflicts and show how the data may help us raise and answer new and more complex hypotheses about third parties and the dynamics of joining behavior.

show abstract

Third-party techniques for preventing conflict escalation and promoting peaceful settlement

Cited by 122 publications

References 28 publications

Managing Conflict at Sea: The Case of Norway and Russia in the Svalbard Zone

Managing Conflict at Sea: The Case of Norway and Russia in the Svalbard Zone

International Actors for Armed Conflict Prevention: A Conceptual Exploration

Danger Beyond Dyads: Third-Party Participants in Militarized Interstate Disputes

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About