Skip to main content

The Changing Nature of Conflict: The Need for a Conflict-Sensitive Approach

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
International Humanitarian Action

Abstract

Conflicts and complex emergencies provide the most pervasive context for contemporary humanitarian action as they drive more than 80% of current humanitarian need. Conflicts are a universal feature of society, although every conflict is unique in terms of its actors, causes, consequences and dynamics. For humanitarian organisations

the word ‘conflict’ is usually used with reference to countries where there is politically motivated violence, internally or internationally, and where several parties (e.g. states, communities, political parties or groups) are involved in acting out their disagreement using violence.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
$34.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or eBook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 79.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 99.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 129.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. 1.

    Global Peace Index (2016), http://economicsandpeace.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/GPI-2016-Report_2.pdf; UN WHS Secretariat (2015).

  2. 2.

    Trocaire (2011), p. 6, http://www.trocaire.org/resources/policyandadvocacy/conflict-sensitivity-toolkit.

  3. 3.

    Zicherman et al. (2011), p. 6. This study surveyed five members of the Conflict Sensitivity Consortium, ActionAid International, CAFOD, CARE International, Plan International and World Vision International.

  4. 4.

    Id., p. 9.

  5. 5.

    Anderson (1999).

  6. 6.

    Loane (2011).

  7. 7.

    Médecins Sans Frontières (2016, May 5), http://www.msf.org.uk/article/msf-to-pull-out-of-world-humanitarian-summit; UN Secretary-General (2016).

  8. 8.

    In 2015, 75 hospitals managed or supported by Médecins Sans Frontières/Doctors Without Borders (MSF) were bombed.

  9. 9.

    MSF (2016, May 5) and UN Secretary-General (2016).

  10. 10.

    UN Secretary General, ibid.

  11. 11.

    World Humanitarian Summit (2016).

  12. 12.

    Wallensteen (2007).

  13. 13.

    The Cold War demonstrated how allies such as the US, UK and USSR who fought a major war together can get locked into a dangerous conflagration within a matter of few years. At the same time, the coming together of two former enemies, Germany and France, under the same bloc showed a potential for reversing the conflict dynamics (Wallensteen 2007).

  14. 14.

    Wallensteen (2007) and Ramsbotham et al. (2011).

  15. 15.

    Wallensteen (2007).

  16. 16.

    Galtung (1967), http://www.transcend.org/files/Galtung_Book_unpub_Theories_of_Peace_-_A_Synthetic_Approach_to_Peace_Thinking_1967.pdf; Galtung (1969), pp. 167–191.

  17. 17.

    Wallensteen (2007).

  18. 18.

    Conflict Sensitivity Consortium (Undated), http://www.conflictsensitivity.org/do-no-harm-local-capacities-for-peace-project; Zicherman et al. (2011).

  19. 19.

    Wallensteen (2007).

  20. 20.

    Zicherman et al. (2011).

  21. 21.

    Wallensteen (2007).

  22. 22.

    Zicherman et al. (2011).

  23. 23.

    Wallensteen (2007).

  24. 24.

    ICRC (2008), http://www.icrc.org/eng/assets/files/other/opinion-paper-armed-conflict.pdf.

  25. 25.

    Lawand (2012), http://www.icrc.org/eng/resources/documents/interview/2012/12-10-niac-non-international-armed-conflict.htm.

  26. 26.

    Vite (2009), pp. 70–94; Human Security Report Project (2013).

  27. 27.

    For example, sometimes States tend to play down the intensity of a situation of violence and claim to undertake actions in the name of maintaining public order, see Vite, ibid.

  28. 28.

    Kalpakian (2004), p. 193.

  29. 29.

    Zeitoun and Mirumachi (2008), pp. 297–316.

  30. 30.

    Inter Press Service News Agency, Wars, No, Conflicts, Yes, 2007, http://www.globalpolicy.org/component/content/article/198/40379.html.

  31. 31.

    UCDP, Definitions, http://www.pcr.uu.se/research/ucdp/definitions/.

  32. 32.

    Ibid.

  33. 33.

    Sarkees (2011), http://cow.la.psu.edu/COW2%20Data/WarData_NEW/COW%20Website%20-%20Typology%20of%20war.pdf.

  34. 34.

    Sarkees and Schafer (2000), pp. 123–144.

  35. 35.

    Human Security Report Project (2013).

  36. 36.

    UCDP, Definitions, http://www.pcr.uu.se/research/ucdp/definitions/, extrasystemic conflicts refer to colonial wars or wars of independence, which occur between governments and non-state groups located outside a State’s own territory. Interstate armed conflicts involve two or more States. Internal armed conflicts are those that take place between the government and non-state groups located within the State or between two non-state actors within one State. It does not involve outside actors. Internationalised internal conflict however, is an internal conflict with intervention from external actors on one or both sides.

  37. 37.

    HIIK (2015), http://www.hiik.de/en/konfliktbarometer/pdf/ConflictBarometer_2015.pdf.

  38. 38.

    Ibid.

  39. 39.

    Jeong (2008).

  40. 40.

    Galtung (1967, 1969).

  41. 41.

    Brahm (2003), http://www.beyondintractability.org/essay/latent-conflict.

  42. 42.

    Ibid, citing Wehr, P., Conflict Emergence, http://www.colorado.edu/conflict/peace/problem/cemerge.htm.

  43. 43.

    Joint Evaluation of Emergency Assistance to Rwanda (1996), p. 3, http://www.oecd.org/derec/sweden/50189495.pdf.

  44. 44.

    Deutsch and Coleman (2000), pp. 428–450.

  45. 45.

    Deutsch (1983).

  46. 46.

    Id., p. 4.

  47. 47.

    Human Security Report Project (2013).

  48. 48.

    ICRC (2014), p. 277.

  49. 49.

    DG ECHO (2015), http://ec.europa.eu/echo/what/humanitarian-aid/needs-assessments_en.

  50. 50.

    Global Peace Index (2016) and United Nations WHS Secretariat (2015).

  51. 51.

    HIIK (2015).

  52. 52.

    United Nations WHS Secretariat (2015).

  53. 53.

    Global Humanitarian Assistance (GHA) Report (2016).

  54. 54.

    Global Peace Index (2016), http://economicsandpeace.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/GPI-2016-Report_2.pdf.

  55. 55.

    Ibid.

  56. 56.

    Ibid.

  57. 57.

    Ibid.

  58. 58.

    Ibid.

  59. 59.

    GHA Report (2016).

  60. 60.

    Global Peace Index (2016), http://economicsandpeace.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/GPI-2016-Report_2.pdf.

  61. 61.

    PRIO (2015), http://www.prio.org/Projects/Extensions/ConflictTrends/Graphs/, accessed on 06 December, 2016.

  62. 62.

    Uppsala Conflict Data Program (2016a, b, c).

  63. 63.

    Ibid.

  64. 64.

    Global Peace Index (2016), http://economicsandpeace.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/GPI-2016-Report_2.pdf.

  65. 65.

    United Nations WHS Secretariat (2015).

  66. 66.

    Ibid.

  67. 67.

    GHA Report (2016).

  68. 68.

    Ramsbotham et al. (2011).

  69. 69.

    See www.transcend.org for a comprehensive bibliography of Galtung’s publications on peace and conflict research.

  70. 70.

    Wallensteen (2007).

  71. 71.

    Ibid.

  72. 72.

    Ibid.

  73. 73.

    Galtung (1971), pp. 173–206.

  74. 74.

    Wallensteen (2007).

  75. 75.

    Ibid.; Galtung (1971).

  76. 76.

    Ramsbotham et al. (2011).

  77. 77.

    Wallensteen (2007).

  78. 78.

    Ibid.; Ramsbotham et al. (2011).

  79. 79.

    Ramsbotham et al. (2011).

  80. 80.

    SDC (2005), http://www.css.ethz.ch/content/dam/ethz/special-interest/gess/cis/center-for-securities-studies/pdfs/Conflict-Analysis-Tools.pdf.

  81. 81.

    Trocaire (2011).

  82. 82.

    OECD (2012).

  83. 83.

    Ramsbotham et al. (2011).

  84. 84.

    Ibid.

  85. 85.

    Ibid.

  86. 86.

    Zeitoun and Mirumachi (2008).

  87. 87.

    Conflict Sensitivity Consortium, Introduction, http://www.conflictsensitivity.org/an-introduction-to-conflict-sensitivity-3/.

  88. 88.

    OECD (2012).

  89. 89.

    Zicherman et al. (2011).

  90. 90.

    Id., p. 3.

  91. 91.

    Orbinski (1999), http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/peace/laureates/1999/msf-lecture.html.

References

Further Reading

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Sulagna Maitra .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2018 Springer International Publishing AG

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Maitra, S. (2018). The Changing Nature of Conflict: The Need for a Conflict-Sensitive Approach. In: Heintze, HJ., Thielbörger, P. (eds) International Humanitarian Action. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-14454-2_4

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-14454-2_4

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-319-14453-5

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-319-14454-2

  • eBook Packages: Law and CriminologyLaw and Criminology (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics