STERGIOU Akrivos_Working Draft_ Oct 2014 (Paper 13) -Akrivos

STERGIOU Akrivos_Working Draft_ Oct 2014 (Paper 13) - Akrivos ©

Akrivos

Doctorate Thesis Title, Chapters & Introduction

October 2014

University of Plymouth

Dartmouth Strategic and Security Studies Group

Stergiou Akrivos

Supervisor: Prof. Simon Murden

[email protected]

[email protected]

mailto:[email protected]

mailto:[email protected]


Akrivos

THE TITLE

Evaluating the planning processes of international organizations for

contemporary crisis and conflict resolution.

Development of the “Omicron approach”, a holistic planning process

based on “cosmopolitan conflict resolution”.


Akrivos

THE TITLE

Evaluating the planning processes of international organizations for contemporary crisis and

conflict resolution. Development of the “Omicron approach”, a holistic planning process

based on “cosmopolitan conflict resolution”.

Chapters: (Draft)

1. Introduction

2. Crisis and conflict resolution holistic approaches within the International Organisations.

3. Analysis of the planning methods: UN, NATO, EU, AU, ICRC, OSCE, national

approaches, NGOs etc.

4. Recent cases of implementation of holistic approaches. Conflict databases & datasets.

Lessons learned.

5. Shortfalls of the holistic approaches (constraints, restraints, gaps in the application,

failures etc.). The planning gap.

6. The Cosmopolitan Conflict Resolution. Is a unified process for planning in the

cosmopolitan conflict resolution feasible?

7. The “Omicron” approach: development of a new concept and philosophy to unite the

effort and operationalize the cosmopolitan conflict resolution.

8. Case study / hypothetical example of the “Omicron” approach in a real world crisis

scenario.

9. Conclusions and Epilogue

The “Omicron era culture”. Towards a new generation of planning for crisis and conflict

resolution and a new cosmopolitan collective ownership of peace operations.


Akrivos


Akrivos

Introduction

The research study tries to identify and examine the realities behind the contemporary crisis

and conflict resolution. Various international global or regional organisations have developed

respective “holistic approaches” and have adopted policies and progresses in an attempt to unify the

effort through planning. However, although the strategic documents and formal communiqués of IOs

such as the UN, the EU, NATO and others adopt in theory holistic approaches to respond to

international or regional crises and conflicts, in practice, there is a significant gap when implementing

and operationalizing these approaches. The application of holistic approaches in actual crises is done

through planning processes and procedures, which are the focal point of this research. The final aim

of this study will be to develop a new planning process, which will integrate and operationalize the

“cosmopolitan conflict resolution” in the international arena.

The research is based on the fact that there is no agreed joint interagency methodology or

approach to unify the international effort. Although there are, usually bi-lateral, agreements between

some IOs, NGOs or nations to co-operate from the very beginning in a crisis and/or conflict urgent or

long-term response, the steps taken are too hesitant and insufficient. There is still no unique

international accessible platform on which the various international or regional actors in a crisis can

easily and openly contribute with their assessments - objections or contradictory positions to be

included and recorded, resources, capabilities and modus operandi.

Unquestionably, there is a common belief that during the past decades the way that the

international community responded to urgent crises or conflicts has been incoherent, inadequate,

uncoordinated and costly in resources and personnel. There was not unity of effort, fact that does not

undermine the huge contribution and willingness of the international community to respond to and

resolve crises or conflicts towards peace and human relief. One key example is the Bosnia-

Herzegovina war in the former Yugoslavia in the ‘90s. During that conflict, although various

organisations contributed with significant effort, resources and personnel to address critical issues of

the crisis, there was no co-ordination and coherence between the mandated actors in the field; the

overall effort did not have the desired effects in the conflict and in some cases failed to safeguard

civilian human lives. In fact, this conflict was the triggering experience for the international

community to start the first discussion on “holistic approaches”, introducing the term “comprehensive

approach”. The most disappointing conclusion in many cases of international interventions for

conflict resolution was that peace or long-term stabilisation was not reached or the situation even

deteriorated. The symptoms have been partially or sufficiently addressed but not the root causes. The

Kosovo, the Afghanistan and the Iraq conflicts are other examples where the international

intervention was again too hasty and incoherent; in those and other cases the response was unilateral,

without comprehending sufficiently all implicated actors’ status in the crises, the regional

environment, culture and dynamics.

As the study will focus on planning for contemporary crisis and conflict resolution and as the

title makes it clear, the subject of the thesis is positioned in the crisis and conflict resolution

discipline. A thorough examination of the way that the international effort is planned, will lead in


Akrivos

shortfalls. These shortfalls, combined with new ideas will lead this research paper to conclude in a

new approach of planning, the “Omicron” approach (“O”), the final and clear purpose of this

research paper. The “O” approach will also drive the learning and understanding process from the

very beginning, as it is firstly attempting to unify the international planning processes into one. To

this end, the recommended new planning approach will have the “cosmopolitan conflict resolution” 1

concept as a starting point.

Commencing with two existing major planning processes, the UN and the NATO ones, we

observe that they are actually internal processes and do not truly integrate international interagency

effort. The UN has made a significant effort. It has developed and published a. Policy on Integrated

Assessment and Planning2 , b. INTEGRATED ASSESSMENT AND PLANNING HANDBOOK, c.

the “Standard Operating Procedures for Countries Wishing to Adopt the “Delivering as one”

Approach, d. the Planning Toolkit 3 and other documents, to unify the effort of its own complex UN

system of various agencies, organisations, offices and ad hoc entities or units applied in the field. The

above publications and processes are really in the right direction and fill a planning gap of

synchronising short term and long term UN mandates, objectives and aims, all for the good of the

same people in the country or region of the crisis. However, the UN has also the responsibility to

integrate the non-UN international effort too with an analogous planning process or platform.

Although the above UN publications are also addressed to and intended to be used by any NGO4, in

practice there are many complications to this end.

On the other hand, NATO has its own planning process, which is linking the strategic

political, strategic military, operational and tactical levels of the Alliance into a well co-ordinated

operation in response to a crisis or conflict, by its military forces. Again, this planning process,

although described in the “Comprehensive Operations Planning Directive” 5 is again an internal

procedure that links the many levels and HQs of the Alliance. It starts from the political assessments

and decisions on responding to a crisis to the actual operation plan (OPLAN). It clearly states that it is

intended to integrate other actors embedding their liaisons into the planning groups in an ad hoc basis

but, again, like in the UN, it is not sufficient, not comprehensive.

1 The cosmopolitan conflict resolution can better be explained by the following extract. “We use the term cosmopolitan conflict

resolution to indicate the need for an approach that is not situated within any particular state, society or established site of power, but

rather promotes constructive means of handling conflict at local through to global levels in the interests of humanity. …the term

transformative cosmopolitanism to emphasize that it is not a covert name for imposing hegemonic interests under a subterfuge of

unexamined ‘universal values’, but a genuine and inclusive local-global effort to determine what contributes to human welfare in general

and to human emancipation worldwide……. ”. (Ramsbotham Oliver, 2011).

2 Approved by: Secretary-General on 9 April 2013, Following endorsement by the Integration Steering Group1 on 15 March 2013 and by

the United Nations Development Group on 13 March. 3 These DPKO-DFS guidelines on component level planning (henceforth the “Planning Toolkit”) provide practical guidance on how to implement existing UN planning obligations in UN Field Missions led DPKO, with particular attention to the planning needs of rule of law

and security-related components (namely, police, justice, corrections, disarmament, demobilization and reintegration (DDR), security sector

reform (SSR) and mine action components). The Planning Toolkit will facilitate compliance with existing UN planning obligations, and improve the quality and impact of component plans in UN Field Missions. It is also intended for personnel in OROLSI in DPKO who

support planning in UN Field Missions, including the Office’s standing capacities. 4 “The Planning Toolkit is also of use to UN and non-UN partners at Headquarters and in the field who engage in integrated planning with

rule of law and security institutions components in UN Field Missions, including personnel in the Office of the Controller in charge of reviewing Results-based Budget Frameworks in peacekeeping budgets. 5 SUPREME HEADQUARTERS ALLIED POWERS EUROPE, BELGIUM, ALLIED COMMAND OPERATIONS

COMPREHENSIVE OPERATIONS PLANNING DIRECTIVE COPD INTERIM V2.0, 04 October 2013


Akrivos

In the analysis of this study, we will try to present the philosophy and culture of the above and

other existing planning processes. We will try to map the way that the international system is

structured by seeing how the decisions are taken and how the crises are addressed by the IOs from the

very beginning up to the implementation of the operations. The “O” approach will humbly contribute

in the overall international system transformation towards unified effort. In the analysis we will

challenge the existing processes in the way that they are conceived and structured. How can the IOs

be integrated and coordinated within the international community effort in a holistic and transparent

way? Does the use of the “End State” philosophy enhance the possibility of success in the purpose of

long term stability? Or is there another way to drive the international effort? Not by “imposing

hegemonic interests under a subterfuge of unexamined ‘universal values’, but” by “a genuine and

inclusive local-global effort to determine what contributes to human welfare in general and to human

emancipation worldwide, which is one articulation of the “Cosmopolitan Conflict Resolution

approach” that probably epitomizes the only genuinely holistic, comprehensive approach. It is

described in “Contemporary conflict resolution” by Ramsbotham Oliver, Woodhouse Tom & Miall

Huge (2011, Cambridge, Polity Press).

It also seems that in practice, most of the organisations, donors and other actors in the

international crisis arena have to act or react in a reluctant and bureaucratic comportment which

leaves not too much room for synchronising international effort with other actors being on the ground

of the crisis/conflict. A lot of co-ordination is done in the ground on ad hoc basis. Many and various

reasons exist for this inadequacy, like the differences in grand strategy or high policy, scope, interests,

duration of effort to meet the respective objectives and way of achieving them, legitimacy, principles

of modus operandi, jurisdiction, influence from or manipulation of the media etc. The transformation

of the international post-cold war community has not reached the point where cosmopolitan culture

can become practice. On the contrary, often there is antagonistic behaviour or misuse of a

crisis/conflict by the intervener, the “spoiler” or even the non-intervener.

The latter is true despite the struggles of hundreds of thousands of “internationals”, meaning

the soldiers, the international or national organizations’ workers and all the other various non-

governmental or governmental, regional or local personnel assisting with humanitarian and all sort of

meaningful aid; and despite the expressed urge for unified co-ordination effort by most organizations

and academics. Although there still is a long standing debate amongst the academia and the

practitioners on the major elements and issues of contemporary conflict and how the international

community should address it, the paper will adopt, not without robust causality, the aforementioned

“cosmopolitan conflict resolution”. The study, by recommending finally the new “O” approach tries

to make it available by the international community as a starting point and as a tool towards

addressing any crisis response or conflict resolution intervention.

The cosmopolitan conflict resolution can better be explained by the following extract.6

6 Contemporary conflict resolution, Ramsbotham, 3rd edition, 2011, p. 265


Akrivos

“As states and societies become more than ever open to events outside their borders, and images, belief

systems, communications and ideas flow rapidly across societies divided by different ways of life and cultures, it

is not surprising that conflicts of interest and perceived conflicts are experienced not only at the intra-state and

interstate levels but also globally. A hybrid mixture of local, regional and global conflicts has emerged, which

we might call transnational conflict. Accompanying this change are uncertainties over how and where this form

of conflict should be addressed. New doctrines of intervention and new understandings of ‘peace and security’

imply a redefinition of jurisdiction. If interests cut across states and communities, where does appropriate

jurisdiction lie? How is democratic accountability to be effective in a world of interdependent decisions? How

are the conflicts to be resolved when they cross borders and levels of analysis? In this post-Clausewitzean

order, conflict resolution is challenged to redefine its scope and its praxis.

We use the term cosmopolitan conflict resolution to indicate the need for an approach that is not

situated within any particular state, society or established site of power, but rather promotes constructive means

of handling conflict at local through to global levels in the interests of humanity. …the term transformative

cosmopolitanism to emphasize that it is not a covert name for imposing hegemonic interests under a subterfuge

of unexamined ‘universal values’, but a genuine and inclusive local-global effort to determine what

contributes to human welfare in general and to human emancipation worldwide……. ”.

The cosmopolitan enterprise is the latest development in conflict resolution theory and could

be an improved way of getting peoples’ lives out of the conflict trap and transforming the conflict

gradually into a non-violent ‘cosmopolitan democracy’, not necessarily the western type one. It does

that through the principles of inclusion, responsibility and impartiality. It should include short term

urgent respond, but also enhance and do no harm to the long term stabilisation reconstruction and

transition enterprise. Synchronising and combining international effort in a productive and coherent

way from the start during the planning of the intervention, is the main focus and challenge; indeed

although there is a great amount of lessons learned and a huge attempt for combined civil-military

exercises there is no agreed model to unite the international effort.

Some of the questions that have to be answered and that are expected to create a flow of

interest and will subsequently meet secondary objectives are:

Which are the main problems of the existing planning models and which ones are they? What

is the NATO planning model and which one is the UN one? How about national models? How are the

NGOs or other IOs plan? What does the newly revised (2013) “UN Integrated Assessment and

Planning” represent in the purpose of unifying international effort? The “UN integrated approach”

and the “UN cluster approach” in humanitarian situations are they still limited? Is the UN the

authority responsible to incorporate an NGO planning for the same or similar objectives with the

international community? Why are the planning models inadequate and what steps the international

community has taken forward? How are the main planning documents decided, processed and

populated by the IOs and what is their validity in jurisdiction, duration and appliance? Why do not all

organizations respond to conflict zones, how legitimate are they, what are their motives, principles

and interests and how do they take into account the local population to help them build their own

future? What is the “End State” as a term and how does it help the planning in a volatile and

unpredictable environment? Is the authority deciding on the “End State” taking into account the voice

of the people and the local actors? Will the “End State” approach cover the needs of the society


Akrivos

designed for at the time when the initially planned End State is reached? What does Cosmopolitan

Conflict Resolution means regarding planning? Is a unified process for planning in the cosmopolitan

conflict resolution feasible?

The “Omicron Approach” is developed and introduced incorporating new ideas and all the

conclusions of the existing models. By examining all those ‘models’, it will try to unite international,

regional or local actor, whether organisation, social or other group of individuals implicated somehow

in the crisis or conflict; the overall ambition is to have one model which leaves ‘the door open for all’

to participate, including conflicting parties or the ones seen as the “spoilers” of the international

enterprise.

NATO in its planning process (see figure 1) depicts that an international common way of

planning in a crisis is not feasible, so the overall operations’ “algorithm” (design) is just a utopia and

is just a “Theoretical International Design”. Below figure 1 depicts the hypothetical (“theoretical”)

lines of operations, which would have to be conducted in coherence by the military, political,

economic and civil instrument of power.

The “Omicron Approach” is focusing on such shortfalls in order to merge the various

understandings of a crisis, the different “End States” and objectives to develop a visually depicted

methodology at the strategic level. It will also try to challenge various notions like the aforementioned

“End State” which has several drawbacks as a concept. The new concept has to be based on the

cosmopolitan approach and be more dynamic in or der to encapsulate quickly the various changes in a

continuously changing environment. The new aim of the international community led by the UN, is

named ‘Sustainable Eurhythmy’ is

a. continuous and dynamic (not an end),

b. more comprehensive,

c. more realistic and feasible, as it is integrating the transformation of the environment,

conflict or crisis and

d. transparent and easily accessible through the internet.

To this end and in order to link all the actors in a crisis an Internet based platform can be

built to ease the access. The legitimate aims of the operation the UN decisions should be publicised

openly. Any actor would then also publish its own aims in a way that in a unique design there would

be a coordination and unity of effort, without duplication or contradictory actions in the short and long

term. The whole concept will be depicted visually in a 360 degree scheme similar to the cluster UN

approach (see figure) but with different logic and dynamics.


Akrivos

One first raw depiction of the “O” Approach is seen below in figure 3. The “O” approach as a concept

and as a co-ordination high-policy tool should be accessible for editing on the internet, with specific

rights to be authorised to all implicated actors.

Figure 1

Figure 2


Akrivos

Figure 3


Akrivos

Research Structure

In the second chapter the research will start to deal generically with the “Crisis and conflict

resolution holistic approaches”. Trying to find out the causality and the factors that led to the

various approaches in crisis and conflict resolution during the last three decades, the chapter will

describe the basic schools of thought. Examining basic academic literature ( (Bercovitch J., 1992),

(Aall P., 1996) (Cheldelin S., 2003) (Ramsbotham Oliver, 2011) (Deutsch, 1954) (Ronald, 1997)

(Jacoby, 2008) (Zartman & Rassmussen, Peacemaking in International Conflict: Methods and

Techniques, 2007) (Zartman , Toward the resolution of international conflict, 1997) (Kriesberg, 1997)

(Mitchell & Banks, 1996) (Sandole , 1999) (Wallensteen, 2007) (Webel & Galtung J., 2007))7, the

chapter will try to show in a generic way the basic concepts of the Conflict Resolution Discipline and

how this has evaluated during the past decades, with the emphasis given in the post- cold war era.

Some first conclusions will be drawn on the evolution of the “holistic approaches” as they are

described by the academia literature.

Based on the above, the study then examines the way that major organisations, IOs or NGOs

and nations, express their policy concerning conflict resolution and crisis management. The published

strategic level documentation of the IOs is scrutinised, so that the causality of the respective

approaches are revealed. To this end, for the UN, the documentation is numerous: the Secretary

General’s reports, reports by UN country teams, bi-lateral agreements with the UN, guidance given by

the UN on the subject, reports and assessments on various conflicts, UN Security Council Resolutions

etc.

For NATO and the EU again the documentation is abundant and the focus will stay at the

political strategic level, which epitomizes the concept used and is giving guidance to the subordinate

levels on crisis management and conflict resolution. One of the conclusions drawn should be on the

co-operation with other actors and the capabilities prepared and in order to act holistically in a

complex crisis, where the military forces may be a minor component on the ground.

One NGO that draws the attention is the ICRC (International Committee of the Red Cross)

not only because of its extended experience memory but also because it has developed unique

principles for its modus operandi (neutrality, impartiality) and has managed to sign bi-lateral

agreements for co-operation in the field with other organisations which respect the ICRC’s caveats

and strict ethics.

The objective of the chapter is to comprehend the differences in their policy, to realise the

theoretical causality behind each holistic approach and to categorise them.8

7 (Bercovitch J., 1992), (Aall P., 1996) (Cheldelin S., 2003) (Ramsbotham Oliver, 2011) (Deutsch, 1954) (Ronald, 1997) (Jacoby, 2008) (Zartman & Rassmussen, Peacemaking in International Conflict: Methods and Techniques, 2007) (Zartman , Toward the resolution of international conflict, 1997) (Kriesberg, 1997) (Mitchell & Banks, 1996) (Sandole , 1999) (Wallensteen, 2007) (Webel & Galtung J., 2007) 8 Main references regarding the IOs and NGOs will be their internet sites and publications.


Akrivos

The third chapter will go deeper into the most important approaches and will see how those

approaches are meant to implement through planning. The planning methods of the UN, NATO, EU,

ICRC, OSCE, national approaches, NGOs etc., will be examined and analysed. The objective on these

planning methods will be to draw conclusions on:

-the various steps of the planning processes

-the basic philosophy expressed by the way the process unfolds and by the terminology of the

language used in a crisis

-the legitimacy of the decisions taken regarding the international law, including the authority

that orders and initiates the planning process.

-the way that the planning of the IO/NGO is described

-how the aims of the actions of the organization are planned to be achieved and how are they

assessed

Some more questions that have to be answered are:

-How holistic is the planning approach? Does personnel of other organizations participate in

the planning? How is the final aim synchronised with the aim of other organizations? How do they

take into account the local population to help them build their own future?

-What do the various organizations plan for? Conflict prevention, peacekeeping, peace

building, peace making, postwar reconstruction, reconciliation, humanitarian crisis etc.

-Why do not all organizations respond to conflict zones, how legitimate are they?

Expected conclusions of the planning processes’ gaps are due to the incoherence and lack of

“comprehensiveness” of the approach of the various organisations when the latter plan to act in a

specific crisis or conflict. In such a way, the chapter will also reveal the oxymoron between the

strategic political appetite and the political constraints that are directed to the operational levels, so

that comprehensiveness “stays”, in reality, “internally”.

The above will be supported by the fourth chapter which will try to describe some examples

of recent cases of implementation of holistic approaches. It will get information from conflict

databases & datasets and from lessons learned from international organisations to reach deeper into

the way the international community addressed the crisis and conflict zone. The Conflict databases &

datasets and published “lessons learned’ are examined in order to reach deeper into the way the

international community has recently addresses the crisis and conflict zone. What are the lessons

learned in various conflict cases from a planning perspective? Is the non-inclusion of various

international actors and regional factors a major reason for failures in cases of crisis areas

interventions? How does the structure of the international political system affect the planning process?


Akrivos

Which are the shortfalls of the holistic approaches (constraints, restraints, gaps in the application,

failures etc.)?

The objective of this chapter is to draw specific conclusions per organisation but also generic

conclusions on issues that repeatedly create shortfalls. The methodology used during this analysis has

to be qualitative and examine some basic factors that characterise each case. For example the current

(2014) Syria and Ukraine crises have led to limited international response and action on the ground,

probably due to their complexity, the increased risk but, mainly, due to the direct or indirect

involvement of a major actor and permanent member of the UN Security Council, Russia.

The fifth chapter will show how the planning gap and the shortfalls of the holistic

approaches (constraints, restraints, gaps in the application, failures etc.) in the planning methodology

(Chapter 3) has led to the failures on the ground (Chapter 4).

This linkage will be the “raison d’être”of the thesis and the confirmation of the requirement

of a new way of planning. Having completed the various approaches, an overall assessment will be

presented with the focus on the shortfalls of the holistic approaches (constraints, restraints, gaps in the

application, failures etc.). In this way it will be shown that planning is the key for success. It will also

show that in case where unilateral decisions where taken by powers like the US9 or NATO, the crisis

has led to either a deterioration of the situation, like the new developments in Iraq (and Syria) have

shown in 2013-14 or to a very measured improvement (Afghanistan). The chapter’s aim will be the

reasoning and proof for the need for co-ordinating from the planning phase with the maximum

possible overall inclusion among the various actors: when co-ordination and comprehensiveness

comes later on the field, then the results may be irreversible and dangerously harmful for the long

term enterprise. The planning gap will begin to reveal the need for long term practices, like the

conflict transformation towards peace building combined with response to urgent humanitarian

suffering. The gap of the existing models will then show how a new approach could improve the

existing practices.

The sixth chapter will describe the Cosmopolitan Conflict Resolution and a more thorough

argumentation on why and how it should be adopted and spread. The objective will be to answer the

question whether the principles of the cosmopolitan conflict resolution can be applied in a planning

process. What are the major obstacles to this end? How does it differ from the existing practices?

How can it meet the requirements of planning for conflict resolution in the international arena? The

critique of the cosmopolitan approach will not be based only in the findings of the previous chapters

regarding planning but also, by examining the existing literature and argumentation (Ramsbotham

Oliver, 2011) (Ramsbotham, 2010) (Richmond, 2008) (Woodhouse, 1999b)). In the second section of

this chapter the study will examine some basic factors that characterise a crisis which will reveal the

weaknesses and the strengths of the cosmopolitan conflict resolution. For example, how can the

cosmopolitan approach be applied better in cases with cultural variation? How can it enhance a

transparency mechanism for determining and establishing breaches of international law, fact which

gives credibility and legitimacy to the intervention forces?

9 (Murden, 2009)


Akrivos

In the following seventh chapter, the aforementioned “Omicron Approach”, a new

recommended unifying idea and vision will be developed; it will continue the theoretical basis and

argumentation of the previous chapters and will develop a unified process for planning based on the

conclusions of the critique of the cosmopolitan conflict resolution.

Is a unified process for planning in the cosmopolitan conflict resolution feasible? How can the

“Omicron” approach unite the efforts and operationalise the cosmopolitan conflict resolution? The

“UN Integrated Approach” and the “UN cluster approach” are a very important but seem still to be

limited. What are the implications of changing the philosophy of the decision making process to the

actual traditional planning steps and concepts?

Introducing the “Omicron” approach various questions and issues will be covered and

clarified. Why an open end “Sustainable Eurhythmy” versus the “End State”? Who, what, how,

when? The “Omicron” approach, as explained will be depicting and mapping the crisis or conflict

resolution on the internet, in a transparent and all inclusive way.

In the eighth chapter a case study / hypothetical example of the “Omicron” approach in a

real world crisis scenario and a template will be mapped and detailed. Finally, the aspiration is that the

“Omicron” approach is the way ahead, so an effort should be made on how it should be introduced,

communicated, comprehended, accepted, adopted, and improved by the international community. A

case study “crash test” is expected to expose the “O” approach to the real world and reveal or

confirm the inadequacies and shortfalls, or the areas where it really advances the resolution of the

conflict / crisis response.

The last ninth chapter will draw the conclusions. It will include an epilogue on the

“Omicron approach culture”, towards a new generation of crisis and conflict resolution and a new

cosmopolitan collective ownership of peace operations.

The Cosmopolitan Conflict Resolution approach is already in line with our beliefs and

conclusions and it should have been widely adopted in the discipline of conflict resolution, in order to

have a multipolar, safer and more just world, although this may be rejected as utopia, e.g. by the

realists. There have already been minor or incomplete existing attempts to merge the various models

or to operationalize the “comprehensive” approach. However, creating a truly holistic model seems to

have been assessed as too problematic or too ambitious.

The discipline however is very vast, so the focus of the research will be on the multipolar,

multi-actor and multi-agency cosmopolitan crisis and conflict resolution approach and will conclude

with the recommendation of the “Omicron approach” in planning. Indeed, the key issue for successful

implementation of the overall crisis and conflict cosmopolitan approach, is a transparent, “Open for

all” model, which can integrate any actor, local, regional, international, governmental or non-

governmental: any actor willing to act decisively in resolving the crisis or conflict, or any of the

“spoilers” or any social or other group affected directly by the initial or actual conflict.


Akrivos


Akrivos

Bibliography Aall P., C. C. (1996). Nongovermnmental organisations and peacemaking. Washinglton DC: US

Institut of Peace Press.

Bercovitch J., a. R. (1992). Mediatioan in International Relations:Multiple Approaches to conflict

Management. London: Macmillan.

Cheldelin S., D. D. (2003). Conflict: From Analysis to Intervention. London: Continuum.

Deutsch, K. (1954). Political Community at the International Level: Problems of Definition and

Measurement. Garden City, NY: NY: Doubleday.

Jacoby, T. (2008). Understanding Conflict and Violence: Theoretical and Interdisciplinary Approaches.

London: Routledge.

Kriesberg, L. (1997). The development of the conflict resolution field. Washington DC.

Mitchell, C., & Banks, M. (1996). Handbook of Conflict Resolution: The Analytical Problem Solving

Approach. London: Pinter/Cassell.

Murden, S. W. (2009). The Problem of Force: Grappling With the Global Battlefield. London: Lynne

Rienner Pub .

Ramsbotham Oliver, W. T. (2011). Contemporary conflict resolution. Cambridge, UK: Polity Press.

Ramsbotham, O. (2010). Transforming violent conflict: Radical Disagreement, Dialogue and survival.

London: Routledge.

Richmond, O. (2008). Peace in International Relations. London: Routledge.

Ronald, F. (1997). Interactive Conflict Resolution. Syracuse, NY: NY: Syracuse University Press.

Sandole , D. (1999). Capturing the Complexity of Conflict: Deaqling with Violent Ethnic Conflicts of the

Post-Cold War Era. London: Pinter.

Wallensteen, P. (2007). Understanding Conflict Resolution, 2nd edn. London: Sage.

Webel, S., & Galtung J. (2007). Handbook of Peace and Conflict Studies. London: Routledge.

Woodhouse, T. (1999b). International Conflict Resolution: Some Critiques and a Response (working

paper 1). University of Brandford: Department of Peace Studies, Centre for Conflict

Resolution.

Zartman , W. I. (1997). Toward the resolution of international conflict. Washington DC: Institute of

Peace Press.


Akrivos

Zartman, W. I., & Rassmussen, J. (2007). Peacemaking in International Conflict: Methods and

Techniques. USA: United States Institute of Peace Press.

STERGIOU Akrivos_Working Draft_ Oct 2014 (Paper 13) -Akrivos

Documents

Transcript of STERGIOU Akrivos_Working Draft_ Oct 2014 (Paper 13) -Akrivos