Conflict Transformation:

A Multi-Dimensional Task
Hugh Miall
http://www.berghof-handbook.net
1

1. Introduction 2
2. Theories of Conflict Transformation 2
Is There a Theory of Conflict Transformation?
Contributions to Theories of Conflict Transformation
From a Theory of Conflict to a Theory of Conflict-in-Context
3. Practices of Conflict Resolution 12
Actors of Conflict Transformation
Coordination and Multi-Track Diplomacy
Assessing the Impact of Practice
4. Conclusion 17
5. Reference and Further Reading 18

© Berghof Research Center for Constructive Conflict Management - Edited version Aug 2004 (First launch Mar 2001)
 Hugh Miall

Conflict Transformation: A Multi-Dimensional Task

Hugh Miall

1. Introduction
What is the state-of-the-art in conflict transformation theory? Does a theory of conflict
transformation already exist, and if so, what are its main foundations? Can practitioners rely on this
theory to guide their practice? Can analysts make use of it to understand the dynamics of conflict
and to assess the effects of interventions?
This paper aims to identify what is distinctive about conflict transformation theory and
practice, as well as to identify its key dimensions. We need such a theory of conflict transformation if
we are to have an adequate basis for the analysis of conflicts, as well as for devising appropriate
responses to them and evaluating the effects of these responses. The paper argues that such theories need
to be continually adjusted in response to the changing nature of conflicts, and that current theories must
be adapted in order to take proper account of the globalisation of conflicts and conflict interventions.
The first section of the article distinguishes conflict transformation theory from theories
of conflict management and conflict resolution. It explores some of the principal conflict transformation
approaches in more detail, and then asks whether they add up to a coherent body of theory. Following
this, it suggests a shift from theories of conflict to theories of conflict-in-context, arguing that in the
context of globalisation our analyses of conflict must give proper consideration to the social,
regional and international context. We need to consider both the factors that promote peacebuilding 2
and those that exacerbate conflict at these different levels over an extended time period from before
the outbreak of violent conflict to well after its resolution. Within this broader setting, this section
thus attempts to extend Galtung‘s and Azar‘s theories of conflict formation to theories of conflict
transformation. It also proposes a framework of five types of conflict transformation, which should
be useful as a basis for planning and assessing interventions in conflicts.
The second section of the article discusses current developments in conflict
transformation practice as they have occurred in the four principal kinds of practice – that of
governmental and intergovernmental representatives, of development agencies, of non-
governmental organisations (NGOs), and of local parties and groups within the conflict setting. The
issues involved in coordinating initiatives between these different groups are also discussed.
The final section of the paper discusses conflict transformation as a potential seed for
change, requiring change both in the peacebuilder as well as in the society in conflict.

2. Theories of Conflict Transformation

2.1 Is There a Theory of Conflict Transformation?

At the very least, the foundations of a theory of conflict transformation have now been laid.
Nevertheless it is also true that a wide variety of theoretical approaches are in use among different
schools of thought and practice in the field. These theories reflect both differing paradigms and different
types of intervenors (state and non-state, internal and external). Different authors and

Conflict Transformation: A Multi-Dimensional Task

© Berghof Research Center for Constructive Conflict Management

 Hugh Miall

practitioners use basic concepts and terms in inconsistent ways. In particular, it is not clear whether
the term conflict transformation is intended to describe the field broadly, and thus be synonymous
with conflict management and conflict resolution, or whether conflict transformation instead is
characterised by distinct elements that can be differentiated from the other two approaches.
I will argue here for the latter: a distinctive theory of conflict transformation is indeed
emerging. Nevertheless I note also that this new theory draws on many of the familiar concepts of
conflict management and conflict resolution, and that it also rests on the same tradition of
theorising about conflict. It is best viewed not as a wholly new approach, but rather as a re-
conceptualisation of the field in order to make it more relevant to contemporary conflicts.
Certain crucial changes in the nature of conflict call for such a re-conceptualisation. First of
all, most contemporary violent conflicts are asymmetric, marked by inequalities of power and status.
Second (see contribution of Dan Smith in this volume), many contemporary conflicts are protracted,
crossing repeatedly into and out of violence and thus defying cyclical or bell-shaped models of conflict
phases. Thirdly, protracted conflicts warp the societies, economies and regions in which they are
situated, creating complex emergencies fuelled on the one hand by local struggles and on the other by
global factors such as the arms trade and support for regimes or rebels by outside states. The complexity
of these situations contrasts starkly with the relative simplicity of the core theories we can find in
conflict resolution, especially those advocating win-win outcomes in two-party contests.
It is helpful to distinguish three separate schools within this overall field (see
contribution of Reimann in this volume), while at the same time recognizing the significant areas
of overlap between them. All three not only articulate varying approaches to conflict intervention,
but also reflect different conceptualisations of conflict.
Conflict management theorists see violent conflicts as an ineradicable consequence of
differences of values and interests within and between communities. The propensity to violence 3 arises
from existing institutions and historical relationships, as well as from the established distribution of power.
Resolving such conflicts is viewed as unrealistic: the best that can be done is
to manage and contain them, and occasionally to reach a historic compromise in which violence
may be laid aside and normal politics resumed. Conflict management is the art of appropriate
intervention to achieve political settlements, particularly by those powerful actors having the power
and resources to bring pressure on the conflicting parties in order to induce them to settle. It is also
the art of designing appropriate institutions to guide the inevitable conflict into appropriate
channels. In the words of Bloomfield and Reilly:
Conflict management is the positive and constructive handling of difference and
divergence. Rather than advocating methods for removing conflict, [it] addresses the more
realistic question of managing conflict: how to deal with it in a constructive way, how to
bring opposing sides together in a cooperative process, how to design a practical,
achievable, cooperative system for the constructive management of difference (Bloomfield
and Reilly 1998, 18).
Conflict resolution theorists, in contrast, reject this power political view of conflict,
arguing instead that in communal and identity conflicts, people cannot compromise on their
fundamental needs. However, they argue that it is possible to transcend conflicts if parties can be
helped to explore, analyse, question and reframe their positions and interests. Conflict resolution
therefore emphasises intervention by skilled but powerless third-parties working unofficially with
the parties to foster new thinking and new relationships. They seek to explore what the roots of the
conflict really are and to identify creative solutions that the parties may have missed in their
commitment to entrenched positions. Conflict resolution is about how parties can move from zero-

Conflict Transformation: A Multi-Dimensional Task

© Berghof Research Center for Constructive Conflict Management

 Hugh Miall

sum, destructive patterns of conflict to positive-sum constructive outcomes. The aim is to develop
„processes of conflict resolution that appear to be acceptable to parties in dispute, and effective in
resolving conflict“ (Azar and Burton 1986, 1).
Conflict transformation theorists argue that contemporary conflicts require more than the
reframing of positions and the identification of win-win outcomes. The very structure of parties and
relationships may be embedded in a pattern of conflictual relationships that extend beyond the
particular site of conflict. Conflict transformation is therefore a process of engaging with and
transforming the relationships, interests, discourses and, if necessary, the very constitution of
society that supports the continuation of violent conflict. Constructive conflict is seen as a vital
agent or catalyst for change. People within the conflict parties, within the society or region
affected, and outsiders with relevant human and material resources all have complementary roles to
play in the long-term process of peacebuilding. This suggests a comprehensive and wide-ranging
approach, emphasising support for groups within the society in conflict rather than for the
mediation of outsiders. It also recognizes that conflicts are transformed gradually, through a series
of smaller or larger changes as well as specific steps by means of which a variety of actors may
play important roles. In the words of Lederach:
Conflict transformation must actively envision, include, respect, and promote the
human and cultural resources from within a given setting. This involves a new set of lenses
through which we do not primarily ‚see‘ the setting and the people in it as the ‚problem‘ and
the outsider as the ‚answer‘. Rather, we understand the long-term goal of transformation as
validating and building on people and resources within the setting (Lederach 1995).

2.2 Contributions to Theories of Conflict Transformation

4
Theorists of conflict transformation draw on a variety of conceptual building blocks, some
recent, some older and some borrowed from other schools. The idea of conflict formation was already
present in the work of the European structural theorists who analysed conflict formations (e.g. Senghaas
1973; Krippendorf 1973). Perhaps the most influential work to date has been that of Galtung (brought
together in Galtung 1996, 70-126), which offers a rich brew of core concepts.
Conflicts, he suggests, have both life-affirming and life-destroying aspects. They form
from contradictions in the structure of society. They then become manifest in attitudes and
behaviour. Once formed, conflicts undergo a variety of transformational processes: articulation or
dis-articulation, conscientisation or de-conscientisation, complexification or simplification,
polarisation or depolarisation, escalation or de-escalation (1996, 90). The incompatibility which
arises between parties may be eliminated by transcending the contradiction, by compromise, by
deepening or widening the conflict structure, and by associating or dissociating the actors (1996,
116). Galtung, Krippendorf and others also emphasise the relationship between conflicts and larger
conflicts embedded in the structure of world society and the world economy.
Curle‘s work (1971) built on Galtung‘s approach. He traces how asymmetric
relationships can be transformed, through a shift from unbalanced to balanced relationships
achieved through a process of conscientisation, confrontation, negotiation and development.
Lederach took up Curle‘s ideas, as did Francis who develops them in her contribution to this
handbook. Contributions from theorists on non-violence have also been important (Sharp 1973;
Wehr, Burgess and Burgess 1994; Clark 2000). A non-violent campaign can transform conflict by
detaching the props sustaining it such as groups resisting land reform and harnessing them to
support social alternatives (International Alert 1996, 22, 31-33).

Conflict Transformation: A Multi-Dimensional Task

© Berghof Research Center for Constructive Conflict Management

 Hugh Miall

Azar‘s work (1990) on protracted social conflicts has also had an important influence on
conflict transformation theory, by offering an explanation for the protracted quality of
contemporary conflicts. He suggests an approach that is more appropriately suited to the
characteristics of contemporary conflicts in fragile states. His work concentrates on the genesis and
maintenance of protracted conflicts. By developing his theory, it can also be used as a theory of
conflict transformation.
Figure 1 is drawn from Azar‘s model of protracted social conflict. It is extended here to
demonstrate that, with some modification, Azar‘s model can be used to capture both the formation
and the transformation (or deformation) of this type of conflict.
Reading the diagram from left to right, as in Azar‘s book, one can trace the formation of
a protracted conflict. It arises from the historical context, and from the denial of basic human needs
of access, identity and security, as well as through the roles played by the state, international
political and economic linkages and the military in politics. If the state and communal groups
choose suppression and violent rebellion as their strategies, a conflict may then become
destructive. Reading from right back to left, destructive conflict then results in a more dependent
and exploitative pattern of development, a distorted pattern of governance and a militarised form of
politics. This leads to the further denial of basic needs. The result is a protracted cycle of
institutional deformation and destructive conflict.
On the other hand, if there is sufficient capacity in governance and society, if politics are
not too militarised, and if the international environment is supportive, states may instead choose
accommodation, and communal groups may choose political forms of confrontation. This can lead
to a pattern of constructive conflict that in turn promotes legitimate decision-making capacity,
strengthens autonomous development and sustains civil rather than military politics. All these are
conducive to the meeting of basic needs. The model goes beyond simple structural or behavioural 5
explanations and suggests how patterns of conflict interact with the satisfaction of human needs, the
adequacy of political and economic institutions and the choices made by political actors. It also suggests
how different options can lead to benign or malignant spirals of conflict.
Vayrynen argues for a conflict theory based on the idea of transformation rather than
settlement, stressing that it is important to understand how conflicts are transformed in dynamic terms:
The bulk of conflict theory regards the issues, actors and interests as given and on
that basis makes efforts to find a solution to mitigate or eliminate contradictions between
them. Yet the issues, actors and interests change over time as a consequence of the social,
economic and political dynamics of societies (Vayrynen 1991, 4).
His approach is primarily analytical and theoretical, but is also suggestive of the types of
intervention that peacebuilders should be considering (see Vayrynen 1991):
• actor transformations – internal changes in parties, or the appearance of new parties;
• issue transformations – altering the agenda of conflict issues;
• rule transformations – changes in the norms or rules governing a conflict;
• structural transformations – the entire structure of relationships and power distribution in the
conflict is transformed.
Rupesinghe (1995, 1998) argues for a comprehensive, eclectic approach to conflict transformation
that embraces multitrack interventions. He proposes building peace constituencies at the grassroots
level and across the parties at the civil society level (where it exists), and also creating peace
alliances with any groups able to bring about change, such as business groups, the media and the
military. He sees conflict transformation as a broad approach incorporating conflict resolution
training and Track I interventions including diplomatic interventions and peacekeeping.

Conflict Transformation: A Multi-Dimensional Task

© Berghof Research Center for Constructive Conflict Management

 Hugh Miall

Figure 1: Transformation of Protracted Social Conflicts (adapted from Azar 1990)

context needs capacity actors conflict

Pattern of

Acceptance needs international

economic /
recognition of political linkages State actors
identity & culture
supportive accommodate
exploitative suppress
met
unmet
Contextual Governance & the Nature of conflict
background e.g. Access needs
colonial legacy, e.g. political & state
multiethnicity, economic legitimacy
historical social participation
formation capacity constructive
illegitimacy destructive
Security needs incapacity
Role of military Communal Groups

Nutrition, housing,
physical security
civic politics confront
militarised violent rebellion
politics

Lederach‘s work (1997) serves as one of the most comprehensive statements to date of
conflict transformation thinking for practitioners. He sees peacebuilding as a long-term
transformation of a war system into a peace system, inspired by a quest for the values of peace and
justice, truth and mercy. The key dimensions of this process are changes in the personal, structural,
relational and cultural aspects of conflict, brought about over different time-periods (short-, mid-
and long-term) and affecting different system levels at different times.
Peacebuilding is thus seen as a structure-process. An appropriate strategy (such as
networking between mid-level leaders with links to parties across the conflict) is linked to an
appropriate time-frame (such as concentrating on mid-term steps to build a peace constituency,
while at the same time embracing a vision of the desired future and an awareness of the current
crisis). In thinking about structure, Lederach contributes the idea of the pyramid with elite leaders
and decision-makers at the top, leaders of social organisations, churches, top journalists in the mid-
level and grassroots community leaders at the base. A comprehensive peace process should address
complementary changes at all these levels.
One strength of his model is that it widens its view from the conflict and the conflict
parties and indicates the scope for drawing peacebuilding resources from the wider society. A

Conflict Transformation: A Multi-Dimensional Task

© Berghof Research Center for Constructive Conflict Management

 Hugh Miall

weakness is the limited attention it gives to the autonomous processes of change that transpire
within the political system of the conflict-affected society.
An important issue, raised by Lederach and widely discussed by the conflict resolution
school in the context of conflict intervention, is the issue of sequencing. What type of action or
intervention is appropriate, by whom, and at what time? Glasl (1982) suggested nine stages of
escalation in conflicts. He argues that different types of intervention might be appropriate at
different times. Fishers and Keashly‘s (1991) contingency theory built on these foundations. Their
idea is that the nature of intervention should be matched to the stage of the conflict. At the early
stages of conflict, they suggest that facilitation may be appropriate; but when a conflict has reached
a high stage of polarisation power-based mediation (or even coercion) is required. Lederach (1997)
offers another version of a contingency model based on Curle‘s (1971) progression of conflict,
avoiding coercion.
Authors within the conflict transformation tradition also draw heavily on ideas about
conflict dynamics common to all three schools. For example, conflicts sometimes develop strong
tendencies towards vicious or benign spirals. The common pattern is for conflict to broaden (suck
in new issues), widen (suck in new actors) and intensify (suck in new victims). But it is also
possible for conflict to be transformed, as parties shift positions and adopt new goals, new actors
emerge and new situations develop allowing for new relationships and changed structures.
It should be evident from this brief review of approaches to conflict transformation theory
that some theories, exemplified by Azar and Vayrynen, are primarily analytical and interpretative,
attempting to explain the formation and transformation of contemporary conflicts. Others, such as Curle
and Lederach, are prescriptive, offering peacebuilders a means to conceptualise the path from conflict
towards desired outcomes. Perhaps Galtung‘s approach comes closest to a synthesis.
7
2.3 From a Theory of Conflict to a Theory of Conflict-in-Context

As the practice of peacemaking has extended from prevention to post-conflict

peacebuilding, and as globalisation exerts an increasing impact on internal conflicts, the scope of
conflict transformation theories must correspondingly be extended. On the one hand, they need to
be concerned with the factors exacerbating conflict and restraining conflict over a number of
different phases (see Box 1):

Box 1: Factors Exacerbating or Restraining Conflict at Different Phases

phase pre-violence crisis escalation protracted post-
factors settlement
exacerbating underlying triggers escalators deformers triggers
causes
restraining deep light de- escalators transformers peacebuilders
preventors preventors

On the other hand, however, these theories must also deal adequately with the interplay of
causes and preventors at all the different levels of the international system. One can identify five
different levels at which contemporary conflicts are caused: the global, regional, societal, conflict party
and individual/elite (Miall, Ramsbotham and Woodhouse 1999). Box 2 provides specific examples of
causes and preventors of violent conflicts at these levels, using examples from Rwanda.

Conflict Transformation: A Multi-Dimensional Task

© Berghof Research Center for Constructive Conflict Management

 Hugh Miall

Box 2: Causes and Preventors of Violent Conflicts at Different Levels

level examples of causes examples of preventors
global post-colonial legacy international minority rights

regional conflict spillover conflict prevention

in great lakes by OSCE
state/society state capture cross-ethnic party voting
by ethnic groups

conflict party Hutu hostility pragmatic approach

towards Tutsi of minority

elite/international Hutu leaders president accepts

launch genocide OSCE advice

Conflict theories, if viewed too narrowly, will be seen to concentrate overly on the conflict
party level, focusing on parties, issues, goals and so on to the exclusion of the context within which the
conflict is situated as well as of the factors which characterize the self-fuelling of conflicts, e.g. markets
and cultures of violence. It is possible, however, to add more representation of the background, for
example building on Galtung‘s simple triangular formulation of conflict. On to ‚contradiction‘, we can
build ‚context‘; on to ‚attitudes‘, ‚memory‘ and on to ‚behaviour‘, ‚relations‘ (see Figure 2 ). This
recognizes that the meaning of a conflict depends largely on the context out of which it arises. The
attitudes the parties have towards one another are shaped by previous
relationships. The behaviour they adopt is not purely reactive but is based on their memory of what 8 has
happened in the past, and expectations of what may happen in the future.
The context of conflict includes the society in conflict and the wider international and
regional level. Within the society, crucial background aspects are culture, governance arrangements,
institutions, social roles, norms, the rules and codes in place in a society, and its path of development.
For example, in conflicts involving ethnicity, minorities or challenges to state structures, it is the very
structure of the state that is at issue. As globalisation proceeds, local conflicts are inevitably influenced
by wider economic and political forces. These have tended to strengthen trade investment and
technological networks in some areas of the world, but also to marginalise other areas such as Africa
and the former Soviet Union. The result is a weakening of states and economies in these areas and, in
some cases, the creation of a real crisis of the state. Internal conflicts are increasingly associated with
fragile states and mal-adaptive reactions to the impact of globalisation.
Relationships involve the whole fabric of interaction within the society in which the conflict
takes place as well as beyond to other societies. As Lederach (1997) argues, these relational aspects of
conflict are crucial. Poor relationships between groups are all too often a trigger for conflict, and remain
a critical hindrance to peacebuilding efforts after the violence is over.
Memories are part of each party‘s socially constructed understanding of the situation,
shaped by culture and learning, and discourse and belief. The way groups remember and construct
their past is often central to the mobilization for conflict, and thus a crucial matter to address in
reconciliation and cultural traditions work.
Context, relationships and memories are all part of the tissue connecting the contradictions,
attitudes and behaviours in the conflict formations, within the wider background in space and time.

Conflict Transformation: A Multi-Dimensional Task

© Berghof Research Center for Constructive Conflict Management

 Hugh Miall

Figure 2: Expanding the Conflict Triangle:

Transformers and Triggers of Conflict at Different System Levels

global level

regional level

state/society level

context
development governance triggers e.g.
C
arms sales
institutions culture diasporas
overspill of
regional
transformers A B conflicts
e.g.
Track I, memories relationships
Track II,
Track III communities
initiatives

This template enables a better understanding of the types of transformation that take place.
Building on Vayrynen‘s approach, Box 3 illustrates five types of transformation, or transformers.
Context transformations refer to changes in the context of conflict that may radically
alter each party‘s perception of the conflict situation, as well as their motives. The impact of the
end of the Cold War on regional conflicts is a dramatic example. A somewhat less far-reaching
instance might be the proposed change in the rules of the diamond trade to outlaw ‚conflict
diamonds‘, that could well have a significant impact on the conflicts in Sierra Leone and Angola.
The establishment of the World Diamond Council (www.worlddiamondcouncil.com) is a promising
start but it is, as yet, too early to see if it will have a significant impact.
Structural transformations refer to changes in the basic structure of the conflict, that is to
the set of actors, their issues, incompatible goals and relationships, or to the society, economy or
state within which the conflict is embedded. Asymmetric conflicts cannot be transformed, for
instance, without changing the unbalanced and contested relationships that lie at their roots. While
such changes will take place only gradually, internal and external actors can support them along the
way. For example Steve Biko‘s ‚Black Consciousness‘ movement raised awareness of the power of
the poor people in the townships in South Africa, and the Anti-Apartheid Movement helped to
press the case for dis-investment by foreign-owned businesses well before the end of the apartheid
regime. Many recent conflicts in West Africa have demonstrated the futility in attempting conflict
transformation without addressing the economic interests that fuel wars.

Conflict Transformation: A Multi-Dimensional Task

© Berghof Research Center for Constructive Conflict Management

 Hugh Miall

Box 3: Transformers of Conflict

type examples

1.context transformations change in the international or regional environment

change from asymmetric to symmetric

2. structure transformations relations change in power structures
changes of markets of violence

changes of leadership
changes of goals
3. actor transformations intra-party change
change in party‘s constituencies
changing actors

transcendence of contested issues

constructive compromise
4. issue transformations
changing issues
de-linking or re-linking issues

changes of perspective
changes of heart
5. personal/elite transformations
changes of will
gestures of conciliation

Actor transformations include decisions on the part of actors to change their goals or alter
their general approach to conflict. This would include decisions to seek peace or to initiate a peace
process. They also include changes of leadership, often crucial to the securing of transformation in 10
conflicts. Also included are changes in the situation of the public constituencies and supporters of
the respective political leaders. This opens a number of lines for specific conflict transformation
work, as those who work within a party to bring about change in that party‘s position often prove
to be crucial actors in the peace process, and may have more influence than external Track I and
Track II actors.
Issue transformations concern the reformulations of positions that parties take on key
issues at the heart of the conflict as well as the way in which parties redefine or reframe those
positions in order to reach compromises or resolutions. A good example of an issue transformation
was the decision by the Unionist Party in Northern Ireland to accept a de-linking of the
decommissioning issue from the question of the convocation of the Northern Ireland Assembly.
Making ‚progress‘ on issues in conflict is often tortuously slow and painfully subject to reversals,
and of course what counts as progress is itself contentious.
Personal changes of heart or mind within individual leaders or small groups with decision-
making power at critical moments may be crucial. Some external intervenors try to reach these leaders
and bring about this personal change directly (Curle 1987; Mitchell 2000). Conciliatory gestures by
leaders, which express personal changes, would play an important role in this context.
These five types of transformation can be readily related to the levels of conflict
causation or prevention identified above. Context transformations usually occur within the global
or regional setting. Structural transformations usually happen at the state/society level. Actor and
issue transformations take place at the conflict party and elite levels. Personal transformations
demand competencies on the individual level.
The transformation types can also be connected to the different parts of conflict formation,

Conflict Transformation: A Multi-Dimensional Task

© Berghof Research Center for Constructive Conflict Management

 Hugh Miall

whether this is seen in Azar‘s terms (see Figure 1) or in Galtung‘s (see Figure 2). Context,
structural and issue transformations all affect the context and contradictions at the heart of the
conflict. Actor and personal transformations particularly affect attitudes and memory, behaviour
and relationships. These in turn, of course, are interrelated.
Finally, these different types of transformation further relate to the phases of conflicts and the
timing of intervention. Context and structural changes tend to take place over a longer time-scale, and
affect the setting of the conflict; the other types of transformations occur more rapidly and sequentially,
as part of the dynamics of the conflict. The sequencing of changes varies with each peace process
depending on the logic of the situation (see Box 4 for the Northern Ireland case). Only in the very
simplest conflicts is conflict transformation likely to be a rapid or immediate process. More typically, it
is slow and tortuous with turning points usually followed by sticking points. This
makes the evaluation of individual measures extremely difficult.

Box 4: Transformers of the Northern Ireland Conflict

As one of the most intensively managed conflicts, as well as one of the more intractable
conflicts of the twentieth century, Northern Ireland offers many lessons for conflict
transformation. We can find evidence of all five levels of transformation at different points.
The context of the conflict was altered by long-term changes in the British and Irish societies,
the development of the EU and the end of the Cold War. The conflict structure changed as the
pan-Nationalist coalition developed sufficient alliances and confidence to balance the hitherto
asymmetric relationships between the parties. Actor transformations included changes of
government in Britain, the fundamental shift in thinking within the Sinn Féin leadership, and
division and change among the Unionists. Issue transformations included the mutual
agreements reached in the Good Friday agreement to reconcile the legitimacy of the two 11
cultural traditions and establish institutions which reinforce both the Irish and British
dimensions of governance. All this could not have taken place without significant changes of
mind at the individual and elite level. Even so, conflict remains and continues, as each
marching season reinvokes the old atmosphere of division and fear. Northern Ireland offers a
striking example of the complementarity of approaches on different tracks and of the
interrelationship between ‚structural‘ and ‚cultural‘ approaches (Bloomfield 1997). For
example, the patient work of the Community Relations Council on the ground built sufficient
credibility to enable the Council to facilitate quiet dialogue with young politicians (Fitzduff
1999). We have not yet gained a clear understanding of the role that ‚civil society‘ played in
this peace process and in the longer term process of healing the divisions between the
communities. Cochrane and Dunn (2002) provides an in-depth assessment.

The dynamics of conflict and conflict transformation are also related to the social and

international capacity for handling conflicts. In general, this capacity is likely to be higher in
societies with a past tradition of handling change peacefully, in which institutions are legitimate and
rules and norms are accepted. Correspondingly, it may be threatened and undermined in times of
extreme conflict and war. The modified version of Azar‘s theory, presented in Figure 1, suggests the
relationship between conflict dynamics and conflict handling capacity in divided societies.
Constructive conflict handling reinforces the society‘s confidence in its civic institutions,
culture and capacity to manage conflict peacefully. Further it not only transforms relationships in
conflict, it also strengthens the society‘s system of governance and capacity for conflict handling
Conflict Transformation: A Multi-Dimensional Task

© Berghof Research Center for Constructive Conflict Management

 Hugh Miall

and peaceful change.

Destructive conflict, on the other hand, results in an intensification of damage to the
participants in conflicts and the bystanders. It further destroys their cooperative capacities, including the
system of governance, the economic order and the social relationships of the society, in some cases even
the state. In protracted conflicts, all the institutions of society become thoroughly deformed.
These rather broad theoretical considerations suggest a framework through which we can
analyse and evaluate conflict transformation practices, and consider the gaps and weaknesses in the
international capacity for handling conflict.

3. Practices of Conflict Resolution

3.1 Actors of Conflict Transformation

Conflict transformation usually involves a broad range of actors, who make use of a
wide repertoire of practices. These can, however, be categorised into four main groups of actors,
who shape the development of contemporary practice:
• states and inter-governmental organisations;
• development and humanitarian organisations;
• international NGOs concerned with conflict prevention and transformation;
• parties to the conflict and other relevant groups within the affected societies.
I will briefly discuss some of the characteristic practices of each group, before
considering the issues that arise when they come together.
Track I practitioners, states and international organisations, are among the most influential 12 of
all the actors as their practice impinges most directly and powerfully on the conflict parties, and
the positive and negative consequences of their interventions are fully in the public eye. The 1990s
began with a hopeful phase in which the UN set out to implement the expanded conception of
peacemaking envisioned in Boutros Boutros-Ghali‘s Agenda for Peace, with notable peacebuilding
operations in areas with recent peace settlements, including Cambodia, Namibia, Angola,
Mozambique and El Salvador.
A general model for UN peacebuilding has emerged from these cases. It calls for military
measures to secure the demobilization, disarmament and cantonment of opposing forces;
constitutional measures to implement elections and establish a transitional government; governance
measures to support civilian government and infrastructure, including the training and, if necessary,
supervision of local police; human rights measures; return of refugees; and restoration of the war-
damaged infrastructure. At first, this model appeared to have striking successes, and in some cases
such as Namibia and Mozambique a peaceful transformation from war was indeed achieved. In
others, however, such as Angola and Cambodia, violent conflict resumed. The UN and the major
states continue to learn from these operations and are extending their peacebuilding operations, for
example in Bosnia and Kosovo. While international interventions have in these cases seem to have
halted ethnic wars, the extent of transformation of the underlying conflict remains limited. Ethno-
nationalist leaderships remain and settlements based on the realities of ethnic divisions in the war
have preserved these divisions in the peace.
These high-profile cases, of course, involved imposed settlements, achieved after
considerable vacillation on the part of a divided international community. More impressive have
been the cases in which conflicts were prevented even before they became violent, and where

Conflict Transformation: A Multi-Dimensional Task

© Berghof Research Center for Constructive Conflict Management

 Hugh Miall

deep or structural and light or operational conflict prevention have worked together. Here, real
changes in the context of the conflict and in the structure of the societies have resulted in some
impressive transformations.
In the case of Estonia, for example, a potential ethnic conflict was averted in part through the
well-known interventions of the OSCE High Commissioner on National Minorities, supported by the
EU and Scandinavian governments. In part, the transformed economic context served to change the
incentives for the Russian-speaking community. Moreover an additional key factor was the introduction
of an electoral system that created incentives for cross-ethnic voting, thus resulting in a transition from
ethnic politics to a politics of economic and regional interest groups. Non-Estonian politicians were
included in the party lists of Estonian parties, and the Estonian Centre Party won wide support from
Russian-speakers as a vehicle for promoting their interests. This is a particularly striking success for the
conflict management and ethnic accommodation approaches, made possible by the transformation of the
Estonian context after 1991.
The second type of actors are development and humanitarian agencies. In the 1980s and
1990s, these agencies were increasingly drawn into the costly business of rebuilding war-torn societies,
and were responding to the acute damage to development, which had resulted from armed conflicts, by
targeting development programmes specifically towards peacebuilding. In some cases, their activities
supported UN peacebuilding operations, for example in Mozambique where donors helped to keep the
elections on schedule and supported the transformation of RENAMO into a political party. In other
cases, development aid can be channelled to directly mitigate conflict, as when donors supported
refugees in neglected parts of Somalia with the intention of reducing discontent in a politically unstable
area. Programmes to support the re-integration of child soldiers or the rehabilitation of agricultural land
are further examples of development tasks that can readily
have a peacebuilding component. Capacity-building and support for indigenous conflict handling 13
capacity are also crucial. A notable example of such work is Oxfam‘s conflict transformation work
in Northern Kenya (see Box 5).
Development aid can, of course, have unintended as well as intended consequences; in
some circumstances, aid is captured by the parties to conflict and then sustains the fighting. Current
work on establishing a framework of indicators for assessing the impact of development projects
on conflicts goes some way towards meeting the need for a framework for better evaluation (see
contributions of Mark Hoffman and Mary Anderson in this volume). Such a framework of
indicators should in turn be linked to a framework for understanding the overall transformation of
the conflict, such as the one offered above.
Although development agencies are increasingly important and influential in this field,
they generally see their role as principally to support and encourage the work of others, rather than
to take prime responsibility for transforming particular conflicts (this role is still seen as a new and
untested function). Most of the conflict transformation work has therefore been left to NGOs.

Box 5: Conflict Transformation Work in Northern Kenya

In Northern Kenya, the growing pressure on arid land and the introduction of a
Kalashnikov culture into traditional cattle-raiding has led to an increase in both the extent and
intensity of conflicts between nomadic pastoral communities, as well as between pastoralists and
agriculturalists. Not only historical rivals such as the Turkana and Pokot or Somali and Borana,
but also communities which coexisted peacefully in the 1980s are now engulfed in war. The
militarisation of these pastoralist communities is severely affecting the security of Kenya and the
neighbouring territories, and damaging the affected communities. In response,

Conflict Transformation: A Multi-Dimensional Task

© Berghof Research Center for Constructive Conflict Management

 Hugh Miall

Oxfam facilitated peace talks relying on local elders in the Baragoi Pastoral Project of 1997.
A crucial aspect of Oxfam‘s ongoing work in the area is an effort to appreciate the codes of
honour and conduct of these peoples and their understanding of conflict, through lexical and
ethnographic analysis (Kona 1999). In this vein, a local committee of women from the
affected communities set up the Wajir Peace and Development Committee, a network of 27
governmental organisations and NGOs in north-eastern Kenya. This group conducts training
and capacity-building, and contributed to a cease-fire in 1993 and continuing efforts to
prevent and resolve local conflicts in the region.
(European Platform for Conflict Prevention 1999a, 152; 1999b, 243-47)

Of all the groups of practitioners discussed here, it is probably the NGOs who have paid
most attention to theories of conflict transformation. Following Lederach, NGO practitioners
advocate a sustained level of engagement over a longer time-period. They seek an in-depth
understanding of the roots of conflict, working closely with people both within and outside the
conflict parties. They seek to open a space for dialogue, sustain local or national conferences and
workshops on paths towards peace, identify opportunities for development and engage in
peacebuilding, relationship-building and institution-building over the longer term.
The methods and tools employed by Track II actors include supporting and sustaining local
groups and social movements, building peace constituencies, strengthening capacity, empowering key
actors, organisational development and networking and training. A notable example of this kind of work
is the programme of the London-based NGO Conciliation Resources (CR) in Fiji, undertaken in
coalition with local actors. CR supported the Citizens‘ Constitutional Forum in
Fiji, an organisation which made a significant contribution to the new constitutional settlement in 14 1996
with the introduction of the alternative-vote system and power-sharing (Conciliation Resources
2000). Unfortunately, the coup in Fiji in May 2000 and the return to a narrowly-based government
indicates only too clearly the setbacks confronted by this kind of work.
One key requirement for this work is good conflict analysis (see Box 6), which is best
developed in conjunction with groups in conflict. Tracking the changing dynamics of a conflict over
time is clearly one of the areas in which practice must draw on appropriately developed theory.

Box 6: Conflict Analysis

The original conflict mapping guide of Wehr (1979) is still of value. More recent
guides can be found in Miall, Ramsbotham and Woodhouse (1999, 92-3), Bloomfield and
Reilly (1998, 41-43) and Leonhardt (2000). The basic technique is to take a snapshot of the
conflict, identifying key actors, stakeholders, issues and relationships, and then identify the
actors, third-parties or potential peace alliances capable of bringing about change. More
sophisticated conflict tracking relies on indicators of conflict which are also used for early
warning purposes and impact assessment (Schmid 1997; Jongmaan 2000; see contribution of
Paffenholz in this volume).

Finally, and most importantly, the local actors themselves have the greatest responsibility,
and the greatest opportunity, for transforming their own conflicts. There are cases of ‚embedded third-
parties‘ who emerge out of conflict parties and play a significant role in opening channels of dialogue
and opening political space – such as John Hume in Northern Ireland; cases of groups

Conflict Transformation: A Multi-Dimensional Task

© Berghof Research Center for Constructive Conflict Management

 Hugh Miall

within political parties who can bring about an actor transformation such as the shift towards political
forms of struggle in Sinn Féin; and civil society actors and local NGOs who often have an enormous
influence on bridge-building between political parties and local communities exemplified by the
Clonard monastery in Northern Ireland, and the Corrymeela Community working on respect for cultural
traditions thereby addressing the problems of historical memories and reconciliation. The impact of this
peacebuilding on the macro level of the conflict is hard to evaluate; but on a small scale, the personal
and group transformations that it can achieve are keenly felt.

3.2 Coordination and Multi-Track Diplomacy

A particular challenge for conflict transformation work is the question of how best to
work effectively with interventions occurring at other tracks. At times, very effective collaboration
takes place, for example in the case of Macedonia (see Box 7).
All too often, however, internal and external actors in the various tracks are at cross-
purposes. This is not surprising, given the clash between paradigms. Actions on one track can
sometimes wreck efforts on another. For example, it may be difficult for an organisation that strives
for non-violent resolution of conflicts to cooperate with a government that relies on coercive
methods to pressure the local protagonists to accept a settlement. Conversely, foreign ministries are
not usually enthusiastic about the intrusion of NGOs into diplomacy.
Practitioners of conflict transformation activities at the non-state level must pursue their aims
with sensitivity to both the culture of the conflict area and the goals and constraints of other actors.
They must always remember that they may not be able to influence other actors whose actions will in
turn affect their own work. Moreover, their task may broaden when conflict transformation
involves changing the policies of Track I bodies outside the conflict area. For example, it is increasingly 15
recognized that bodies like the World Bank can have a significant impact on conflicts. Campaigns to
influence their policies have thus become a regular part of the wider task of conflict transformation.

Box 7: Cooperative Multi-Track Diplomacy in Macedonia

Macedonia offers a case in which the various initiatives of different tracks appear to
have been genuinely complementary. For example, the OSCE High Commissioner on
National Minorities (external Track I) together with the Open Society Institute in Skopje
(internal Track III) proposed several compromise solutions on the university issue. The
International Conference on the Former Yugoslavia (Track I) brokered a compromise
between Macedonia and the ethnic Serbs, while Mr. Holbrooke and the US government
(Track I) clinched the agreement between Greece and Macedonia which ended the blockade.
The NGO Search for Common Ground (external Track III) developed a long-term
programme aiming to meet the common needs of both communities at the grassroots level,
particularly by promoting ‚inclusive journalism‘, respect for the common cultural legacy and
the monuments of both communities, and also bicommunal efforts to protect the
environment (Ackermann 2000). Tensions between the two communities remain sharp and
have been further exacerbated by the effects of the war in Kosovo. Indeed the fighting in
May/June 2000 threatened to expand into civil war. Underlying disagreements over the
acceptance of the identity and status of the groups have not been resolved. Nevertheless, an
inter-ethnic coalition is still intact in Parliament (Track 1) – this is probably the most vital
factor in restraining violent conflict. Although at the time of writing these tensions could still
overwhelm Macedonia, internal and external actors have so far worked together effectively
to create a significant capacity, at least at the top-level, for accommodating differences.

Conflict Transformation: A Multi-Dimensional Task

© Berghof Research Center for Constructive Conflict Management

 Hugh Miall

3.3 Assessing the Impact of Practice

What is the overall impact of these kinds of practice on conflict? It is still difficult to say.

There are reports of significant achievements in building peace constituencies for example in
Lederach‘s work (1997). Compilations of recent work include some impressive stories of apparent
successes (European Platform for Conflict Prevention 1999a,b). Only recently, however, some
comparative research studies have started to identify key variables of impact assessment more
systematically such as Reflecting on Peace Practice (RPP) and Lessons Learned in Conflict
Interventions by the European Platform for Conflict Prevention and Transformation. Bercovitch‘s
research (1996) suggests that conflict management approaches, including the use of power resources,
are the most effective at delivering settlements. On the other hand, these settlements often fail to
genuinely transform the conflict, and the long-term work necessary to build relationships and
capacity may be more important than reaching fragile short-term political settlements.
The overall evidence of the ending of ethnic conflicts is particularly sobering. In a study
of peacefully settled conflicts in Europe, the Middle East and Africa since 1945 (Pfetsch and Roloff
2000) the authors found only 13 out of 121 cases of conflicts over ethnicity, religion or regional
autonomy that were resolved through peaceful negotiation (these include the Aland Islands, Northern
Epirus, the Saar and South Tyrol). 51 remain undecided, 8 were resolved by the threat of force or
other forms of coercion, and 49 by violence. The great majority of the peaceful cases were republics
of the former Soviet Union which peacefully broke away in 1991. Indeed, despite the violent
conflicts in Chechnya, Tajikistan, Nagorno-Karabakh and elsewhere, the number of ethnic conflicts
which appear to have been transformed without violence in the former Soviet Union is startling.
A useful line of work is to identify these peaceful cases and ascertain the reasons why
violence has been avoided, and how ethnic and other internal conflicts have been managed or 16
addressed. But conflict ending measured by the end of violence is too final and crude an indicator
on which to base the planning and assessment of conflict transformation initiatives. For this, a more
finely-grained, differentiated approach is needed and indicators such as those developed in work
on Peace and Conflict Impact Assessment (PCIA) systems offer one such approach (see contribution
of Hoffman in this volume). If conflict transformation can be broken down into a sequence of
changes in the conflict structure, the parties‘ goals and into issues over time, as suggested in the
first part of this paper, it may become more feasible to relate interventions to particular
transformations in the conflict.
The impact of endeavours for conflict transformation should not only be seen as an issue
which affects the parties in conflict. It is also of direct relevance for all the individuals involved. The
challenges, difficulties, hardships, setbacks and tenacity inherent in all conflict transformation mean
that we must also ‚transform the transformers‘. We must include this group as we focus on activities
designed to enhance peace education, to improve training programmes and to create opportunities
for self-reflection and spirituality (see Box 8).

Box 8: Transforming the Transformers – Smiling as a Method

One of the world‘s most notable transformers of conflict uses a method that does not
usually appear in books about conflict and is completely absent from conflict theories. It is,
however, a method that works. The method is to smile. „Breathing in, I calm my mind and
body. Breathing out, I smile. This is the present moment. This is the only moment.“ Thich Nhat
Hanh is a Vietnamese Buddhist monk, poet and peace activist. He is not the only exponent of
the smiling approach to conflict transformation. The Dalai Lama, Adam Curle and Nelson

Conflict Transformation: A Multi-Dimensional Task

© Berghof Research Center for Constructive Conflict Management

 Hugh Miall

Mandela are all instinctive smilers. Thich Nhat Hanh not only smiles wonderfully, he also offers a
comprehensive guide to the theory and practice of smiling, rooted in traditional wisdom and
experience (Nhat Hanh 1987). „If we are peaceful, if we are happy we can smile and blossom like
a flower and everyone in our family in our entire society will benefit from our peace.“ The idea of
smiling as an approach to conflict transformation is based on the theory of interdependent co-
origination. The practice of smiling is part of the practice of engaged mindfulness and reminds us
that the conflict transformer must also take responsibility for transforming him- or herself in the
process. The theory of interdependent co-origination states that everything has an influence on
everything else. Everything inter-is with everything else. A flower is partly a flower, but it also
has the sun and the rain and the earth inside it. The flower is made up of non-flower elements.
Similarly, our self is made up of non-self elements. We can touch that of ourselves in the other
and be touched by that of the other in ourselves. According to Buddhist psychology, we have a
mental consciousness and a storehouse consciousness. Seeds develop in the storehouse
consciousness and when they come to occupy our mental consciousness, we water them and they
grow. In conflict we water the seed of anger until the anger within our storehouse consciousness
grows very strong. It can then govern our thoughts and behaviour. But this is not inevitable. The
practice of engaged mindfulness can transform anger, pain, and hate into compassion, joy and
love. Conflict transformation, like mindfulness, tends and waters seeds, without knowing exactly
how they will grow. Memory, relationships and conflicts are seeds in the collective storehouse
consciousness. Transforming collective conflicts requires a deep awareness of ourselves and our
interbeing with others.

4. Conclusion 17

This paper has argued that a distinctive school of conflict transformation theory and
practice has developed over the past decade. This new approach can be differentiated from conflict
management and conflict resolution, although all three schools rely on a shared tradition of
thinking about conflict and intervention.
Conflict transformation is a comprehensive approach, addressing a range of dimensions
(micro- to macro- issues, local to global levels, grassroots to elite actors, short-term to long-term
timescales). It aims to develop capacity and to support structural change, rather than to facilitate
outcomes or deliver settlements. It seeks to engage with conflict at the pre-violence and post-
violence phases, and with the causes and consequences of violent conflict, which usually extend
beyond the site of fighting.
This paper has argued that the ambitious prescriptive theories need to be better integrated
with the incremental analytical approach. At the same time, the analytical theories must be
extended in time-scale and scope. The paper proposed expanding conflict theory to include
conflict-in-context, and suggested a theoretically informed framework for evaluation.
A number of questions and gaps in the theory remain. We still lack sufficiently precise
dynamic theories to adequately capture the emergent properties of conflict, including the formation
of new actors and new issues. Most theories concentrate either on the causes and development of
conflict or on the creation and sustenance of a peacebuilding capacity, and fail to sufficiently
integrate an understanding of how the preventors and causes of conflict interact. There has been a
somewhat uncritical willingness to embrace multi-track diplomacy, without an adequate

Conflict Transformation: A Multi-Dimensional Task

© Berghof Research Center for Constructive Conflict Management

 Hugh Miall

conceptualisation of how activity in the various tracks can fit together. We still have an incomplete
understanding of the impact of conflict transformation activities on conflict, which makes them
difficult to evaluate.
As the task of conflict transformation broadens, it may seem even more daunting. Any
one practitioner or theorist can tackle only a part of this enormous field. All we can to is, to
undertake a piece of work in good faith and do it well is all we can do. We plant seeds, and trust
that interdependent co-origination will take care of the rest.

5. Reference and Further Reading

Ackermann, A. 2000. Making Peace Prevail: Preventing Violent Conflict in Macedonia, Syracuse: Syracuse
University Press.
Anderson, M. 1999. Do No Harm: How Aid Can Support Peace – or War, Boulder: Lynne Rienner.
Axelrod, R. 1984. The Evolution of Cooperation, New York: Basic Books.
Azar, E. 1990. The Management of Protracted Social Conflict, Aldershot: Dartmouth.
Azar, E. and John W. Burton, 1986. International Conflict Resolution: Theory and Practice, Boulder: Lynne
Rienner and Wheatsheaf.
Bailey, S. 1993. Peace is a Process, Quaker Home Service and Woodbrooke College for the Swarthmore
Lecture Committee.
Bercovitch, J. (ed.) 1996. Resolving International Conflicts: The Theory and Practice of Mediation, Boulder:
Lynne Rienner.
Bloomfield, D. 1997. Peacemaking strategies in Northern Ireland: Building Complementarity in Conflict
Management Theory, Basingstoke: Macmillan. 18 Bloomfield, D. and Ben Reilly 1998. „The Changing
Nature of Conflict and Conflict Management,“ in Peter
Harris and Ben Reilly (eds.), op. cit.
Burton, J. 1987. Resolving deep-rooted conflict: a handbook, Lanham, Maryland: University Press of
America.
Burton, J. and F. Dukes (eds.) 1990. Conflict: Practices in Management, Settlement and Resolution, vol 4 of
the Conflict Series, London: Macmillan.
Carnegie Commission on Preventing Deadly Conflict 1997. Preventing Deadly Conflict, Washington DC:
Carnegie Corporation of New York.
Clark, H. 2000. Civil Resistance in Kosovo, London: Pluto.
Cochrane, F. and Seamus Dunn 2002. People Power: The Role of the Voluntary and Community Sector in the
Northern Ireland Conflict, Cork: Cork University Press.
Conciliation Resources 2000. Annual Report 1999, London: Conciliation Resources (see http://www.c-r.org)
Coogan, T. 1995. The Troubles: Ireland‘s Ordeal 1966-1995 and the search for peace, London: Hutchinson.
Corbin, J. 1994. Gaza First: the Secret Norway Channel to Peace between Israel and the PLO, London:
Bloomsbury.
Curle, A. 1971. Making Peace, London: Tavistock.
Curle, A. 1987. In the middle: non-official mediation in violent situations, New York: Berg.
Curle, A. 1996. Another Way: Positive Responses to Violence. Oxford: John Carpenter.
De Reuck, A. 1984. „The logic of conflict: its origin, development and resolution,“ in Conflict in World
Society, ed. M. Banks, Brighton: Harvester.
Duffield, M. 1997. „Evaluating conflict resolution,“ in Serbe G, Macrae J. and L Wohlgemuth, NGOs in
Conflict – An Evaluation of International Alert, Fantoft-Bergen, Norway: Christian Michelsen

Conflict Transformation: A Multi-Dimensional Task

© Berghof Research Center for Constructive Conflict Management

 Hugh Miall

Institute, 79-112.
European Platform for Conflict Prevention 1999a. Searching for Peace in Africa: An Overview of Conflict
Prevention and Management Activities. Utrecht: European Centre for Conflict Prevention.
European Platform for Conflict Prevention 1999b. People Building Peace, Utrecht: European Centre for
Conflict Prevention.
Fisher, R. and Loreleigh Keashly 1991. „The potential complementarity of mediation and consultation within a
contingency model of third-party intervention,“ Journal of Peace Research, Vol 28, No. 1, 29-42.
Fitzduff, M. 1999. „Changing History - Peacebuilding in Northern Ireland,“ in European Centre for Conflict
Prevention, People Building Peace, Utrecht: European Centre for Conflict Prevention.
Galtung, J. 1969. „Conflict as a way of life,“ in H. Freeman, Progress in Mental Health, London: J. & A.
Churchill.
Galtung, J. 1996. Peace by Peaceful Means, London: Sage.
Galtung, J. and Carl G. Jacobsen 2000. Searching for Peace, London: Pluto.
Glasl, F. 1982. „The Process of Conflict Escalation and Roles of Third-parties,“ in G.B.Bomers and R.B.
Peterson (eds.), Conflict Management and Industrial Relations, Boston, The Hague, London:
Kluwer Nijhoff.
Harris P. and Ben Reilly (eds.) 1998. Democracy and Deep-rooted conflict, Stockholm: Institute for
Democracy and Electoral Assistance (IDEA).
Hume, C. 1994. Ending Mozambique‘s War, Washington: United States Institute of Peace.
International Alert 1996. Resource Pack for Conflict Transformation, London: International Alert.
Jabri, V. 1996. Discourses on Violence: Conflict Analysis Reconsidered, Manchester: Manchester University
Press.
Joongman, A. 2000. „Mapping Dimensions of Contemporary Conflicts and Human Rights Violations,“ World
Conflicts and Human Rights MAP 2000. PIOOM, Leiden: Leiden University. 19
Kona, Epokhorr S.1999. A framework for cross-cultural conflict resolution theory: Prospects for Cultural
Contributions from Africa, Richardson Institute, Lancaster University: Unpublished thesis.
Kriesberg, L. 1998. Constructive Conflicts: From Escalation to Resolution. Lanham: Rowman and
Littlefield.
Krippendorf, E. 1973. „Peace Research and the Industrial Revolution“, Journal of Peace Research, Vol 10,
185-201.
Lederach, J.P. 1995. Preparing for Peace: Conflict Transformation Across Cultures, New York: Syracuse
University Press.
Lederach, J. P. 1997. Building Peace: Sustainable Reconciliation in Divided Societies, Washington, D.C.:
United States Institute of Peace Press.
Leonhardt, M. 2000. Conflict Impact Assessment of EU Development Cooperation with ACP Countries: A
review of literature and practice, London: International Alert/Saferworld.
Miall, H., Oliver Ramsbotham, and Tom Wodhouse 1999. Contemporary Conflict Resolution, Cambridge: Polity.
Mitchell, C. R. 1981. The structure of international conflict. London, Macmillan.
Mitchell, C. R. 2000. Gestures of Conciliation: Factors Contributing to Successful Olive-Branches,
Basingstoke: Macmillan.
Nhat Hanh, T. 1967. Lotus in A Sea of Fire, New York: Fellowship of Reconciliation.
Nhat Hanh, T. 1987. Being Peace, Berkeley, CA: Parallax Press.
Pfetsch, F. and Christoph Rohloff 2000. National and International Conflicts 1945-1995, London: Routledge.
Phuong, C. N. 1991. „Compassionate Action in the Midst of War,“ Karuna, 11 (Spring).
Ramsbotham, O. and Woodhouse, Tom 1996. Humanitarian Intervention in Contemporary Conflict,
Cambridge: Polity.

Conflict Transformation: A Multi-Dimensional Task

© Berghof Research Center for Constructive Conflict Management

 Hugh Miall

Rapoport, A. 1989. The Origins of Violence, New York: Paragon House.

Reychler, L. and Thania Paffenholz 2001. Peacebuilding: A field guide, London and Boulder: Lynne Rienner.
Ruane, J and J. Todd, 1996, The Dynamics of Conflict in Northern Ireland, Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Rupesinghe, K. (ed.) 1995. Conflict Transformation, London: Macmillan.
Rupesinghe, K. 1998. Civil Wars, Civil Peace, London: Pluto.
Schmid, A. 1997. „Early Warning of Violent Conflicts“ in A.Schmid (ed.), Violent Crime and Conflicts,
Milan: ISPAC (International Scientific and Professional Advisory Council of the UN Crime
Prevention and Criminal Justice Programme).
Senghaas, D. 1973. „Conflict Formations in Contemporary International Society,“ Journal of Peace
Research, vol.10, 163-184.
Sharp, G. 1973. The politics of nonviolent action, (3 vols), Boston: Porter Sargent.
Ury, W. 1999. Getting to Peace: Transforming Conflict at Home, at Work, and in the World, New York:
Viking. Vayrynen, R. (ed.) 1991. „To Settle or to Transform? Perspectives on the Resolution of National and
International Conflicts,“ New Directions in Conflict Theory: Conflict Resolution and Conflict
Transformation. London: Sage, 1-25.
Wehr, P. 1979. Conflict Regulation, Boulder, Colorado: Westview.
Wehr, P., Heidi Burgess & Guy Burgess (eds.) 1994. Justice Without Violence, Boulder: Lynne Rienner.
Weller, M. et al 2000. Missed Opportunities of Conflict Prevention in Kosovo: A transatlantic evaluation,
Ebenhausen: Conflict Prevention Network/SWP.

20

Conflict Transformation: A Multi-Dimensional Task

© Berghof Research Center for Constructive Conflict Management