Prof.Dan

Conflict Resolution : does not have an exact meaning or definitions. It is about ideas, theories and methods in international relations, international politics and affairs. This department connected to social, psychological ,sociology , economics ,and law. Conflict resolution aims to understand conflict reasons, giving a solutions and reduction in violence.

Collapsed the bipolar system after the Cold war period UNSC, NGOs, States , Local players have an important role in the international order.

Conflict resolutions include : diplomatic ways ( negotiations , make a deal , agreement )

Third party (mediation) / Dialogue / third party facilitation

The problem solving workshop

To provide to collaboration between theory to practice

Conflict analysis

Willingness to compromise

Avoid to false dialogue

Conflict resolution theories (SPOILERS )

Understanding conflict dynamics within identity groups as well as governments.

These theories connected to sociological and physiological theories . Because , conflict dynamics include human nature and also societies behaviours looks like human behaviour.

-conflict transformation: Relationship and peacebuilding

Ghali Report (1992): UN Agenda for Peace

Peacemaking/ peacebuilding / peacekeeping

emphasis barging and deal making

-conflict settlement : making a deal / international negotiations and diplomacy

Barging and mediation ( 3. Party)

Game theories : mutual trust and dealing each others / timing

Prisoners Dilemma & Games of chicken & win- win game

Risk management: Third party & sharing risk & impartial

MEDIATION : this term has not obvious meaning in the International Relations Meaning of mediation is traditionally complex and after the new world order this meaning shifted to new conditions. It is a form of conflict resolutions in IR.

Third part has a role in the process of creating peace and facilitating agreement.

Mediator has crucial role.

Zartman and Tovval write of American mediation in the politics of the Middle East . Especially Israeli and Palestinian . Besides all process related to social understand each other.

GEORGE ORWEL alinti yap!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Edward Said : israil – filistin catismasinin bu kadar uzun surme nedeni olark iki tarafin birbirini yanlis anlamasi ve anlasmaya gonulsuz olmalari oldugunu belirtmistir.

Conflict Resolution

Conflict resolution is a high level of intervention, according to definition, and deals with the cause of the conflict and the establishment of a stronger, longer-lasting relationship between the conflicting parties. This approach is based on the assumption that the root causes of the conflict can be found and transformed and the conflict structure can be changed on this basis (Ramsbotham, Woodhouse and Miall 2005: 29). There are various methods for conflict resolution. Establishing goodwill for negotiations, establishing bilateral relations rules, determining common objectives within each of the competing parties, transferring information and diplomatic persuasion are often used in non-coercive ways. In addition, the non-coercive methods do not bring the expected consequences; interfering external forces occasionally cause economic and military incentive / pressure applications.

Peace builds up the first part of the construction process. Conflict resolution is the answer to reach a mutual agreement in this sense, to remove the problems that raise tension, and to prevent violent behaviour in the future. The traditional conflict resolution implemented during the Cold War era had a limited focus on reducing tension and resolving active international disagreements. Nevertheless, in the 1990s the peace building process adopted a more comprehensive approach, including not only a solution to the ongoing armed conflict, but also the peaceful coexistence of old warriors as the main objective. Recent research shows that conflict resolution involves all the projects necessary for the establishment of long-term peace in post-war societies. However, I will include conflict resolution in the traditional sense.

The traditional conceptual approach to conflict resolution, the process between the initiation of peace negotiations between the warring parties and the completion of the conditions of the peace treaty is symbolic.

Various conflict resolution definitions point to different areas of international peace-support activities.

5 phases of conflict resolution

1. Preliminary Interview

2. Peace Negotiation

3. Peace Agreement

4. Confirmation

5. Application

Pre-interviews; before the official peace talks begin. The main objective of these negotiations is to persuade the parties to start the negotiation process. A successful negotiation and peace process should increase the level of business association between the parties. However, at this stage, the parties have different concerns about whether 'negotiations will lead to a better alternative than the current situation', 'whether there will be a fair deal' and 'whether we have enough power to achieve appropriate results.' Also, because chronic conflicts increase distrust among the parties, those who make the interviews are sceptical about the aims of their 'enemies'. Therefore, the parties involved and the third parties should focus on building trust before negotiating.

Negotiators can discuss issues related to the negotiation procedure. The questionnaire covers the logistics, the location of the negotiation, the date, the security, the participants, the mediators, the issues to be discussed, the purpose, the number of parties,

Outside mediators may intervene to support the preliminary interview process. They are able to minimize the technical barriers of the negotiation process by carrying information and messages between the main target parties in this process, providing appropriate space for negotiations, proposing the general rules to be followed for negotiation by applying diplomatic support and pressure.

PEACE CONSULTANCY; if the preliminary negotiations provide the necessary conditions for negotiation then the official peace negotiation process will begin. Negotiation plays a crucial role in the conflict resolution, as success depends on the initiation of preliminary negotiations and agreement on the choice of the best method to be used in resolving the conflict. At this stage, conflicting parties can increase the likelihood of resolving nonconformities and agree on the strategies needed to live in a more peaceful environment. However, the negotiations taking place during military conflicts are a competitive one, assuming that the relations between the parties are based on zero aggregate interests. Also, once the war starts and the two sides give losses, the trust disappears. Even if leaders want to continue negotiations, their supporters may refuse to communicate because of negative feelings towards the other party.

Therefore, a successful conflict resolution process must remove them from the scene. In the first stage, negotiations are often held in secret negotiations organized by the leaders of the parties, which are separate and confidential. This method allows the intermediaries to have more knowledge of the peace process and can help to reduce doubt and distrust between the parties. Successful completion of secret negotiations will allow the official 'multilateral talks' to begin. Under these circumstances, they are involved in the process of successful termination of many outsourcing negotiations in today's peace process. Security guarantees, economic sanctions and military threats are applied in addition to the above measures in terms of the means of intervention.

PEACE CONSIDERATIONS: successful peace negotiations process results in a peace agreement that stands for strategies for long-term peace and sets out the principles of communication. The Peace Treaty usually draws a roadmap to end hostilities and ensure that marginalized groups take an active role in the process. The form of peace agreements depends on the character of the negotiations. Types of agreements that can be considered in this sense; cease-fire agreements, preparatory agreements, comprehensive and draft agreements and implementation agreements.

It is necessary to be very careful in the process of preparation of materials and transferring them to paper. Although the use of generic materials to solve the bottlenecks in the negotiation process has created a solution, the creation of a more clear draft avoids the inconvenience that may arise in the future. The conditions for the fulfilment of the substance of most peace treaties allow the conflicting parties to work to make peace happen.

Confirmation; peace agreements should take the support of all the parties, the power groups, the soldiers and the intermediaries, that is, the people of the society, who are involved in each conflicting side of the people.

In countries with little or no experience of democracy, cross-border ratification has a crucial pre-requisite for successful implementation of the agreement. Particularly if the people who are sent to the negotiations are selected from groups that are not very effective in the groups, it is important to get approval from the leadership team in the process of negotiations. Regardless of countries with democracy experience, governments or major military organizations inform their citizens about the peace agreement, its implementation and plans, and its impact on all countries.

APPLICATION; The implementation of peace agreements includes many aspects such as disarmament, demobilization and recruitment of former warriors, transitional security conditions, protection of human rights, choice of new leader cadres, economic reform, settlement of refugees and land registration. Some of these issues can seriously affect the interests of former warring groups. Therefore, the application of the peace treaty should be considered as the most sensitive part of the whole peace process. For example, long-standing conflict and insecurity between the parties can cause the entire process to collapse.

External mediators can support this process by controlling the implementation of this process through national actors. Some states and international organizations can provide financial, technical and legal support for the implementation process and, if necessary, apply diplomatic and economic pressure to national actors to comply with the terms of the agreement.

ACTORS DURING CONFLICT RESOLUTION

Those who play a key role in conflict resolution processes are those who are in struggle. Conflicts cannot be solved without the immediate confrontation of the conflicting parties. However, the peaceful support of conflict resolution takes place in external actors. They can be divided into 3 groups: international organizations, states and sub-state actors. They leave among themselves. Supranational organizations; International organizations and regional organizations, states; Regional hegemons, ideological forces and neighbours, sub-state actors; they are divided into NGOs and individuals.

Sovyetler Birliği’nin dağılmasının ardından Rusya Federasyonu’nun Ukrayna üzerindeki etkinliği Rus yanlısı hükümetler üzerinden sürerken, AB ise bölgenin birliğe entegrasyonuçabaları çerçevesinde Ukrayna ile ilişkilerini geliştirme yollarını aramıştı. 2004-2005 yıllarında adına “Turuncu Devrim”denilen bir süreç sonunda yönetimden memnun olmayan halkın sokağa dökülmesiyle Batı ileRusya’nın Ukrayna üzerinden bir hesaplaşması söz konusu olmuştu. Bu süreç iki kutbun ilişkilerini yeniden düzenleyen de bir süreçti. Batı yanlısı siyasi kanadın galibiyetiyle sonuçlanan Turuncu Devrim etkilerinin, Rusya yanlısı politikalarıyla öne çıkan Cumhurbaşkanı Viktor Yanukoviç’in 2010 yılında iktidara gelmesiyle kaybolduğu sanılmıştı.Fakat 2013 senesinin sonuna doğru Yanukoviç’in AB ile Ukrayna arasında planlanan ve Ukrayna’ya uzun vadede AB üyeliği yolunu açacak olan İşbirliği Anlaşması’nı imzalamaktan vazgeçtiğini açıklamasıyla ülkedeki gerilim tekrar açığa çıktı. AB ile entegrasyonun sürmesini talep eden Ukrayna halkı sokaklara dökülerek protesto gösterilerine başladı. Durumun kontrolden çıkmasıyla Ukrayna’da dönemin Cumhurbaşkanı Yanukoviç ülkeyi terk ederek Rusya’ya sığındı.

Yanukoviç’in ülkeyi terk ettiği Şubat 2014’te Ukrayna’da siyasetin belirleyici unsuru olarak Rusya karşıtlarının öne çıkacağı tahmin ediliyordu. Yanukoviç’in görevinden alınmasıyla Parlamento’daki Rus etkisinin zayıflaması üzerine Rusya bu kez sert güç unsurlarını kullanarak Ukrayna’daki çıkarlarını savunma yoluna gitti. Rusya uluslararası hukukun sınırlarını bir hayli zorlayan eylemleri sonucunda Ukrayna’nın Kırım yarımadasını ilhak etti. Bunu yaparken Kosova isgalini ornek gosterdi . Kirimda yasayan Rus azinliklari koruma amacinda oldugunu belirtirek isgalini hakli bir nedene oturtmaya calisti .Takip eden süreçte ise Doğu Ukrayna’daki ayrılıkçı silahlı güçlere destek vererek Ukrayna’nın toprak bütünlüğünü ihlale yönelik eylemlerini sürdürdü. Rusya’nın Ukrayna’ya ait toprakların bir kısmını ilhak edip bir kısmındaki ayrılıkçı silahlıfaaliyetlere açık destek vermesiyle ABD ve AB duruma diplomatik kanallar ve ekonomik yaptırımlarile müdahale etti. ABD ve AB tarafından uygulanan yaptırımlar, Rusya’nın uluslararası hukuka mugayir hareketlerinin maliyetini artırarak tutumunu bir kez daha gözden geçirmesini sağlama amacı güdüyordu. Fakat Rusya bu ekonomik yaptırımlar sonucu yaşadığı ekonomik kayıplara rağmen gerek Kırım’da gerekse Ukrayna’nın doğusunda yürüttüğü politikalarından geri adım atmadı.

From the beginning of the crisis in Ukraine, regional and global actors have struggled to end the crisis in the region through diplomatic means and a number of sanctions. If the crisis in Ukraine is seen as both a cause and a consequence of a conflict between the West and Russia, the Western wing is composed of the EU, the Ukrainian government and the United States; The eastern wing can be said to be represented by Russia alone. The search for solutions in the Ukrainian crisis took place in the western world by applying economic sanctions to Russia, reducing Russia's pressure on Ukraine and bringing conflicting parties to the diplomacy. The fact that Russia did not step back from Ukrainian politics by resisting economic sanctions and that the cease-fire resolutions reached to the table were ineffective, were the factors that prevented the quest for solutions in the crisis in Ukraine to reach a conclusion.

Economic Sanctions

Russia and the United States have decided to sanction economic sanctions against Russia in order to increase the costs of countering international law and destabilizing the region's stability. Australia, England and Canada also supported these sanctions. Despite the enormous economic damage caused by the Russian sanctions, the Putin administration gradually increased its pressure on the local people, especially the Crimean Tatar people, as if to step back from its position on the Crimean issue. Human rights violations applied to provide control over the peninsula were also included in Amnesty International's reports. Moreover, Russia has also shown that it will not abandon its interests in the region easily, by supporting actively separatist forces in the eastern part of Ukraine. Even if assuming that the effects of the wave of sanctions will form a long-term effect on the field, it seems difficult to make a change in the sanctions today, given that Russia's current administration, its internal dynamics and the role of the ruling elite are taken into account. The wave of sanctions began when US President Barack Obama authorized the ministry of treasury on March 6, 2014. In the event of the use of this power, the US Treasury Department could impose sanctions on persons or institutions that disturbed peace and security in the region.1 Two new resolutions were issued after the Russian army landed on the Crimean lands on March 17 and March 20, . Upon the failure of Russia to step back, sanctions were extended throughout 2014. The first wave of sanctions on Russia's activities in the Crimea, while the second wave came on the support of the crucible Russia that continued in the south of Ukraine. The inevitability of Putin's first waveguard against key actors and institutions within the decision-making machinery to stop Russia has caused Russia to concentrate its sanctions on the banking, finance, technology and defense industries. The second wave came about when the crisis in Ukraine became literally a state of armed conflict. The decision of the US Treasury Department on 28 April 2014 was aimed at leading Russian companies. However, the Bureau of Industry and Security under the US Department of Commerce has also brought export restrictions to major companies that are thought to be able to contribute to Russia's military power.

Both sanctions rulings highlighted the steps Russia has pledged to the situation in Ukraine at the Geneva Conference on April 17th. Similar decisions were taken on April 28th and May 12th to be implemented by the European Union. On July 17, 2014, a flight from Amsterdam to Kuala Lumpur, linked to the Malaysia Airlines company, hitting Ukraine in the south-east caused the entire world's attention to be reverted once again. The fact that the region where the plane fell falls within the area controlled by the Russian separatists, and the fact that the airplane rocket was made in Russia, also caused the responsibility of the incident to be loaded on Russia at large. As an independent research organization, there were a lot of folks who could leave Russia in this difficult situation until the missiles flew to the scene a few days before the date of the incident, and the features of these fighters were kept together. In a voice recording that was released a few days later from the event, talking about an airplane where the separatists hit it made the suspects in this direction even more valid. In spite of these, Russia has blamed Ukraine for what it is. In the statement made by Putin himself, it was stated that the situation happened within the borders of the Ukrainian state, and therefore Ukraine, which could not provide security on its territory, should be held accountable.

Third wave sanctions coincided on July 17th with almost the same dates as the landing of a flight from Malaysia to the area where the civil war lived. Decisions on July 16 this year targeted Russian energy companies and a few important firms and political actors. A week after these sanctions, the EU took a similar step. The most important difference between the EU sanctions and the US was that energy companies were excluded from sanctions. On 25 July, 30 July and 31 July, sanctions were imposed on the actors and organizations that supported Russia's activities in Crimea and Eastern Ukraine. In addition, Sberbank, Gazprombank, Vneşekonombank and VTB Bank were put in place to block the activities of leading Russian banks in Europe. These sanctions were extended on 12 September by decisions taken by both the EU and the United States. The main purpose of sanctions decisions is to weaken effective actors in the formation of the crisis in the region and to influence their decisions. So sanctions targeted actors involved in Putin's decision-making in the immediate vicinity and some sectors supporting the crisis. The loss of economic ties with Russia has also been a toll for the Western world. Europe, which has strong economic relations with Russia, suffered great disputes from the sanctions.

Diplomatic Initiatives

The thriller, which is continuing between Russia and Ukraine and further intensified by the armed conflicts in southern Ukraine, moved with the appointment of Ukraine's new president on the table of diplomacy. After Yanukovych's departure from the country, Petro Porosenko, nicknamed 'The King of Chocolate', was elected on the first round of elections on May 25th, 2014, as he was the owner of the country's biggest confectionary brand. After coming to the office, Poshosko was looking for ways to get rid of the crisis in the most important agenda of the country. Poşosenko put forward a 15-point solution to the first planet. The sides of the crisis that came together as a result of this intention came together twice in the Belarusian capital Minsk. The continuation of the conflicts in the field despite the agreements reached out the complexity of the crisis and the difficulty of resolving the issue.

Minsk I

The meeting of the Minsk talks took place on 5 September 2014. Ukrainian, LNR, DNR and OSCE representatives gathered around a table on the grounds that Pozoško declared on June 6 that a coordination group had to be established to find a diplomatic solution. The negotiations, which started with the establishment of a tripartite coordination group in this direction, started in Kiev at the beginning of June 2014 with the participation of representatives of the OSCE, Ukraine and Russia. Following his meeting, Porsoshenko underlined that a life-saving loss of life in Ukraine is unacceptable, and that regardless of his political view, the safety of Ukrainian citizens is guaranteed by the government, emphasizing that a ceasefire must be taken within the same week. 15 Articles promulgated by Pórosenko on 20 June; Such as the immediate termination of the conflicts in the region and the gradual withdrawal from the territories occupied by separatists, the right of war forgiveness, which has not committed serious crimes, and more rights to the Russian-speaking territories. Following the pressure of Putin to be reached with the support of resolving separatist government representatives, the LNR and DNR government representatives explained that it would be possible to resolve these 15 articles if their participation was accepted. Zubarov, Russia's Ambassador to Ukraine, on the 23rd of June, attended Russia, while Ukraine's second President, Leonid Kuchma, represented Ukraine. Representatives of pro-Russian separatists, Viktor Medvechuk, leader of the pro-Russian Ukrainian election party, and OSCE representatives also attended the meeting. As a result of this meeting, the prisoners, who were election observers in the region on behalf of the OSCE, including a Turkic, were released by separatist forces. This group matured two more times in Kiev on July 6th and 17th, bringing peace to the table. Minsk meetings began on July 31 with the participation of representatives of Ukraine, Russia, LNR, DNR and OSCE. Minsk talks continued with the meetings held by this group several times over a month and ended with the protocol signed on 5 September. The main issues pointed out by the protocol signed between the parties included a total of 12 articles, including a ceasefire decision, an increase in the powers of the local authorities, and an election in conflict zones. A memorandum was released in Minsk on the resumption of the fight despite the agreement reached. In this memorandum, in addition to the cease-fire decision in the protocol, all foreign troops in the region were dispatched, all heavy weapons were withdrawn from the region, and flights of warplanes were stopped. The ambiguous statements in the agreement include the absence of any official duties of Zacharsenko, the leader of the separatist government in Donetsk representing DNR, the former president of Kuchma, who participated in representation of LNR as leader of the separatist government in Luhansk, Plotnitskiy and Ukraine, It was a show of weak ground. Indeed, the first point of deterioration of the truce was Mariupol city. The operation, initiated by the Ukrainian army in May to dominate the Donetsk airport, resumed on September 28th. While the parties blamed each other for the deterioration of the ceasefire, the conflict lasted until January, when separatist forces affiliated to DNR had dominated the region.

Minsk II

The operation that the separatist forces launched in January 2015 in order to dominate the Donetsk airport and the success it achieved were also the result of the ceasefire created by the first Minsk Agreement.2015 In February 2015, a new ceasefire agreement was sought in support of the OSCE. With this agreement, called Minsk II, a new peace plan was put on the table by taking the support of Germany and France. It was ironic that the consensus of the Foreign Ministers of Russia, France, Ukraine and Germany, referred to as the Normandy quadruple, as the result of negotiations between the foreign ministers and senior government officials, took place in the international press and publicly as Minsk II, revealing similarities with the first Minsk protocol. This agreement, which almost repeats the points in the first Minsk Agreement, will share the same fate with the first in terms of power. The treaty, which brings the parties together in Belarusian capital Minsk on 11-12 February 2015, is similar to the first Minsk Agreement, and includes an apparently binding but apparently fragile effect on the field, such as truce, safe zone, humanitarian aid and OSCE guarantor, Autonomy. The Minsk Agreement of I. took place after the month of August when the Russian separatist forces began to deliver heavy losses. There was commentary aimed at securing separatist time under the ratification of Russia for such an agreement recognizing the territorial integrity of Ukraine. I. Minsk Agreement and II. During the period between the Minsk Treaty, separatist forces could incorporate new territories in areas where they were dominant, as well as in the areas where they were dominant in September 2014. As a result, the façade had progressed a little further to the inside of Ukraine, that is to the west. The Ukrainian army, which had dominated Debaltseve during the settlement, was under siege of separatists. This was the most fragile part of the Minsk Treaty. The area under siege was the biggest threat to the status quo. In the days following the agreement, the US State Department press, Jen Psaki, blamed Russia for separatist support for the region despite the atrocities, while Putin's press spokesman Peskov reiterated that Russia would not have any physical impact on the scene. Although the agreement was somewhat softened in the first-time conflicts, the impact did not last long and conflicts II. The Minsk Treaty gained momentum in the following months. The Ukrainian defence minister claimed in May that the ceasefire broke 4000 times and that more than 100 people lost their lives between February and May.