Journal on Policy and Complex Systems
enough to see it . In all these examples , we can identify two or more directly involved groups , as well as other groups interested in the conflict outcomes that intervene indirectly .
A key characteristic of intractable social conflicts is their complexity . The opposing social groups are embedded in broader , ever-changing social systems with which they are interlinked . With more than two groups , the enemy of one ’ s enemy may well turn out to be one ’ s enemy too . Therefore , not only are intractable conflicts resistant to resolution , they are also resistant to prediction even in the short run . Neither the disputing groups nor their would-be helpers can foresee when even seemingly insignificant acts or events can trigger reactions that lead to conflict escalation and violence . Sometimes reports in the media , spreading quickly ( Menczer , 2016 ), can set off serious confrontations .
Intractable social conflicts can be managed in several ways , including direct negotiations , intervention through mediation , legal tools , dialogue , and military means . Their effectiveness depends on the specific characteristics of the groups involved , contextual factors , expected consequences of continued strife and costs of intervention , and the groups ’ readiness 1 to address their differences , whether peacefully or violently . These approaches entail risks , not least because of the difficulty of predicting consequences of various courses of action on complex systems in continuous slow or rapid flux . Nevertheless , all involved — direct and indirect stakeholders , interveners , and researchers — need to understand and manage such conflicts in order to avert destructive and even catastrophic consequences . As history and current events show , these consequences range from turbulence , which may cause economic losses and social unrest , to acute ethnic strife and loss of life , which can stay local or spread across nations .
Managing specific conflicts requires information about the stakeholders , their interests , the history of their past interactions , their cultures and ways of handling conflicts , the current institutional context and other specific case-based details . It is also necessary to equip the stakeholders and interveners with tools to anticipate and explore possible futures they can link to actions they might undertake in the present . This enhances their ability to construct effective strategies and helps interveners to persuade disputants to engage with each other peacefully .
To agree to a specific move toward agreement or to accept / reject a specific approach to managing their conflict , groups need to evaluate the possible results of alternative courses of action and the paths that lead to these results . For example , the conflict involving North and South Korea , their neighbors , and the United States has deep roots in the past 70 years , with episodes of severe violence and millions of victims on all sides . In the most recent flare-up in 2017-2018 , parties traded threats of mass destruction . In the ongoing stage ,
1 Zartman ( 2000 ) called this conflict “ ripeness .”
8