Federal University Gusau

DIVISION OF GENERAL STUDIES

GST 214: PEACE STUDIES AND CONFLICT RESOLUTION

June, 2023

Introduction
These lecture notes are prepared to expose readers to some conceptual, theoretical and
methodological issues required in understanding, explaining, predicting and managing peaceful
co-existence and conflicts between and among individuals, groups, organizations, communities,
nations, countries or regions. The notes intend to inculcate into readers the spirits of perceiving,
accepting, applying and sustaining peace as a vehicle of unity and development across the world
with reference to African region and Nigeria in particular. Also the notes are meant to equip
readers with fairly adequate strategic and operational tools with which to analyses inter-personal,
gender-based, domestic, communal, ethnic, industrial, religious, political and economic conflicts,
including indigene-settler crisis and to partake in the resolution of varied social conflicts as well
as to appreciate the imperatives for establishing, fostering and conserving harmonious social
relationship in human societies. Thus, the course is introduced to facilitate training of readers on,
equipping and fortifying them with in-depth knowledge and skills required to achieve Nigeria’s
five (5) national objectives, which are to build (a) a free and democratic society; (b) a just and
egalitarian society, (c) a united, strong and self-reliant nation, (d) a great and dynamic economy;
and (e) a land of bright and full opportunities for all citizens. Again, it is essential to express that
the course seeks to fast-track the realization of Nigeria’s motto, ‘Unity and Faith, Peace and
Progress,’ as indicated in the country’s coat of arm, including all the virtues that reflected in its
‘National Anthems’ (service with love, strength, faith, heart and might for Nigeria’s peace and
unity; noble cause, right guidance and youths’ truthfulness, loveliness and honesty for peace,
justice and nation building) and ‘National Pledge’ (faithful, loyal and honest service for the
defense of the unity, honor and glory of Nigeria).

Scope of the Course: Peace Studies and Conflict Resolution

The notes begin with the basic concepts in peace and conflict resolution studies. Then,
they cover the origins, definitions, types, dimensions of peace, including the idea of ‘Global
Peace Index,’ pillars and indicators of positive peace, as well as the meanings, aims/objectives,
scope/elements, stages, sampled activities and forms of peace process. Definitions and basic
elements of culture of peace as well as the conditions for building culture of peace, including the
definitions, components and conditions for creation of sustainable peace are treated. Also, the
notes are designed to update readers on the definitions, nature, extent, sources, types, cases,
theories, consequences of conflicts and approaches to conflict management (conflict settlement,
conflict resolution and conflict transformation). Specifically, the two (2) broad methods of
dispute and conflict resolution (Regular Dispute Resolution; RDR and Alternative Dispute
Resolution; ADR) are considered. The role of regional (e.g. Economic Community of West
African States, ECOWAS and African Union, AU) and international bodies (e.g. United Nations,
UN; and European Union, EU) in conflict resolution in Africa is examined. Readers' attentions
need to be drawn to the fact that the notes are necessarily introductory, and not meant to replace
lectures and/or further reading. Thus, a bibliography has been incorporated at the end of these
notes to acknowledge citations and to point out further materials for the readers to explore.

Basic Concepts in Peace and Conflict Resolution Studies

This section sets to keep readers informed about the terminologies that are central to and
recurrent in peace and conflict resolution studies, though some of the concepts are either closely
related or used interchangeably. For example, the concept of peace is associated with harmony,
tranquility, serenity, calm, quiet, stillness, wellness, healthiness and silence, while the term
conflict is often linked to crisis, clash, quarrel, divergence, difference, tension, opposition,
disaster, confrontation, frustration, contradiction, assault, attack, dispute, disagreement,
displacement, disintegration, competition, violence, struggle, complaint, war, hostility, acrimony,
insistence, resistance, persistence, argument and disengagement. While injustice, unfairness,
prejudice, discrimination, inequality, deprivation, denial, exclusion and segregation are often
perceived and considered as catalysts of conflict, the terms deal, agreement, negotiation,
intervention, pact, mediation, treaty, compromise, apology, persuasion, submission, solution,
settlement and accord are frequently treated as ideal constructs that relate to conflict
management, resolution and transformation. Other notable concepts are interest, aspiration,
aim, goal, objective, purpose, target, intention, vision and mission. Need arises to stress that the
recurring and interchangeable concepts in the contents of these notes are inexhaustible due to
diversity in human societies, cultures and the ways people perceive and respond to issues around
them. Given this, some of the terms that are not listed in the notes are likely to be found in the
suggested reading materials.

Origins of the Term Peace

The origins of 'peace' as a concept are traceable to the Latin words ‘pes’ or ‘pax or the
French word ‘pais’. Each of these terms refers to pact, agreement, treaty, reconciliation, silence,
or tranquility. At the individual level, the European references showed that since 12 th Century,
the clause, such as ‘being at peace in one's own mind or with oneself’’ is used to define peace.
Page 2 of 22
Since 13th Century, the term ‘peace’ has been used in a ‘farewell’ to deceased person, especially
in a statement such as ‘Rest in Peace’. Later, it begins to appear in greetings across the world,
especially in Arab societies and Hawaiian society, where ‘salaam’ and ‘aloha’ are respectively
used in greetings. Takeshi Ishida (1969) expressed that ‘peace’ is the same with the ancient
Hebrew’s concept of ‘shalom’ (i.e. will of God, justice or prosperity), Greek’s concept of
‘eireme’ (i.e. prosperity or order), Roman’s concept of ‘pax’ (i.e. calmness), Japanese concept of
‘heiwa’ (i.e. mental tranquility), Indian concept of ‘shanti’ (i.e. tranquility of mind), including
the Chinese terms, such as ‘he’ or ‘ho’ (i.e. smoothness or harmonious or peaceful) and ‘ping’
(i.e. even or tranquil or just), ‘heping’ (i.e. world peace or peace between/among nations), ‘an’
and ‘mingsi’ are expressions for ‘inner peace’ i.e. peace of mind. This indicates that peace has
both ‘outer’ and ‘inner’ forms. In addition, ‘ubuntu’ is a Bantu ethnic group’s word used in
Eastern, Central and Southern African. It (ubuntu) is humanistic and holistic term that
symbolizes both ‘negative’ and ‘positive’ peace, and it represents whatsoever it takes and
whatsoever it means to be human in many African societies. The word ‘lafiya’ is often used by
some West African ethnic groups, such as Hausa, Nupe, Gbayi and Yoruba to express peace.
However, studies indicated that the word ‘lafiya’ was extracted from an Arabic word ‘afia’,
which means ‘wellness.’ All these showed that peace signifies sense of ‘quietness,’ ‘calmness,’
‘serenity,’ including ‘avoidance of quarrel.’

Conceptual Definition of Peace

Peace is a state of harmony that affords interacting parties the chance to meet their needs
and expectations. It is lack of violence, conflicting behaviors, hostility, retribution, and presence
of freedom from fear of violence, sincere efforts at reconciliation, healthy and/or newly healed
interpersonal and/or international relationships, as well as prosperity in socio-economic welfare,
in establishing equality and political order that serves the true interests of all.

Authoritative Definition of Peace

Given the indispensability of ‘peace’ to the world and the rising threats against it as seen
or heard in various ‘crises and wars’ that occurred in pre-industrial and industrial era, including
the First World War (1914-1919) and the Second World War (1939-1945), Peace Studies was
introduced as a course in schools and research centres. During the early years of Peace Studies,
the term peace was defined as the (a) opposite of war or (b) absence of war. These definitions
were influenced by the tragedies that occurred in the 2nd World War and by the bitter experience
of destruction of lives and property during the Nuclear War between world’s two superpowers
i.e. the former Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR) and the United States of America
(USA). Albert Einstein (1940), a German-born theoretical physicist and one of the leading
scientists that the world has ever had, was the first that extended the definition of peace above
‘the absence of war,’ when he asserted that peace is not only the absence of war, but also the
Page 3 of 22
presence of justice, law and order i.e. existence of government. As such, Muhammad-Baba
(2014) argues that conceptions of peace as absence of violence/war are weak for their inability to
include the primary causes of lack of peace.

Sugata Dasgupta (1968) also expanded the definition of peace beyond ‘absence of war’
by proposing a new concept of “peacelessness” i.e. absence of non-war situations, where people
suffer just as much as in war from social disorganizations (poverty, deprivation, malnutrition,
disease, illiteracy, prejudice, discrimination, injustice, oppression) and deviant behaviors (crime,
delinquency, insecurity, substance abuse). The definitions of peace by Einstein and Dasgupta
revealed new values of peace, which are government, social relation, better economy, justice,
law and order. The values are additional components/conditions for peace that are omitted in the
definition of peace as absence of war. This implied that absence of interstate or inter-community
wars is insufficient to be regarded as the only condition for peace. Furthermore, Batty Reardon
(1988) sees peace as the absence of violence in all its’ forms; physical, social, psychological and
structural forms. Oke Ibeanu (2006) conceives peace as a process that involves some activities
which are directly and/or indirectly linked to rise in human development and to reduction in
conflict at group, societal, regional or global spheres. The UNESCO (2013, p. 5) stated that
peace is beyond absence of war, because it is about living together irrespective of social
differences, such as sex, race, language, religion or culture, and also about promoting universal
respect for justice and human rights, which are the bedrock of coexistence. Peace is a choice to
be made on each situation and in everyday life decision.

Principles of Peace Concepts

Principles of peace are linked with some terms, specially seven (7) concepts, which are:
i. No conflict, violence or war,
ii. Presence of order,
iii. Rest of mind,
iv. Respect of law,
v. No coercive power,
vi. Strong divinity/spirituality, and
vii. Milk of human goodness.

Meanings of Peace

The diversity in people’s perceptions about what constitute peace and what did not
represent peace accounted for various meanings, which are associated with peace. For example,
David Francis (2006) identified six (6) meanings of peace as follows:

(1) Peace as an absence of war or lack of direct violence,

(2) Peace as justice and development or lack of structural violence,
Page 4 of 22
(3) Peace as respect and tolerance between and among people,
(4) Peace as a balance in and with the ecosphere,
(5) Peace as an inner nourishment or spiritual diet, and
(6) Peace as wholeness and making whole or unified existence or complete unity.

Types of Peace
Johan Galtung (1967) identified two (2) types of peace, as (i) positive peace, and (ii)
negative peace. First, positive peace is a situation that simultaneously contains most, if not all
required features (such as harmony, justice and equity) of human mind and society, including
lack of indirect and structural violence. Also, the Institute for Economics and Peace (IEP, 2015)
defines positive peace as the collection of attitudes, institutions and structures that create and
conserve harmonious social relations and open societies for human potentials to flourish. Second,
negative peace is a condition that lacks direct violence, such as war and other issues that are
setbacks to the progress of society.

Dimensions of Peace
Peace as a concept has been discussed by scholars based on differential social contexts
and intellectual perspectives. David Francis (2006) identifies six (6) dimensions of peace, which
are (1) Peace at an individual level, (2) Peace at the local level, (3) Peace at the societal level, (4)
Peace at the national level, (5) Peace at the regional or sub-regional level, and (6) Peace at the
global level. Each of the levels ontologically represents the stage at which peace could be
initiated, developed and maintained. This discourse explains that various segments of peace exist
in the world, but the levels are likely to be more than the above listed ones.

Global Peace Index

The Global Peace Index, like its’ sister index (Global Terrorism Index) is a set of
indicators designed as measures for quantifying peacefulness, exposing its sources and benefits,
specifically its economic relevance. It is annually prepared and published in the form of a report
by an independent, non-profit, non-partisan and non-governmental organization (NGO) called
the Institute for Economics and Peace (IEP), which is domiciled in University of Sydney,
Australia. This agency did not only have offices in New York and Mexico City, but it usually
partner with a quite number of local and international NGOs in drawing and redirecting the
attention of world’s leaders, their supporters and followers to uphold positive peace as a tool for
improved human wellbeing and progress. The institute devised global peace gauge based on
three (3) major thematic structures, which are (a) societal safety and security level, (b) domestic
and international conflict level and (c) militarization level. Using 23 qualitative and quantitative
indicators, the institute ranks 162 countries that housed 99.6% of world’s 7.2 billion populations
in 2014. Out of these 162 countries, 78 nations, particularly Africa’s Central African Republic,

Page 5 of 22
Nigeria and South Sudan and Asia’s Iraq and Syria are among those countries that experienced
less peacefulness in 2014, as a result of their increasing level of violence. It is reported that 81
countries, especially European countries experienced tremendous rise in their peace level due to
decreasing homicide rates, reduction in military budgeting and withdrawal of their armed forces
from Afghanistan and Iraq. Given the analysis above, it is logical to express that only 3 countries
had the same level of peace in 2013 and 2014 respectively.

Pillars and Indicators of Positive Peace

There are eight (8) factors that the IEP (2015) tagged as the key pillars of positive peace
and twenty-four (24).indicators of positive peace. Each of the pillars has three (3) indicators
within it. The pillars and their indicators are presented as follows:
i. Equitable distribution of resources: (1) Life expectancy index loss, (2) Gini
coefficient, and (3) Population living below US$2 per day;
ii. Sound business environment: (4) Ease of doing business, (5) Economic freedom, and
(6) Gross Domestic Product per capita;
iii. High level of human capital: (7) Gross percentage of secondary school enrolment, (8)
Youth development index, and (9) Scientific publications;
iv. Good relations with neighbors: (10) Number of visitors, (11) Regional integration,
and (12) Hostilities to foreigners;
v. Free flow of information: (13) Freedom of press index, (14) World press freedom
index, and (15) Mobile phone subscriptions;
vi. Well functioning government: (16) Government effectiveness, (17) Rule of law, and
(18) Political culture;
vii. Low levels of corruption: (19) Control of corruption, (20) Factionalized elites, and
(21) Perception of corruption; and
viii. Acceptance of the rights of others: (22) Intergroup cohesion, (23) Empowerment
index, and (24) Gender inequality index
Forms of Peace Process
Several forms of peace process exist and each relates to conflict and human progress, but
the four (4) major forms of peace process considered in these notes are;
i. Peacekeeping is the use of armed forces and unarmed civilians to intervene in
adversaries or to separate aggrieved parties so as to reduce the extent of damages in
conflict. It is applied, where there is low conflict level and low chances for development.
ii. Peace-enforcing is a way of alleviating conflict situations, while increasing likelihood of
human progress. It is required, where there is high level of conflict and weak chances for
human development.

Page 6 of 22
iii. Peacemaking is the application of a series of diplomatic process through negotiation,
mediation and conciliation, arbitration and judicial settlement, economic sanctions and
military interventions to end violent actions between/among conflicting parties and
subsequently to achieve a peace agreement. Its usage is determined by high level of
conflict and better chances for human development.
iv. Peace-building is a long-term means of securing harmonious social relations in post-
conflict situations and societies by altering structural contradictions, improving
relationship between conflicting parties, and changing the attitudes and behaviors of
individuals. It is an ongoing exercise, which is characterized by low level of conflict and
better chances for human development.
Defining a Culture of Peace
It is essential to define culture, before discussing culture of peace. Edward B. Taylor
(1871) views culture as a complex whole that characterizes knowledge, beliefs, art, morals, laws,
custom, including other capabilities and habits that people acquired as members of a particular
family, group, nation, country or region. The United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural
Organization (UNESCO, 2002) sees culture as a set of distinctive spiritual materials, intellectual
and emotional features of social group or society, including their art, literature, lifestyles, ways
of living together, value systems, traditions and beliefs. Given the above, culture of peace can be
defined as a total way of life that encompasses active participation of everyone in the creation,
conservation and changing of harmonious social relations between/among people irrespective of
their differences. The United Nations (UN, 1999) defines ‘Culture of Peace’ as a set of values,
attitudes, traditions, modes of behavior and ways of life that prevent and reject violence by
tackling the root causes of problems through dialogue and negotiation among individuals, groups
and nations. Culture of peace consists of values, attitudes and behaviors that reflect and inspire
social interaction and sharing based on the principles of freedom, justice, democracy, human
rights, tolerance and solidarity, while guaranteeing the full exercise of all rights and the means to
participate fully in the developmental processes of the society. Culture of peace has the potential
to lead to everyday peace i.e. peace that is crafted by all members of a social group or society. At
times, everyday peace is used interchangeably with culture of peace. Everyday peace is a
reference point, resource and compass for large-scale efforts to build lasting peace in the world.
Basic Elements of Culture of Peace
The culture of peace has five (5) key elements, which are:

i. Rejection of violence.
ii. Prevention of conflict.
iii. Provision of solution to problems.
iv. Actions that promote peace education, and
v. Relates to sustainable development.
Page 7 of 22
These elements indirectly characterized the ingredients required for building, developing and
sustaining culture of peace between/among people, nations and regions and at a global sphere.

Building a Culture of Peace

The idea of building culture of peace was launched in 1999 by the General Assembly of
the United Nations with a view to foster positive peace among individuals, families, groups,
communities, nations and regions. The philosophy emphasizes (a) peace that is practiced, (b)
peace that contributes to the functionality and growth of society, including daily life of
individuals and (c) peace that is understood by each individual, who lives in the world. This
implies that everyone has roles to play in building a culture of peace by ensuring that her/his
actions contribute to the emergence of a culture that stimulates and reinforces people’s sense of
human unity, co-operation and respect for each other. People do this by thinking and living their
lives in accordance with the expectation of their social groups. If everybody focuses on process
of building a culture of peace by discharging his/her duties and responsibilities as a member of
society at the right time and in the right place, a more peaceful world can be created for the
present and future generations. Thus, it is in order to point that culture of everyday peace and
sustainable development are two-sides of the same coin i.e. either cannot be treated in isolation.

Definitions of Sustainable Peace

The concept of sustainable peace was introduced to describe and analyses the state of
affairs among members of a group, community, nation or region that experienced internally and
externally legitimized cessation of armed hostilities, total absence or limiting of physical,
psychological and cultural violence. Sustainable peace is a situation, where hostilities and
disagreements are handled constructively through institutional agents of dispute resolution such
as courts of law. Christopher E. Miller (2005, p. 55) refers sustainable peace as a ‘political
condition that ensures justice and social stability through formal and informal institutions,
practices, and norms’. At this point, need arises to express that sustainable peace is one of the
indicators of sustainable development. The World Commission on Environment and
Development (WCED, 1987, p. 43) defines sustainable development as progress that satisfies the
aspirations of the present generation without compromising the ability of future generation to
satisfy their respective aspirations.

Major Components of Sustainable Peace

Luc Reuchler (2008, p. 2028) argues that sustainable peace has five elements, which are:

i. Presence of effective communication systems between/among community members that

guarantees consultation and negotiation;
ii. Presence of integrative internal and international peace-oriented systems & environments

Page 8 of 22
iii. Presence of peace-driven political, economic and security structures;
iv. Presence of many critical and thoughtful leaders, who are peace-builders; including
v. Presence of many followers, who are peace-lovers, peace-advocates and peace-drivers.

Conditions for the Creation of Sustainable Peace

Christopher E. Miller (2005, pp. 55-56) identified six (6) conditions that are spring-
boards of sustainable peace as,

(i) Existence of balanced political power distribution between/among different groups in the
community, country or region;

(ii) Existence of transparent decisions made by decision-makers, whose actions are internally
and externally regarded by majority of people as legitimate;

(iii) Existence of recognized interdependent relationship between different members of a

group, community, country or region in a bid to promote cooperation in periods of crisis,
conflict or under the state of normality and agreement;

(iv) Existence of reliable and trusted institutions/agencies for dispute resolution;

(v) Existence of a generalized sense of equity and respect in theory and practice based on
international standards among different members of a community, country or region; and

(vi) Existence of mutual understanding of rights, interests, intents and flexibility even in the
face of incompatibilities in the community.

The above conditions suggest peace should be incorporated within the totality of every
community and they supported a quote in UNESCO Constitution that reads, ‘Since wars begin in
the minds of men, it is in the minds of men that the defenses of peace must be constructed.”.

Origins and Definitions of Conflict

Conflict arises due to the inability of individuals or groups to build and maintain peaceful
co-existence during social interaction, but two (2) major bodies (religion and science) offer better
explanation on the origins of conflict. First, religious scriptures of the world’s two (2) dominant
religion (Islam and Christianity) revealed the conflicting social relations between Abel (Habil in
Arabic) and Cain (Qabil in Arabic), who are Prophet Adam’s children. The case is captured in
the Bible and in the Qur’an (see Suratul Maida verses 30-34), where it was expressed that envy
served as the bottom-line of conflict between Abel (younger brother) and Cain (elder brother).
The envy was nursed by Cain, who eventually murdered Abel, because the sacrifice made to God
by Abel was accepted, while Cain’s offering to God was rejected. Second, origin of conflict is
Page 9 of 22
associated with survival of the fittest (struggle between/among species). This is the scientific
explanation of human evolution that Charles Darwin (1859; 1871) and Alfred Wallace proposed
under the law of natural selection. Darwin and Wallace argued that evolution of species,
including human beings was characterized by struggles for survival. During this competition,
some species are eliminated in the process, while others proceeded and succeeded to the final
stage of human evolution. There are two (2) major forms of definitions of conflict, conceptual
and authoritative.

Conceptual Definitions of Conflict

Social conflict can simply be defined as the opposition between individuals or groups on
the basis of competing interests, and aspirations, as well as different identities and/or attitudes. It
is also conceived as a disagreement between/among parties that have real/perceived incompatible
interests, aspirations, values or strategies for achieving desired ends. Furthermore, it is a clash of
idea and/or action between and among individuals or groups during social interaction.

Authoritative Definitions of Conflict

There is consensus among scholars, for example, Karl Marx, Fredrick Engels, Ralf
Darendorf, Louis Altrusser, Charles Wright Mills, Louis Coser, Vladimir I. Lenin and other
leftists on conflict, as an intrinsic and inevitable condition or process of social life. According to
Lewis Coser (1956, p. 121) social conflict is “a struggle over values and claims to scarce status,
power and resources,” as the competing parties seek to get the desired values, to neutralize or
injure or eliminate other contender(s). Webster’s Dictionary (1983) sees conflict as a fight,
battle, struggle or overt confrontation between/among parties. Also, Pruitt Dean and Kim Hee
(2004) conceived conflict as a perceived divergence of interest between/among people in society.
It is therefore wrong to interchange conflict with violence, because it is not all conflicts that are
violent in nature i.e. some conflicts are violent-oriented, while others are non-violent-driven.

Nature of Conflict: Violent Conflict and Non-violent Conflict.

Conflict is ubiquitous, but its nature varies across periods and places. This implies that
conflict is common to all persons, but individuals, group or society are likely to have similar or
different experience of conflict. The two (2) major ways through which nature of conflicts are
discussed are violent conflict and non-violent conflict.

Definitions and Types of Violent Conflict

Violent Conflict is the use of force or coercive action in the pursuit of incompatible
interests and goals. It is aimed at the destruction of lives and property, since it involves the use of
harmful objects, like acid, guns, knives, cutlasses, and nuclear weapons. This form of conflict
Page 10 of 22
results in bloodshed, injuries, maiming, death and other forms of harms among competitors and
innocent people, especially passersby. Thus extreme Marxists that viewed violent revolution as
the only and key instrument of social change and development in the society are regarded as
advocates of violent conflict. The typologies of violent conflict given by Frantz Fanon (1968)
and Johan Galtung (1990) are considered below.

Frantz Fanon (1968), one of the African exponents of violent conflict identified and
discussed three (3) types of violence in relation to colonialism in Africa, especially in Algeria.
Fanon argued that colonialism was introduced and developed through physical violence,
structural violence and psychological violence and it should be abolished through violence. First,
physical violence is a somatic injury inflicted on the oppressed people via oppressors’ imposed
rules, unjust used of guns and machines to kill, maim and wound innocent humans. Second,
structural violence is a condition of exploitation and its necessary institutional reforms, which
reflects social injustice that is launched by the haves against the haves not, by the powerful
against the powerless, by the strong against the weak. This reflected the structural demarcation,
like Native quarters vs. European quarters, Government Reserve Areas vs. Informal Settlement,
Schools for the Whites/Europeans vs. School for the Blacks/Africans etc. Third, psychological
violence has to do with the injury or harm inflicted on human mind, including brainwashing,
threats, assimilation policy and all acts that decrease victim’s mental potentialities. Johan
Galtung (1969) refers to psychological violence, as a violence that works on the soul.

Johan Galtung (1990) divides violent conflict into three (3); direct, structural and
cultural violence. First, direct violence is the use of physical and/or psychological force by an
individual or a group against competitors. One of the key aspects of direct violence is the
physical attack (armed robbery, wife/husband battery, assassinations etc.). Second, structural
violence is an intolerable condition, like poverty, deprivation, exclusion, unemployment and
illiteracy that emanates from social organization, institutions, or processes. It is any damage done
to individuals/groups due to their differential, but inadequate access to social resources in the
social system. It occurs from deliberate government policies which expose citizens/residents to
sufferings, death and harm. Third, cultural violence is the discrimination, injustice and suffering
experienced by people due to cultural norms and practices, such as female circumcision, child
labor and abuse, harmful and forceful death rites, tribal facial marking and body incision.

Definitions, Types and Dimensions of Non-Violent Conflict

Nonviolent Conflict is a divergence of interest, which does not involve the use of any
injurious object. This occurs, when aggrieved parties refused to use dangerous weapons against
each other or when their differences did not lead to loss of life and destruction of property. Gene
Sharp (1973) defines nonviolent conflict as a peacefully expressed divergent interest. It abhors
passiveness and considers struggle as a pathway to change. The action is not launched to avoid
or ignore conflict, but to influence social change. Nonviolent conflict is demonstrated in the

Page 11 of 22
liberation movement of Mahatma Gandhi in India and Martin Luther King Jr. in the USA.
Nonviolent conflict is associated to moderate Marxists, because their philosophies and practices
support peaceful societal change. Gene Sharp (1972) identified nine (9) nonviolent actions; non-
resistance, active reconciliation, moral resistance, selective nonviolence, nonviolent revolution,
Satyagraha, passive resistance, peaceful resistance, and nonviolent direct action.

Again, Gene Sharp (1973) suggested three (3) types of nonviolent conflict, (i) Nonviolent
protest and persuasion; (ii) Noncooperation; and (iii) Nonviolent intervention. First, nonviolent
protest and persuasion are peaceful acts, like marches, street-theatre plays, paintings, posters,
vigils, pickets and meetings that oppose certain practices. Second, noncooperation is a planned
withdrawal of support for a person, group or government via war tax resistance, strike, election
boycott, open civil disobedience and peaceful violation of law. Third, nonviolent intervention is
a process of disrupting some established patterns, policies or institutions via blockage, fasting,
occupation, prisonization or overcrowding of courts, prisons, police stations, and tribunal
centers.

There are various dimensions of non-violence, such as ideological, pragmatic, strategic

and tactical. They are paired in different forms, but the two (2) major paired dimensions of non-
violence are (a) Tactical-strategic non-violence and (b) Pragmatic-ideological non-violence.
First, tactical-strategic non-violence is based upon deep-rooted analytical explanation, general
aim and operational time-frame, which activists used in order to push forward their argument in
establishing a change in the group, community, society, country, region or world. Second,
pragmatic-ideological non-violence is characterized by the nature and depth of commitment to
non-violence and the approach to conflict used by activists in order to address divergent interests
(Pruitt Dean and Kim Hee, 2004).

Stages of Conflicts
There are many stages by which conflicts erupt, but Fisher et al (2000) emphasized only
five (5) key stages, which are:

i. Pre-Condition Stage (Emerging stage): signs (such as disinterestedness,

indifference, coldness and uncaring) that indicate gradual reduction in visitation,
warmth emotional feeling, expressed familiarity, close affinity, intimacy and
communication between or among individuals or groups begin. At this stage, the
public rarely know that conflict exist between/among parties.
ii. Confrontation Stage (Escalating stage): signs (such as lack of visitation, affection,
sympathy) that give parties the impression that something is getting or has gotten
wrong with their relationships are becoming glaring. At this stage, conflict openly
erupted, as demonstrated in irregular fight, low violence, wooing supporters and
friends, resource mobilization, strained relations and polarization within a short time.

Page 12 of 22
 iii. Crisis Stage (Most severe stage): signs (such as high level of insecurity of lives and
property, physical attacks on persons and properties that lead to injuries, defacement,
death of people; destruction of structures) that characterize sour or bitter relationships
between/among parties manifested. At this stage, conflict has reached optimum level,
where confrontation, war and intense fight became order of the day with serious
damages to humans - women, children and innocent passers-by.
iv. Outcome Stage (De-escalating stage): glaring signs (such as withdrawal of hostility;
greet, talk to, visit and care for each other) that create impression in the minds of the
warring parties that efforts are being made to mend or cement their relationships are
emerging. At this stage, violence decreases and room opens for discussions on the
alternative means of settling or neutralizing the conflict.
v. Post-Conflict Stage (Rebuilding and reconciliation stage): processes and actions
are being taken to repair the sour/bitter relationships, weak institutions, destroyed
social amenities/infrastructures that were affected during the conflict. This was
introduced as Rehabilitation, Reconstruction and Reconciliation programme by
Nigeria’s Federal Military Government after the civil war, which lasted for 30-
months (1967-1970).

Conditions for the Emergence and Development of Intergroup Conflict

There are four (4) major conditions that Pruitt & Kim (2004) identified and associated
with the emergent and development of conflict, particularly the intergroup conflicts. Each of the
conditions also has within it other sub-conditions. These conditions are;

i. Features of the situations (scarcity of resources, because people are likely to place
more values on them; rapidly expanding achievement)

ii. Features of the parties (zero-sum thinking)

iii. Features of the social relationships between/among the parties (ambiguity about
relative power; invidious comparisons; status inconsistency; and distrust);

iv. Features of the broader community surrounding the parties (security dilemma; and
lack of normative consensus).

Determinants or Sources of Conflicts

Several issues are often linked to the sources of interpersonal/intergroup conflict. David
Lockwood (1956) argued that conflict in societies depend on three (3) major issues, which are:

Page 13 of 22
 i. Power differentials: This expresses that the inability of people to have equal power
can ultimately give some (most and more powerful minority) the opportunities to
exploit others (less powerful majority) thereby resulting to conflict in the group or
society.

ii. Scarce resources: This explains that all the material and non-material things that
people attached great value and importance to are limited in supply i.e. limit in supply
provokes competition and struggle between/among people, which eventually generate
fights over the distribution process, patterns, and portions.

iii. Different interest groups: This means that people have divergent goals that often
lead to conflicts i.e. conflict is likely to occur, as each person/group tries to pursue its
interests.

Cases of Conflicts in the Nigeria, West Africa, Africa and other Parts of the World

Numerous cases of conflicts have been witnessed around the world. At the national level,
especially in Nigeria, the deadly onslaughts against people by Boko Haram, since 2009 in north-
eastern region’s states (Adamawa, Bauchi, Borno, Gombe, Taraba), some parts of north-central
and north-western regions are fresh in our memories. Also, the sporadic human abduction, ethnic
feuds, gang armed robberies, sea piracies, assassinations, rituals, including y, different.

Theories of Conflicts

Scholars from different Schools of Thoughts have developed various frameworks for
analyzing the conditions under which conflicts occur. Their ideas gave rise to assumptions that
explain the origins of conflicts. These assumptions are grouped into four (4) theories (structural
theories, biological theories, human need theories and economic theories). It is observed that no
single theoretical group adequately explains the sources of all past and/or present conflicts in the
world; since some of their assumptions are not mutually exclusive i.e. they relatively overlap.

A. Structural Theories of Conflict demonstrated that conflict is built into the ways
societies are organized. It proposes that conflict arises due to deep-rooted structural imbalances,
such as political and economic exclusion, injustice, poverty, disease, exploitation and inequality,
which are either internally or externally generated in society. It is noteworthy that the structural
conflict theory is divided into two (2) major sub-orientations, which are:

(i) Radical structural theory explains that conflicts occur due to the exploitative and unjust
nature of human societies and the domination of lower class (proletariat or workers/poor people)
by upper class (bourgeoisie or factory owners/rich people). This case was made by the radicals,
such as Friedrich Engels, Karl Marx, Vladimir I. Lenin, Andre Gunder Frank, Louis Althrusser
and Immanuel Wallenstein, who are from developed countries and Mao Tse Tung (China), Franz
Page 14 of 22
Fanon (Algeria), Kwame Nkrumah (Ghana), Amilcar Cabral (Guinea-Bissau), Walter Rodney
(Tanzania), Claude Ake (Nigeria) and Samir Amin (Egypt), who hailed from developing
countries. The radical structuralists assumed that conflict will be resolved through workers-led
revolution, which is expected to lead to the establishment of a socialist order.

(ii) Liberal structural theory was expounded by many scholars, Robert Malthus (England),
Max Weber (Germany), Johan Galtung (Sweden), Abdulrahman Ibn Khaldun (Tunisia) and
Julius Nyerere (Tanzania). This theory indicates that competing interest of groups directly injects
conflict in social, economic and political organizations of society, and it weakens the social
networks within, between and among community groups. Furthermore, they explained that
internal conflicts emerged from rising human populations, economic instability, and
demographic variability, uninterested social and political programs in the society. Thus, the
liberal structural theorists suggested that the solutions to conflicts required the elimination of
structural defects, dialogue and policy reforms, as opposed to the radical structuralists, who
advocated for revolution as the solution to all conflicts.

B. Biological Theories of Conflict emerged from the ideas of many classical theorists, such
as Saint Augustine (354-430), Thomas Hobbes (1588-1679), Cesare Lombroso (1835-1909),
Charles Robert Darwin () and Sigmund Freud (1856-1939). The theories expressed that human
beings are naturally evil-driven and they have the capacity to violently respond to unfavorable
situations. The idea emerges from the ancient belief that viewed human ancestors as instructively
violent beings that possessed destructive impulses in their genetic makeup. For example, Thomas
Hobbes (1651) argued that conflict occurs and it continues to occur or becomes intense in
societies due to the inherent human tendency to be selfish, sinful and driven by the natural quest
to satisfy all their desires. This was why Hobbes (1651) described life in the “state of nature” as
“solitary, poor, nasty, brutish and short.” The biological theories are divided into two (2) major
sub-orientations, which are:

(i) Innate theory developed from the ideas of some scholars, particularly theologians and
psychologists, who indicated that conflict is possible in all social interactions. First, theologians
observed that there are inner flaws in humankind that cause sinful behavior, bitterness, violence
and conflict. Therefore, they argue that religion is responsible for regulating sinful nature in the
relationship between and among people, as well as between people and God (or god/goddess).
Second, the psychologists, especially the personality psychologists argued that conflict is inborn
in humans, as indicated in inner properties, attributes and hormonal composition of humans. This
idea shows that human aggressive instinct is likely to be provoked, if an individual(s) is
threatened and challenged. And, it explains that conflict is a necessary periodic release that helps
humans to preserve themselves by unleashing their destructive abilities on others.

Page 15 of 22
(ii) Frustration – Aggression theory as expounded by several scholars, such as Ted Robert
Gurr, John Dollard, Leonard Berkowitz and Aubrey Yates assumes that conflict is a direct
response to accumulated disappointment and anger experienced by people in a society, where
they could not achieve their aspirations due to some forces that beyond their control. The theory
indicates that conflict primarily occurs due to people’s inability to fulfill their needs. It points to
the difference between peoples’ perceived needs and actual needs (want-get-ratio or expected
need satisfaction vs. actual need satisfaction). When people’s expectations are unmet, frustration
set in and the frustrated people may confront those they viewed as thwarters of their ambitions.

C. Human Needs Theory of Conflict originated from the ideas of many scholars, such as
Abraham Maslow, John Burton, who argued that people have basic needs (physiological, safety,
security, psychological, social and spiritual needs) that must be met to build peace and to avoid
discord. Its major assumption is that all human beings have some basic needs that they seek to
fulfill and maximize, but attempt by individual/group(s)/institution(s) to deny or frustrate them
from satisfying the needs may lead to conflict. They also explained that if one need (e.g. food) is
met and other needs (e.g. freedom of worship) is denied or unmet, the situation could make
people apply violence in their efforts to meet unmet needs, to satisfy and protect the met needs.

John Burton (1979) identified a link between frustration that pushes people to act
aggressively and their willingness to satisfy basic needs. Thus, people rarely accept practices that
destroy their identities and goals that are attached to their needs. This is why people often reacted
against the factors, groups and institutions that they considered as threats to their shared needs,
especially needs for survival, protection, affection, understanding, participation, creativity and
identity. Burton argued that human needs have components (needs for recognition, identity,
security, autonomy and bonding with other) that they hardly give up. No matter how much any
political or social system tries to suppress these needs, it will either fail or cause more damage in
the long run. The prevention conflicts that may arise and/or resolution of conflicts that arose
from unmet basic needs, as John Burton (1990) argues largely depends on how far and how well
effective and easily accessible mechanisms are put in place by the state to satisfy human needs.

D. Economic Theory of Conflict as advanced by Collier Paul, David Malone, Mats Berdal
among others locate causes of conflict on material benefits that initiators, sponsors, perpetrators
and sustainers of conflict are out to gain. While raising a series of key questions about the
individual(s) that conflict serves their interests or those that gain and loose from the conflict, this
theory demonstrated that material interest is the motivating factor for conflict. Collier Paul et al
(2003, p. 4) pointed out that conflicts are perpetrated by conflict entrepreneurs - a few people
that benefitted from growing chaos. The conflict entrepreneurs do not only steer conflict, but also
invest their resources on and sustain conflict for maximum material benefits at the expense of
majority of people that are negatively affected by conflict. Using cost benefit analysis, the theory
Page 16 of 22
identifies two categories of forces in conflict situations – beneficiaries of conflict (leaders of
armed conflicts, their followers and supporters, including manufacturers, dealers and traders who
engaged in arms business) and non-beneficiaries of conflict (majority of the people that are
negatively affected by the conflict). Mats Berdal and David Malone (2000, p.1) agree that across
ages social conflicts are generated by many deep-seated factors and conflicts are said to have a
“functional utility,” since they are embedded in economic disparities. They argue that conflicts
(such as war and crisis) and their prolongations have sometimes become vast private business,
profit-making and profit-maximization enterprises as expressed in the sole aim of their initiators
and perpetrators. In sum, the economic theory of conflict posits that though the causes of conflict
may be hidden and perpetrated in the pretext of ideological (nationalistic or political or religious)
differences, their underlying motive is to acquire and retain economic values, assets, human
resources, natural and solid minerals (such as gold, crude oil, coal, diamond, land, waters, etc).
Recently, Pope Francis Benedict (2015) exploded by referring to the manufacturers of and
investors in weapons industries, such as guns, who called themselves Christians as hypocrites. .

Consequences of Conflict
Conflict is often perceived to be negative, setback, disruptive and disintegrative, but there
are instances, where conflicts bring positive development to individuals, groups or society
(Onigu Otite and Isaac Olawale Albert, 1999). Thus, it is right to express that conflict has two
faces (positive/constructive and negative/destructive) as identified and discussed below:

a. Positive Effects or Consequences of Conflicts (The Good News about Conflicts)

i. Conflict allows people to define situations i.e. it allows members of the society to define
their interests and aspirations. In doing so, ambiguous situations are averted i.e. it helps to
define ambiguous situation so that these are clear to everyone concerned.

ii. Conflict is an agent of change. It often nourishes change in human societies.

iii. Conflict fosters solidarity between and within groups. Different groups pursuing common
goals in conflict will forget their differences and unite to fight their common enemy.

iv. Conflict fosters unity and emergence of general normative behaviour when it is resolved.

v. The known negative consequences of conflict may alert groups to hasten to resolve
emerging conflict, thereby fostering peace.

b. Negative Effects or Consequences of Conflicts (The Bad News about Conflicts)

Page 17 of 22
 i. Conflict leads to destruction of lives and property leading to a general economic set back.
ii. Conflict disrupts social and family life owing to displacement, separation and migration.
iii. Conflict results to persistent and widespread fear.
iv. Conflict causes untold suffering to the aged, children and women.
v. Conflict causes hatred and mistrust between individuals and among groups of people.
vi. Conflict serves as a threat to national stability, since it can tear a nation apart.
vii. Conflict breeds revenge mentality across generations – unending divergent interests.

Approaches to Conflict Management

Conflict management is both proactive and reactive means of handling divergent interests
positively at any stage. There are several approaches to the management of dispute and conflict.
These approaches are applicable at interpersonal, intergroup, intra-group, inter-communal, intra-
communal, international, intra-national and global levels. Cordula Reimann (1999) identified
three (3) major approaches to conflict and dispute management as conflict settlement, conflict
resolution and conflict transformation.
Conflict Settlement Approach is a process-driven method by which diplomacy and
power politics are applied at official leadership level to address conflict or dispute, which result
from problems of status quo and political order.
Conflict Resolution Approach is a resulted-oriented method that provides everlasting
solution to the deep-rooted sources of conflict. This approach is a catalyst for social change. To
Shedrack G. Best (2006), it represents a sense of finality, wherein aggrieved parties are equally
satisfied with the outcome of the settlement, while Christopher A. Miller (2003, p. 8) sees it as “a
variety of approaches that aimed at terminating conflicts through the constructive solving of
problems, distinct from management or transformation of conflict”.
Conflict Transformation Approach is a structure-based method, which aimed at strengthening
the capabilities of disadvantaged groups to act or deal with conflict and also to empower divided,
war-torn and traumatized societies to get integrated. It is a nonviolent struggle for social justice
and change that John Paul Lederach (1995) regarded to be beyond conflict resolution by building
strong and enduring relationships and by changing the perceptions and attitudes of the aggrieved
parties about the conflicts.
However, the discussion and analysis of conflict resolution approach is specifically
extended below. This does not necessarily means that it is better than the conflict settlement and
conflict transformation.

Two Broad Methods of Conflict and Dispute Resolution

The Regular Dispute Resolution (RDR) and Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) are
two (2) major methods by which conflict and dispute are resolved between/among individuals,

Page 18 of 22
families, communities, countries and regions. Asides from these major methods of conflict
resolution, Pruitt Dean and Kim Hee (2004) identified contending, yielding, problem-solving
and avoiding as the four (4) strategies for conflict resolution. The usage of any of these four
strategies alone is not likely to be adequate measure for resolving conflict, except if two or more
strategies are combined. The combination is expected to be sequential and it needs to be
determined by the nature of the conflict and the parties involved. For example, contending
strategy may be followed by yielding, then by problem-solving and finally by avoiding strategy.
i. Contending is the process of trying to impose one’s preferred solution on the
other party.
ii. Yielding is the process of lowering down one’s own aspirations and settling for
less than one would have liked.
iii. Problem-solving is the process of pursuing an alternative that satisfies the
aspirations of both sides.
iv. Avoiding is the process of not engaging in the conflict. This strategy is divided
into two (2) forms, which are inaction and withdrawal. The former means that
each party does nothing about the conflict, especially by waiting to see or hear the
response of the other party. The latter means that each party abandons the
conflict, especially by walking away/out.
The two (2) major classes or methods of resolving conflicts that dominated contemporary
debates are discussed below.

Regular Dispute Resolution (RDR)

The RDR method is a formal process by which disputes and conflicts are treated and
solved. It involves the application of law enforcement, such as police and justice system, like the
courts and prisons. Basically, RDR entails litigation, wherein a trial will be conducted by a jury
or judge, who decides winner and loser of the case during court hearing and adjudication.
The process starts from the point, where one of the aggrieved or conflicting parties makes
complain to the authority, especially police. The police will in turn interrogate the complainant
(plaintiff) and take down his/her statement word by word. After this, a warrant of arrest will be
issued against the second party (defendant), who will also be interrogated before charging the
case to court, if the two parties could not reconcile.
In sum, this method involves the regular system of reporting a case to the police, getting
the offender prosecuted, convicted and sentenced. It also covers civil litigations in court, that is,
through legal process. Under this system, there is always a winner and a loser, and the winner
takes it all. The method is also called traditional method of dispute and conflict resolution.
Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR)
Page 19 of 22
 The ADR method is a system by which issues are permanently settled without the use of
litigation. As its name implies, it contains several methods that are alternative to the regular
system, i.e. RDR method. The ADR creates an opportunity to people to go for a win-win
solution, as against a win-lose or lose-lose situation that characterized RDR. There are different
types of ADR, but the major types are (1) negotiation, (2) mediation and (3) arbitration.

Negotiation
This is a process of settling conflict or disputes or differences between aggrieved parties
without the intervention of any third party. It involves discussion or communication between
conflicting parties, who seek to find a lasting solution to the existing conflict between them. This
technique of conflict resolution could either be applied directly, when the conflicting parties had
a face-to-face communication or indirectly, when each of the two conflicting parties is being
represented by his/her attorney. At times, the communication in negotiation is governed by pre-
established procedures between representatives of the aggrieved parties. The warring parties
come to the realization that they each have a problem and both are aware that by talking to each
other, a solution to the problem could be found. As such, negotiation is regarded as the best
under ADR, because it does not involve third party and it is cost-effective.

Mediation
Mediation is a practice, where an impartial person (intervener) initiates and promotes
peaceful reconciliation between aggrieved parties. It is a process, where a third party facilitates
permanent termination of conflicts and attainment of mutually acceptable agreement between
people or communities with divergent interests. This settlement process requires a neutral third
party to take on the role of helping parties in conflict achieves a lasting solution to their disputes.
Christopher E. Miller (2003, p. 23) sees mediation as “voluntary, informal, nonbinding process
undertaken by an external party that fosters the settlement of differences or demands between
directly invested parties.” Cooley J. W. (1992) identified eight (8) major stages of meditation are
as initiation, preparation, introduction, problem statement, problem clarification, generation and
evaluation of alternatives, as well as selection of alternatives, and finally agreement.

Arbitration

Arbitration is the process whereby a neutral person or persons (body/panel) adjudicates or

passes a judgment on divergent interest between or among people. The judgment passed could be
either binding or non-binding on the concerned parties. The method allows the third party or
parties to take position by pronouncing one aggrieved party as winner and the other aggrieved
party as loser. It involves submission of contending issues to an impartial body to decide or
assess and recommend way out, which could be favorable or unfavorable to either of the
aggrieved party. The arbitrator nominated or approved by the conflicting parties to adjudicate on
Page 20 of 22
their differences. Often, any resolution passed by the arbitrator is enforceable by a court of law,
although the procedure in arbitration is different from the usual court process.

International Organisations and Conflict Management in Africa

The participation of international organisations in conflict management in Africa has four
(4) key dimensions. First, the United Nations and its agencies usually play significant role in
conflict management, resolution, and transformation. Second, the developed countries, especially
the G8 or G7 members, have had major influence in brokering peace and conflict management in
the continent. Third, the Regional Bodies, especially the African Union (AU, formerly known
as the Organisation of African Unity; OAU) and the European Union (EU) have had great
contributions in peace processes and conflict resolution in Africa. Fourth, the Sub-Regional
bodies, such as the East African Standby Brigade Coordination Mechanism (EASBRICOM),
the Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS), the Economic Community of
Central African States (ECCAS), North African Regional Capability (NARC) and the
Southern African Development Community (SADC). These three (3) bodies are regarded as the
key players in peace process and security management in Africa.

Conclusion
These notes demonstrated that peace and conflict are inseparable in social interaction and
across developing and developed societies. They are two-sides of the same coin, in the sense that
no matter the level of peace in any society, there must be some elements of conflicts either at
interpersonal or intergroup level. Also, no matter the degree of conflict in any social setting,
there must be a moment of peace, even if it is for a second or minute. Nevertheless, most
individuals, groups or organizations and societies preferred peace to conflict. This is why these
notes begin with the analysis of the concept of peace, its types, dimensions and processes as well
as its relevance to the attainment of Nigeria’s national objectives, human development and
sustainable development. In spite of the good efforts steered by the UN, AU and sub-regional
bodies towards creation of peaceful co-existence between and among individuals and groups in
Africa, the region’s level of development is still low, particularly in Central Africa, where there
are ongoing conflicts. This draws attention to the need for every individual, family, group and
community around Africa to acquire basic knowledge and skills in peace studies and conflict
resolution. It is in line with the call above that this reading material is prepared to expose readers
to ideas, which could fast-track their transformation to ambassadors of peace and managers of
conflicts at local, national and global levels.

Further Readings
Albert, O. Isaac. (2005). Perspectives on peace and conflict in Africa. Ibadan: John Archers.
Bercovitch Jacob. (Ed.). (1996). Resolving international conflicts: The theory and practice of
mediation. Boulder: Lynner Rienner Publishers.
Page 21 of 22
Berdal, Mats and Malone, M. David (Eds.) (2000). Greed or grievance: Economic agendas in
civil war. Boulder: Lynne Rienner Publishers.
Best Shedrack Gaya (Ed.). (2006). Introduction to peace and conflict studies in West Africa.
Ibadan: Spectrum Books Ltd.
Burton John. (1990). Conflict: Resolution and prevention. London: Macmillan Publishers.
Collier, Paul et al. (2003). Breaking the conflict trap: Civil war and development policy.
Washington, DC: The World Bank.
Coser Lewis (1956). The functions of social conflict. New York: The Free Press.
Galtung Johan. (1969). Violence, peace and peace research. Journal of Peace Research, 3: 167-
191.
Hintjens Helen and Zarkov Dubravka (Eds.) 2014. Conflict, peace, security and development.
London: Routledge Publication.
Institute for Economics and Peace. (2014). Global peace index 2014: Measuring peace and
assessing country risk. Sydney, Australia: IEP Publication.
Laremont, Richardo (Ed.). 2013. Revolution, revolt and reform in North Africa: The Arab spring
and beyond. London: Routledge Publication.
Lederach, John Paul. (1997). Building peace: Sustainable reconciliation in divided societies.
Washington, DC: US Institute for Peace and Tokyo: United Nations University Press.
Mitchell, Christopher and Michael, Banks. (1996). Handbook of conflict resolution: The
analytical problem-solving approach. London: Pinter.
Miller, A. Christopher. (2005). Glossary of terms and concepts in peace and conflict studies.
Puerto-Rico: United Nations’ University for Peace.
Muhammad-Baba, A. Tukur (2014). The imperative for peaceful co-existence of Nigerian people
for sustainable development. Presentation during the World Peace and Understanding
Day organized by the Rotary Club of Sokoto City at the Congregation Hall, UDUS.
Pruitt, G. Dean and Kim, S. Hee (2004). Social conflict: Escalation, stalement and settlement.
New York: The McGraw-Hill Co.
Reardon A. Batty (1988). Comprehensive peace education. New York: Teachers College Press.
Reychler, Luc. (2008). Sustainable peace building architecture. In L., Kurtz. (Ed.), Encyclopedia
of violence, peace and conflict. Vol. 3, 2nd ed. pp. 2028.
Ross, Marc Howard and Jay Rothman. (Eds.). (1999). Theory and practice in ethnic conflict
management: Theorising success and failure. London: Macmillan Publishers.
Rummel J. Rudolph. (1981). The just peace. California: University of California Press.
Sharp Gene (1973). The politics of non-violent action. Boston: Porter Sargent.
United Educational, Scientific, Cultural Organisation (2013). UNESCO’s programme of action:
Culture of peace and non-violence – A vision in actions. Paris, France: UNESCO

Page 22 of 22