Contextual Factors In Conflict Management

The third contextual dimension that affects conflict management is that of the internal characteristics of the actors involved. This refers to how certain structural properties of states affect their predisposition to engage in coercive or other forms of conflict management. The nature of the polity has attracted the most attention recently (Maoz and Russett, 1992; Ember, Ember and Russett, 1992; Dixon, 1993). Here the argument is that democratic states are more inclined to use peaceful methods of conflict management (because of internal norms, liberal experience or electoral constraints), whereas non-democratic states are more likely to utilize coercive methods of management.

Another factor here relates to the power capabilities of states. Although there is not much empirical evidence to suggest a strong relationship, power capabilities can be linked to different conflict management behaviour (e.g. a conflict between two equally strong countries may be prolonged because both have the material and human resources to carry on, and the willingness to tolerate high costs). All these contextual factors affect directly the disposition to engage in different forms of conflict management, and how a conflict will terminate.

Some studies have examined more specifically their effect on conflict management. A number of propositions linking for instance the duration, intensity, fatalities and issue prominence to effective mediations (Bercovitch, 1989; Bercovitch & Langley, 1993) received considerable theoretical and empirical support. Other studies linked the parties’ internal characteristics (Gregory, 1994) or power capabilities between them (Bercovitch, 1985) to different forms of conflict management by third