1 Introduction Almost every academic discipline has its theoretical approach of understanding conflicts economists are focused on game-theory

y and decision-making, psychologist explore interpersonal conflicts, sociologists take status and class conflicts as the focal point, while political science is centered on intra-national and international conflicts. Therefore to review the conflict literature as a whole is an almost impossible task. However, our conflict review, though mainly concentrated on interstate and international conflicts, will try to give short introduction of the disputed notions and different definitions of a complex phenomenon called conflict. In the same token the categorization and conflict typology will be examined in order to describe the possible development and level of conflict intensity, as well as its violent or non-violent manifestation. The review will also depict the objects of conflict territory, borders, power, resources, etc. that predominantly constitute the bone of contention in the interstate and intra-state disputes. Finally, we will analyze managing the conflict in the forms of conflict settlement, conflict resolution, conflict transformation and conflict prevention as a way to reach the state of cooperation between the states. 2 Different conflict concepts Already in the sphere of the everyday language the term conflict has no positive intonation. Usually dysfunctional phenomenons like discord, dispute or fighting are associated with it. Therefore, with the omnipresence of conflicts it is not surprising that the debate about this topic takes on significance also in the political science. Although the branch of peace and conflict research owes even a part of its name to this subject, the disagreement over the exact notion of the conflict as a term dominates until today. This is however little amazing because it is about one of the most enigmatic and controversial terms, which itself triggers conflicts very often (Bonacker/Imbusch 2005: 69). 2.1 Controversy over conflicts notions The Singer and Smalls initiated Correlates-of-War-Project (COW) defines conflicts as violent disputes in which at least one of the combatant parties is a state, and there are at least 100 battle-deaths. This definition covers exclusively soldiers and other military staff. Civilian victims are however not considered (Singer/Small 1972: 8). Both deaths threshold and the strict delimitation of state-participating conflicts of the Different conflict concepts 3 COW-Project became aftermath particularly criticised (Gantzel 1987). Nevertheless, until today shape both aspects the empirical-quantitative analysis of conflicts, as the definition of the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI) shows (Dwan/Holmqvist 2005): A major armed conflict is defined as the use of armed force between the military forces of two or more governments, or of one government and at least one organized armed group, resulting in the battle-related deaths of at least 1000 people in any single calendar year and in which the incompatibility concerns control of government and/or territory.

Also the Upsala Conflict Database (USDP) follows this very narrowly composed conflict notion (Wallensteen/Sollenberg 2005: 635): An armed conflict is defined ... as a contested incompatibility that concerns government or territory or both, where the use of armed force between two parties results in at least 25 battle-related deaths. Of these two parties, at least one has to be the government of a state. In turn, other conflict definitions have broader scope. For example the Heidelberg Institute for International Conflict Research (HIIK 2005: 2) defines conflicts as: the clashing of interests (positional differences) on national values of some duration and magnitude between at least two parties (organized groups, states, groups of states, organizations) that are determined to pursue their interests and win their cases. This definition testifies the fact that numbers of conflicts take place in weak or already collapsed states, which are not capable to intervene in the conflict with their own troops. Also conflicts in which the state power is not one of the conflicted parties are covered by this definition. 2.2 Definition attempts This short overview shows why the categorization and systematization of conflicts are extremely complex (Hippler 1999). Wasmuth (1992: 7) summarizes four points, which are necessary for an unprepossessed approximation of the conflict as a term: - Firstly, the conflict shall be considered as a social fact, which should not be confused with its form. - Secondly, no limiting evaluation is allowed by definition, in order not to predetermine the analysis of conflicts. - Thirdly, it is to be warned of unnecessary reduction of conflicts contextual Conflict categories 4 characteristics, since this would not suit the complexity of its notion. - Fourth, cause and effect should not be compounded or interchanged by defining conflicts. Based upon this approach Bonacker and Imbusch (2005: 71) present the following conflict definition: Konflikte lassen sich entsprechend definieren als soziale Tatbestnde, an denen mindestens zwei Parteien (Einzelpersonen, Gruppen, Staaten, etc.) beteiligt sind, die auf Unterschiede in der sozialen Lage und/oder auf Unterschieden in der Interessenskonstellation der Konfliktparteien beruhen. With this conflict formulation however the question arises about its functionality. A differentiation is thus urgently demanded. This is to be considered first as a consequence of conflict issues, second in respect of different conflict categories and dynamic and finally by drafting possible conflict forms. 3 Conflict categories From ontological point of view, research into the sources and categories of conflict has usually centred around two conflict approaches: the subjectivist and the objectivist approach. The objectivist approach (Schmid 1968), looks for the origin of conflict in the social and political make-up and structure of society, and considers that the goals at stake can be thoroughly compatible. On the contrary, the subjectivist point of view focuses primarily on the perceived incompatibility of goals and differences. As

Deutsch (1991: 30) puts it: it is incompatible differences which give rise to conflict. .. It is not the objective incompatibility that is crucial but rather the perceived incompatibility. Incompatibility of goals and interests or at least their perception as incompatible by the parties in dispute, is as well the essence of the political conflicts analysis. The level of incompatibility is the most important variable that impacts the intensity of the dispute and dynamic of conflict phases. Once conflict has emerged, it develops further with certain dynamic and intensity changing its courses and stages. In that sense understanding developing stages of conflict and their categorization is crucial because it may provide indications of what might happen next and what can facilitate the conflict management. Drawing upon Messmers (2003) concept of process model conflicts Diez, Stetter and Albert (2004: 9ff.), take subject incompatibilities between conflict parties and different ways in which these are articulated, as basic Conflict categories 5 specification standards for their four level conflict typology, and distinguish between: - conflict episodes, isolated incompatibility articulation related to a particular issue; - issue conflicts, persistent incompatibility over a contested issue; - identity conflicts, explicit disaccord and the moves of the other side are interpreted on the basis of hostile motives; - power conflicts - the communication of disaccord is no longer demarcation from the other, but subordination, and possibly extinction of the other. The cornerstone, however, of the recent conflict analysis literature is the COSIMO 2.0 conflict categorization, developed at the HIIK. At the heart of the methodology stands the dynamic model of conflict, which incorporates five intensity stages, taking into account the phases of non-violent and violent conflict ranging from latent conflict to war. This categorization was developed upon the escalation dynamic, which was the basic criterion used by Pfetsch (1994: 216) when he established five-types conflict categorization: latent conflict, manifested conflict, crisis, severe crisis, and war. The most important difference between these conflicts is that the first two are of nonviolent nature, while the crisis, severe crisis and war include usage of violence during the conflict. Consequently, the conflicts can be divided into two main categories: nonviolent and violent conflicts (see table 1). The major shortcoming in the conflict literature is that the most of the studies and available data are concentrated on violent conflicts, particularly on wars. Thus, there is lack of information and lack of researches on non-violent conflicts. Table 1: Overview and definitions of the conflict intensity State of Violence Intensity Group Level of intensity Name of intensity Definition 1

Latent Conflict A positional difference on definable values of national meaning is considered to be a latent conflict if respective demands are articulated by one of the parties and perceived by the other as such. non-violent low 2 Manifest Conflict A manifest conflict includes the use of measures that are located in the preliminary stage to violent force. This includes for example verbal pressure, threatening explicitly with violence, or the imposition of economic sanctions. Conflict categories 6 medium 3 Crisis A crisis is a tense situation in which at least one of the parties uses violent force in sporadic incidents. 4 Severe Crisis A conflict is considered to be a severe crisis if violent force is repeatedly used in an organized way. violent high 5 War A war is a type of violent conflict in which violent force is used with a certain continuity in an organized and systematic way. The conflict parties exercise extensive measures, depending on the situation. The extent of destruction is massive and of long duration. Source: HIIK (2005: 2). 3.1 Non-violent conflicts Absence of violence does not automatically mean an absence of conflict. Conflicting interests can be pursued without violence or coercion. When the conflict already exists this means only an absence of violent methods employed by parties in their struggle to resolve their incompatible differences over issues that are of national relevance for them. Parties do not use force against each other. Yet, the existence of non-violent conflict must be noticed and recognized by the outside world, as well as at least by one of the involved parties. In addition, it should be stressed that violent escalation of every conflict evolves from a non-violent phase of the conflict. Nonviolent conflict has been termed by Sandole (1998) as manifest conflict process (MCP) and defined as a situation in which at least two parties, or their representatives, try to pursue their perceptions of mutually incompatible goals by undermining,

directly or indirectly, each other's goal-seeking capability. In the same token, his approach defines a latent conflict as pre-MCPs phase. According to above mentioned COSIMO conflict categorization there are two types of non-violent conflicts: latent conflicts, and manifested conflicts. A conflict cannot be detected without existence of some visible signs that show certain position difference or interest opposition between two states over certain commodity. Sometimes conditions for conflict exist, but the parties are not pursuing an overt strategy to achieve their goals. However, at least one party has to have positional differences articulated in some form of demands, and the other party shall be aware of such demands. Following this logic a latent conflict is defined as a stage in the development of a conflict where one or more groups, parties or states question existing values, issues or objectives that have a national relevance. Latent conflicts must carry some identifiable and observConflict categories 7 able signs in order to be recognized and noticed as such. The positional differences and the clashing interests in a latent conflict must be articulated as demands or claims. The manifest conflict is a stage when tensions are present but are expressed by means below the threshold of violence. Tense relations between the parties can reach a turning-point from where the use of force may become more likely. Economic sanctions, for example, are a means by which a latent conflict can be turned into a manifest. Manifest conflicts are like latent conflicts at all stages carried out by non-violent means and without use of armed force. The distinction between objectively latent and manifest conflicts is to be recognized in a sense that communicative interaction (Diez/Stetter/Albert 2004: 6) between the parties is required to turn a latent into a manifest conflict. 3.2 Violent conflicts Conflicts enters a violent phase when parties go beyond seeking to attain their goals peacefully, and try to dominate, damage or destroy the opposing parties ability to pursue their own interests. For Davies (1973: 251) the existence of frustration of substantive (physical, social-affectional, self-esteem, and self-actualization) or implemental needs (security, knowledge, and power) is the essential condition for one non-violent conflict to escalate into violent: Violence as a response is produced when certain innate needs or demands are deeply frustrated. In political conflict analysis the use of force, physical damages and human casualties are the characteristics of a violent conflict. Battle-related human casualties thresholds are commonly used to define violent conflict, particularly in respect of war. An aggressive manifest conflict process (AMPC) is the term that Sandole (1998) uses to describe violent conflict, which, according to his definition represents: a situation in which at least two parties, or their representatives, attempt to pursue their perceptions of mutually incompatible goals by physically damaging or destroying the property and high-value symbols of one another (e.g., religious shrines, national monuments); and/or psychologically or physically injuring, destroying, or otherwise forcibly eliminating one another. In the recently published Berghof Handbook for Conflict Transformation, Smith (2005:

3), analyzing trends and causes of violent conflicts, employs the term armed conflicts when speaking about violent disputes, and defines it as: open, armed clashes between two or more centrally organised parties, with continuity between the clashes, in disputes about power over government and territory. The UCDP, whose Conflict categories 8 conflict definition has already been introduced divides armed conflicts into the following three subsets by level: - Minor Armed Conflict: at least 25 battle-related deaths per year and fewer than 1,000 battle-related deaths during the course of the conflict. - Intermediate Armed Conflict: at least 25 battle-related deaths per year and an accumulated total of at least 1.000 deaths, but less than 1.000 in any given year. - War: at least 1.000 battle-related deaths per year. Referring to the COSIMO categorization severe crisis is the second in a category of violent conflicts and has higher intensity of use o