Conflict Mitigation

Hello and welcome to this module on conflict mitigation. My name is Nicole Carle and I'm a counsel for the Public International Law and Policy Group or PILPG. Today I am pleased to welcome Dr. Yvonne Dutton who is a senior legal advisor at PILPG and has agreed to help us understand conflict mitigation a little bit better.

Welcome Dr. Dutton.

What is conflict mitigation?

To begin, could you please provide an overview of what conflict mitigation is?

Sure.

The goal of conflict mitigation is to limit the destruction and civilian suffering caused by conflict and to proactively manage and reduce the likelihood of future conflicts. It involves various strategies and techniques aimed at fostering communication, understanding, and collaboration among individuals or groups with differing interests, needs, or perspectives.

Now conflict mitigation is always unique to a particular context. But we can identify several common types of conflict management arrangements that are often used during conflict. And in this module, I'm going to focus on a few of the most common kinds of arrangements.  So one, conflict mitigation measures.

Two, restrictions on hostilities, and three, truces, or, and other battlefield management agreements. Now, these agreements are often developed, negotiated, and implemented by local actors operating within conflict zones who have the necessary connections to the armed groups and the local legitimacy to operate in this context.

On some occasions, these activities can benefit also from international support, but in this case, the potential benefits must be carefully weighed against the potential problems this can also introduce, such as undermining the local legitimacy or perhaps unintentionally politicizing the process. So often parties are really just not ready to discuss a fully fledged peace process or prepared to commit to a formal ceasefire.

But they may be prepared or perhaps feel pressured enough to negotiate more limited local short term arrangements. So in this context, while a process might not be ripe for resolution, conflict mitigation and management arrangements will provide this step that potentially enables preparation for future, more significant.

Peace negotiations. Now the key challenge for peace builders and local actors is to understand how to approach such short term opportunities, both in terms of the immediate objectives, for example, the delivery of vital humanitarian aid within a broader and longer term strategic framework that then moves the parties for its peace.  For example, in the Sudan, South Sudan Civil War, the peace process grew out of initial negotiations focused on providing humanitarian access to address an outbreak of Guinea worm across the country. This was followed by negotiations that led to a major relief operation and subsequently a child demobilization program.

These negotiations took place while the violence continued unabated and were not directly linked to a peace process. They provided a first opportunity for the parties to interact and build disassociating capacity. And this was pivotal in providing the foundations upon which future ceasefires and ultimately the Comprehensive Peace Agreement were developed.

What are conflict mitigation measures?

Now, you mentioned conflict mitigation measures as being one type of conflict management arrangement. What are the conflict mitigation measures?

Sure. So conflict mediation measures are arrangements between civilians and armed actors  to limit, manage, or adapt conflict violence to improve the situation for civilians who are living in these conflict affected areas.

 Civilians are the main victims of conflict violence. Civilians living or working near ongoing violence are often not able to undertake essential daily tasks such as going to the market or taking their children to school. And over the long term. This really can make life impossible for civilians. So to improve this situation, local leaders, civil society representatives, or individual civilians often try to negotiate arrangements with armed actors to mitigate violence in limited ways.

These locally negotiated arrangements seek to enable civilian communities to operate more safely and freely within the conflict environment. And these conflict mitigation measures often focus on access to areas of particular social and economic importance, such as places of religious worship, children being able to get to school civilians being able to reach health clinics, Opening roads to allow access to other communities and even safe access to trade routes and local markets.

For example, in Afghanistan, many local elders and civil society groups were able to negotiate arrangements with the Taliban to gain safe passage through certain regions, to reduce violence during harvest times, and to reopen essential stores and businesses for the civilians.

How do armed actors engage in complex mitigation arrangements?

Now, that's an interesting example.

Zooming out a bit, how likely are armed actors in different contexts to engage in complex mitigation arrangements?

Right. Armed actors are very unlikely usually to consent to any form of conflict mitigation measure that really would hinder or interrupt their military campaign. But we have to remember that armed actors also depend on support in some instances from local civilians who they likely might rely on for Let's say material resources or even information, and so it's therefore more challenging for an armed actor to engage in armed conflict in the presence of an inhospitable civilian population in some of these circumstances.

So sometimes armed actors are willing to agree on local conflict mitigation measures to improve the situation for local civilians and thereby improve relations. With local civilians, whilst not at the same time undermining their war effort. In many cases, armed groups are composed of individuals from local communities, which provides and can provide an additional incentive for the group to take steps in order to maintain good relations with that local population.

How do local conflict mitigation arrangements connect to the peace process?

Well, the arrangements are often agreed to by local commanders or influential individuals and don't involve the central leadership of armed actors. In many cases, the success of these agreements is dependent on them being detached from the broader national dynamics and central leadership.

Therefore, these arrangements are normally very informal, unlikely to be written, and subject to change or renegotiation if personnel change or the military situation on the battlefield shifts. These are normally standalone agreements, not linked to other conflict mitigation measures elsewhere. Now, conflict mitigation measures do not directly impact the peace process because, again, they are local arrangements involving local actors.

And may not necessarily feature in national level discussions. Nevertheless, it is useful for mediators to be familiar with such dynamics and be aware of options available for mitigating civilian suffering due to conflict absent. A formal peace process. Now, in addition, there is the possibility that these measures create an entry point upon which a larger process might develop.

In other words, if armed actors can develop working relations and trust with civilians and civil society groups working on limited local issues, then it's possible that more substantive negotiations might develop on this foundation. For example, in the Philippines, numerous local grassroots groups. Civil society initiatives built connections between different groups, and this allowed the groups to build channels of communication and trusted relations with armed actors, which later provided useful foundations upon which the broader peace process was built.  

What are restrictions on hostilities?

Earlier you mentioned restrictions on hostilities as another conflict management arrangement. Could you describe this arrangement in more detail?

Yes. Restrictions on hostilities are arrangements between the conflict parties to limit or restrain certain forms of violence. These restrictions can come in various forms.

 In many cases, these restrictions reflect  longstanding cultural or normative practices, such as the prohibition on attacks on religious sites or at times of religious significance.  For In other cases, agreements are more tacit, whereby local commanders informally agree to refrain from engagements in certain areas, such as within or close to a market that people must attend.

While in other cases still they involve informal unilateral or joint arrangements, such as a shared agreement not to target schools or hospitals, a commitment, perhaps not to recruit child soldiers. Or perhaps offering certain protections to women and children that might get caught up in a conflict.

 And here an example would be the Sudan conflict in Darfur, where both parties reached an agreement to demobilize child soldiers before the substantive ceasefire negotiations began. Now, these are distinct from conflict mitigation measures in that they are normally agreements just between the conflict parties.

Though they can have important impacts on the local civilian population and can also include normative practices and tacit agreements that are not directly negotiated. There is a body of international law that in principle applies to all conflicts and conflict actors, but these general guidelines are strengthened when the parties supplement this with tacit unilateral or joint restrictions.

These restrictions on hostilities are then distinct from the laws of war and international humanitarian law in that the parties agree to honor these agreements themselves, rather than being bound by some external authority. Now, even in very violent conflicts, parties can sometimes agree to limits on acceptable behavior.

Though all actors are likely to be fully committed to conflict and determined to reach their military objectives through all means available, they may also recognize the shared benefits in restricting the scope of certain forms of violence and the range of acceptable targets.

Why do armed actors enter into restrictions on hostilities agreements?

Bringing armed actors back into this conversation.

Why might these armed actors be motivated to enter into agreements regarding restrictions on hostilities?

Well, many restrictions on hostilities have a humanitarian function, helping to create areas or specific locations where civilians And escape violence and receive perhaps life saving aid. This can include agreements to refrain from attacks on humanitarian workers are granting humanitarian access.

For example, allowing the NGO Doctors Without Borders to run a hospital in a contested region. Such agreements might also we might have arrangements on the basis of humanitarian principles that lead to restrictive measures like no fire zones around hospital. These are generally reciprocal and are only effective when both sides see an advantage in such an arrangement.

And these arrangements might also include a commitment from the parties to honor some existing legal framework. For example, the Geneva Conventions. So that can potentially then overlap with, you know, legal requirements that already exist. Importantly, these arrangements are often very beneficial for the conflict parties themselves as they help to ensure that all actors involved are treated humanely and with decency.

And so to this end, the agreements are not just about protecting civilians, though they are, but they are also creating a more humane conflict environment where all parties to the conflict Agree to something that might be more bearable for them. Now, in addition, some parties, in particular, those with political goals are often motivated to agree to this type of restriction to reduce the threat of future sanction by the International Criminal Court or other international regimes.

So conflict parties are often willing to undergo professionalization training to help their forces understand how to better manage and protect civilians and obey the laws of war so that they are not later prosecuted. This training can help implement battlefield management arrangements, but can also demonstrate a commitment from the armed group to professionalism in the future.

How do negotiated restrictions on hostilities connect to the peace process?

Well, they're not always connected to a peace process. On many occasions, these arrangements emerge informally during violent hostilities prior to the onset of a peace process. In such cases, the arrangements are conceived of as a mutually beneficial conflict management tool rather than moving the parties towards an agreement.

Also, international actors often lobby for these commitments behind the scenes during the dispute when it's not possible, really, to advance peace negotiations themselves. Now, it's also possible that these restrictions, if honored, serve as that sort of confidence building measure that then can provide an entry point for future peace negotiations.

If the conflict parties can agree to restrict violence in certain ways, maybe this is a first step toward freedom. Further collaboration. These arrangements also provide important opportunities to offer ceasefire training for the actors, which can build capacity and confidence for further substantive negotiations.

Now for these reasons mediators or peacemakers might encourage the parties to consider this type of arrangement in the early phases of dialogue. To be clear, the aim here would not be to stop violence altogether but to limit certain activities as an initial move towards further cooperation. It's also possible that mediators or conflict parties have a rudimentary roadmap of how these arrangements might be developed in the future as part of a broader process, but this is likely more of a secondary consideration.

Understandable.

What are some of the key challenges now related to negotiated restrictions on hostilities?

Well, if a conflict party is seen to have broken an arrangement, this can obviously worsen relations between the groups, and then undermine those future efforts that we've been talking about. So given their informal character, these arrangements can be challenging to maintain, and, you know, for that reason, since they're informal, perhaps not written down, also can be prone to noncompliance, and so we're going to have this, this possibility of a broken arrangement.

Nevertheless, negotiated restrictions on hostilities can still be, as I've been mentioning, a valuable tool for the conflict parties to mutually commit to a series of activities that improve the conflict environment and can, on occasions, offer an initial entry point for developing interactions between the parties and increasing the legitimacy and professionalism of armed groups.

So there are these risks, but it's still the kind of thing that maybe can and lead to something positive.

The last thing before we close. Finally, you mentioned earlier truces and other battlefields management agreements as a 3rd conflict mitigation arrangement.

Can you speak more to this?

Yes, so battlefield management arrangements are more  short term agreements between the conflict parties to enable some mutually beneficial short term collaboration. Throughout violent conflict, there are moments in which conflict parties both need to work together, though actors might remain fully committed to the violent conflict and focused on achieving their military objectives.

They recognize the benefits of agreeing to some limited arrangement that shifts the situation on the battlefield or part of the battlefield for some shorter period of time.  Now, a battlefield truce is the most common form of battlefield management arrangements. A battlefield truce is a short term arrangement between combatants.

To pause the fighting on the battlefield. These arrangements are normally informal and typically arranged locally. For an example, an agreement between two commanders to allow a humanitarian convoy to pass, or to evacuate civilians from the battlefield, or perhaps to allow engineers an opportunity to fix the water supply that both parties need.

And so these arrangements all tend to be brief and temporary. Meaning that they only suspend our hostilities for some short period of time. This can be for a pre specified period, for example, one hour, one day, or it can be according to a pre specified task, for example, after, you know, we pause while we complete a prisoner exchange.

On other occasions, truces can also be called off for a long, longer period, perhaps at, lasting for a few months, depending on the needs of the conflict parties.

And why might parties to the conflicts be interested in such truces or other battlefield arrangements, like you've mentioned?

Yeah, these battlefield management arrangements, they can have some advantages for the conflict parties.

They can help to make the conflict   more humane, that's something we've been talking about, and help to restore a basic level of decency for the fighters. For example, arrangements can set the terms for constraining conflict violence to allow one party to withdraw troops from an area. In a way that prevents unnecessary loss of life or damage to property.

 Commonly truces are used to  mutually beneficial exchanges, for example, often parties agree to a short term break in the fighting to negotiate and implement an arrangement that allows groups to exchange prisoners of war with their opponent. Or evacuate these wounded fighters that might have been on the battlefield.

And here we have an example from the Bosnian Civil War in 1995. There were multiple truces that allowed exchange of prisoners between the conflict parties. And then in Yemen, truces have been used to create a break in the fighting to collect the dead or the wounded from the battlefield or to exchange corpses.

And this kind of break. helps to honor social and religious norms that require the dead to be buried within 24 hours in some communities. And these sorts of processes are beneficial for all sides, as one side can return injured or fallen soldiers to their family. And the other side is then freed from the burden of taking care of these prisoners or corpses.

And this type of activity can often benefit from the support of outside actors such as the International Committee of the Red Cross that often helps to negotiate and implement arrangements such as these. Another thing that truces are often used for can be the delivery of food. Medicine or to facilitate leaves for the forces.

 And so,  in addition to benefits for civilians that this break in the violent, you know, the violence would produce. These truces and battlefield management agreements can make life more bearable for those who are involved in the war as well. 

How can truces and battlefield arrangements facilitate peace negotiations?

Very fair. And my last question for you now are, how might these truces and battlefield arrangements facilitate any future peace negotiations?

Well, we've talked a little bit about this. Usually, again, they're, they're focused on short term goals. And they don't necessarily mean that either conflict party is willing to cease hostilities. But again, they can start to build a connection and capacity and they can help to  build confidence between the parties, which might help to add this ability to have an entry point for future negotiations.

So if you see at your conflict party and you see that you can negotiate and honor a limited truce with the other conflict party, well, maybe this shows you that. Maybe you can reach some agreement and abide by it.  So the personal connections and channels of communication that are developed while negotiating and implementing a truce can then help to lay important foundations for future collaboration.

This might be that maybe there were creation of joint committees. Effective systems of liaison or emergency contacts. Mediators and peacemakers might then also encourage the parties, the conflict parties to consider this type of arrangement as a way of building connections. and entry points for the time when these conflict parties might be ready to consider more substantive forms of ceasefire. 

Well, with that, these were some examples of conflict mitigation and management arrangements that can be adopted during conflict to eliminate the atrocities and their impact on civilians. We hope that through this module, you watching have a better understanding of how armed actors often enter these various arrangements to mitigate or manage any conflict violence.

We identified  three of the most common of these arrangements that serve different functions, involve different actors, and have different possible links to peace processes.   When partaking in conflict mitigation efforts, recall that these initiatives are often  developed, negotiated, and implemented by local actors operating within conflict zones who have the necessary connections to the armed groups and the local legitimacy to operate in this context.

 The key challenges for negotiators, mediators, and local actors is to understand how to approach such short term opportunities, both in terms of the immediate objectives, for example, the delivery of vital humanitarian aid, within a broader and longer term strategic framework that moves the parties towards peace.

And that concludes our overview of conflict mitigation. Thank you Dr. Dutton for your time and thank you to the audience for watching.