On the micro-level: Proposed Indigenous Conflict Management Mechanisms for Ukraine and especially Crimea
- Community-Based/Traditional/Indigenous Mediation
- Community-Based Conflict Mitigation
Indigenous conflict management and resolution mechanisms use local actors and traditional community-based judicial and legal decision-making mechanisms to manage and resolve conflicts within or between communities.
Objectives
Local mechanisms aim to resolve conflicts without resorting to state-run judicial systems, police, or other external structures. The end result: a sense of unity, shared involvement and responsibility, and dialogue among groups otherwise in conflict.
Impact
Local negotiations can lead to ad hoc practical agreements which keep broader inter-communal relations positive, creating environments where townspeople can live together, and merchants can trade together even if military men remain unreconciled.
In some cases, this can undermine the perpetrators of violence, leading to the development of momentum toward peace.
Local mediation typically incorporates consensus-building based on open discussions to exchange information and clarify issues. Conflicting parties are more likely to accept guidance from these mediators than from other sources because an elder’s decision does not entail any loss of face and is backed by social pressure. The end result: a sense of unity, shared involvement and responsibility, and dialogue among groups otherwise in conflict.
Local mechanisms intervene to resolve community disputes before they escalate to large-scale violence or to prevent a resumption of violence after a period of calm.
- Community-Based/Traditional/Indigenous Mediation
- Community-Based Conflict Mitigation
Indigenous conflict management and resolution mechanisms use local actors and traditional community-based judicial and legal decision-making mechanisms to manage and resolve conflicts within or between communities.
Objectives
Local mechanisms aim to resolve conflicts without resorting to state-run judicial systems, police, or other external structures. The end result: a sense of unity, shared involvement and responsibility, and dialogue among groups otherwise in conflict.
Impact
Local negotiations can lead to ad hoc practical agreements which keep broader inter-communal relations positive, creating environments where townspeople can live together, and merchants can trade together even if military men remain unreconciled.
In some cases, this can undermine the perpetrators of violence, leading to the development of momentum toward peace.
Local mediation typically incorporates consensus-building based on open discussions to exchange information and clarify issues. Conflicting parties are more likely to accept guidance from these mediators than from other sources because an elder’s decision does not entail any loss of face and is backed by social pressure. The end result: a sense of unity, shared involvement and responsibility, and dialogue among groups otherwise in conflict.
Local mechanisms intervene to resolve community disputes before they escalate to large-scale violence or to prevent a resumption of violence after a period of calm.
Evaluation
Strengths Indigenous conflict mitigation mechanisms can address some of the proximate factors that help fuel conflict at the local level—access to land or water, competition over foreign assistance—and can provide appropriate, sustainable and long-term solutions. While local peace processes are not likely to stop a large conflict, they can help prevent small disputes from escalating into larger conflicts. Many communities perceive conflict resolution activities directed by outsiders as intrusive and unresponsive to indigenous concepts of justice, and prefer to resolve conflicts within the community. Conflict management mediators from the local community are generally more sensitive to local needs than outsiders and are immersed in the culture of the violence-afflicted community. Their activities are rooted in conflict’s context, address some of its immediate causes, and can bring long-term solutions. They can draw people away from the conflict, breaking its momentum. Indigenous conflict management and resolution mechanisms aim to resolve conflicts locally, preceding or replacing external dispute resolution and thereby reducing reliance on external structures. Traditional mediation helps the community keep control over the outcome of the dispute. Implementing this approach provides a low-cost, empowering means of resolving conflicts within a relatively short timeframe. In many societies, elders have traditional jurisdiction in facilitation, arbitration, and monitoring outcomes. Local conflict mediators typically possess moral status, seniority, neutrality and respect of the community; they are acceptable to all parties and demonstrate leadership capacity. Resolutions are generally accepted and respected by all concerned parties. | Weaknesses Documentation on the effectiveness of grassroots conflict prevention mechanisms is inconsistent, yet indicates that indigenous mediation may be powerless to address some of a conflict’s root causes—centrally-instigated conflict, predatory behavior linked to exploiting economic advantage, external meddling. Indigenous mediators often bring important social influence but may lack the power and the means to enforce the resolutions adopted. Advice is only accepted when both parties agree to it, and both parties must feel their concerns were properly addressed. Traditional structures’ power to prevent the occurrence of violence is limited. Some traditional conflict mitigation efforts may be weakened by age or gender bias—for example, in cases with no women elders, some women may believe that male elders are biased against women and that this will be reflected in their decisions. Indigenous, traditional authorities generally are not progressive elements of social change. Local conflict management’s potential effectiveness is diminished where traditional authority has eroded and armed authority has increased, since these trends run counter to traditional values and ways of social organization, including those of handling conflict. International agencies’ efforts to build local capacity and enhance participation should question whether traditional authority structures are being undermined, what their role is in keeping the society intact and managing conflict, and whether it is important to make efforts to retain such structures. Indigenous mediation has a dynamic of its own and does not always respond positively to external prompting. Indigenous mediation requires delicate and knowledgeable management, and external actors must bring an intimate understanding of local conditions. |