CHALLENGES IN INTEGRATING THE INTERNATIONAL CONFLICT RESOLUTION AND HUMAN RIGHTS AGENDAS
Although we can identify key normative similarities between international conflict resolution and human rights, there are several major differences between them that have implications for conflict resolution theory and practice.
The first is the way in which norm violators are treated. In human rights practice, violators of human rights norms are prosecuted through national or international courts and the human rights treaty bodies, or are shunned and stigmatized in keeping with the use of “naming and shaming” as a strategy for enforcement. There is a grave concern about appearing to reward bad behavior. In neutral third-party practice, however, violators of human rights norms are often included in discussions with both official and nonofficial third parties. Track 1 processes include human rights violators because they are often the leaders who can “deliver” an agreement. Track 2 processes include such violators so the negotiators can better understand what is motivating their non-compliance and how they can be brought around to abiding by the norms. Neither Track 1 nor Track 2 processes place a high priority on confronting perpetrators over human rights violations.A second major difference between conflict resolution and human rights is in their interpretations of “justice.” In human rights terms, justice is connected to state-level and individual accountability for gross violations of human rights laws, and the remedy sought is primarily retributive in nature, for example, prosecution of individuals, political or economic sanctions against states.2 For mediators, justice is more often defined as fairness of a settlement in the eyes of the parties to the dispute. Accountability mechanisms are only present if the parties agree to include them. To the extent that accountability is sought for criminal activity, Track 1 conflict resolution processes integrate accountability mechanisms for the future, in the form of provisions in negotiated peace agreements for enforcing human rights law, but do not routinely provide for retrospective punishment ofindividual perpetrators.
Track 2 processes diverge even further by often embracing restorative rather than retributive justice.3Finally, conflict resolution and human rights differ in their theories of social change. The human rights movement focuses on the creation of international norms, which in turn are intended to shape behaviors. The implicit assumption is that people should be held to moral imperatives of what is right, because these have been negotiated and agreed to in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and its implementing Covenants.4
Conflict resolution practice has proceeded in a different way, by defining the means by which fair and sustainable results are achieved, and then seeking to demonstrate the power of those means in various Track 1 and Track 2 processes involving both governmental and non-governmental players.
Table 32.1 Key differences between conflict resolution and human rights
| Issue | Human Rights | Conflict Resolution |
| Treatment of norms violators Conception of justice Theories of social change | Naming and shaming; no precedent for rewarding bad behavior; change behavior with "sticks" approach Individual accountability; punishment/retributive justice Define the ends; design means to reach those ends | Include violators in discussion, to learn their interests and change their behavior with "carrots" as well as "sticks." Change attitudes as well as behavior Fairness in the eyes of the parties; restorative as well as retributive justice, to maintain relationships if possible Define means; ends that emerge will be fair if the process is designed well and people are educated to use the process wisely |
While some strong Track 1 mediators have very specific substantive goals for an agreement and impose those goals on the parties (e.g. the United States for the Dayton Accords), the majority of both Track 1 and Track 2 third parties believe that constructive change comes through a well-designed process of engagement and problem-solving. By facilitating such processes, and educating participants in how to develop strategies consistent with conflict resolution principles, these third parties hope to improve the quality and sustainability of relationships and agreements.
Therefore, both conflict resolution and human rights interventions seek behavior and attitude change, but by different procedural means. The human rights approach works primarily by imposing external norms (outside-in), whereas conflict resolution relies more on building consensus through nonadjudicatory means (inside-out).