SIMILARITIES BETWEEN CONFLICT RESOLUTION AND HUMAN RIGHTS
Both conflict resolution and human rights are social change movements, motivated by the desire to improve the human condition. They both operate from a set of normative principles that govern the practical work they do in the field, and it is from this basis of shared norms that synergy can develop between the two agendas at all levels within a given community.
Strengthening norms
There are many norms common to the human rights and conflict resolution approaches. The first is participation. From the human rights perspective, this involves an individual's ability to gain access to the political, economic, and social institutions of the country in which he/she lives, and not be barred from participating in such institutions because of race, religion, gender, or social class. The conflict resolution perspective coincides with this, and adds the importance of access to any ad hoc decision-making processes in which the individual or group is a stakeholder. Integration of these views presents no problems.
The second shared norm is empowerment. Empowerment through human rights comes as the rights themselves are enacted, that is, by having and claiming these rights, people gain power over those who would oppress them. Looking through a conflict resolution lens, empowerment is a function of skill - for example, knowing how to negotiate effectively, build coalitions, create options for settlement, and mobilize one's constituency. These are complementary views, but under some circumstances may appear mutually exclusive. For example, a minority group adopting the human rights approach might choose to confront its state government, either non-violently or violently, to demand its rights. Using a conflict resolution approach, this same minority group would choose a more collaborative strategy, seeking to negotiate a deal rather than push its agenda by force.
One could argue, however, that in order to negotiate effectively, a group must come to the table with sufficient leverage to strike an equitable deal; claiming its individual or group rights could be one way of obtaining such leverage. The non-violence strategy successfully adopted by the people of East Timor is a striking example of this (Stephan, 2006).Equity is a third norm shared by those following the conflict resolution or human rights agendas. Both would argue that all human beings should be treated with respect, even those with whom we strongly disagree. From the human rights point of view, this includes equal access to due process, fair and impartial hearings, and protection from arbitrary arrest. From the conflict resolution standpoint, this also means making an effort to understand the needs and concerns of all sides, even of those who violate the rights of others. For both human rights and conflict resolution, equity does not mean the same as equality. Differences in resources (money, education, political power, property, etc.) still exist. The human rights agenda is much more explicit than that of conflict resolution in seeking equality as well as equity - and of confronting the power dynamics when resources are asymmetrical.
Finally, security (both physical and psychological) is a shared norm. Conflict resolution seeks to stop the use of violence in settling disagreements, transferring discussion to political and consensus-building forums. It also underscores the importance of addressing the basic human needs for identity and acknowledgment, as part of psychological security. Human rights seek to protect individuals from torture or other cruel and degrading punishment; prohibit slavery; and provide for freedom of conscience, religion, expression, and movement. Each addresses itself to a slightly different set of ways in which security can be undermined, but these are not mutually exclusive, and both would agree to the centrality of this array of issues.
Thus, the international conflict resolution agenda already shares many of the human rights norms, although not as vocally or visibly as their human rights counterparts. The challenge occurs, however, in how to translate these norms into practice. It is therefore important to investigate why conflict resolution practitioners shy away from the human rights agenda - as well as why the human rights world is skeptical of conflict resolution. The next sections of the chapter take on these questions.