THE METHOD: STEP BY STEP RESOLUTION

The guiding principle of Schelling’s analysis of the strategy in conflict is the discovery of a permanently existing alternative which opens a possibility of choice on almost every stage of the development of the conflict (Schelling, 1960).

In this sense, the development of the weapons of mass destruction (WMD) after World War II has significantly increased the stakes in a possible conflict between the nuclear states and opened up a new type of conflict strategy, that of deterrence and avoidance of the open hostilities. It has sharply increased the possible “cost” of the use of force and, thus, it has significantly contributed to the growth of doubts on the relevance of an open conflict as a solution to the disputed problem. This has changed the ratio between the attractiveness of the use of force (a promise of a “quick” and “decisive” solution) and reluctance to do so because of the expected losses. The strategy of the two nuclear superpowers, the Soviet Union and USA, has been split into two major parts: on the one hand, to seek for a possible strategic advantage (which could give a chance if not of a military victory at least of intimidation of the other side) and, on the other, to adhere to the “rules of prudence” in order to avoid an open hostility (George, Farley, and Dallin, 1988).

In the area of military conflicts, this situation has created a certain environment which has allowed the world to live for about 50 years without a major war (Vasquez, 2004). The two major adversaries were tied with the relationship of the Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD). They could threaten each other but did not risk going to war. Their allies and clients, being a part of their security arrangements, were not free to take steps which could engage them in military conflicts (with few exceptions, like the French war in Algeria or the British war in the Falkland Islands). In these matters, they had to follow the directives of the senior partner. The rest of the world, the so- called Third World, was more or less free to engage in military conflicts (and the arms sales policies of the superpowers seemingly encouraged it) but under the strict control of the UN Security Council where the same superpowers dominated. Besides, following their best intentions, the Soviet Union, USA and United Kingdom have concluded the Nonproliferation Treaty (NPT) in 1968, which has significantly reduced the searches for military advantage by smaller nations through the development of their individual nuclear weapons.

This system of inter- and intra-block mutual dependencies in the area of use of force has actively encouraged those who, due to different reasons (religious, moral, ethic, legal, etc.), objected to violence in principle. The huge losses of the nations in the two world wars in the 20th century, the advent of the weapons which could lead to even greater losses if used, the spread of conflicts among nations with the increase in number of inde­pendent states, the necessity to switch over at least part of the resources from arms race to development - all this has greatly stimulated searches for alternative strategies in conflicts. It is understandable that conflicts happen and will continue to happen in the relations between sovereign states, but the legitimate question was: should they always develop as a military confrontation? Is the military force, even in the cases of definite advantage, the best solution? Doesn't social and intellectual progress open up opportunities for other than military solutions?

This was the beginning of conflict reso­lution thinking in the military area and the anti-violence considerations have played a significant role in its development (Franck, 2007).