Root Causes
Triggers
Inside and Outside Explanations
Threats to Security

While some attribute conflict to structural phenomena others say they are inevitable and ingrained in human primordial behavior. Still others see conflict as manufactured by specific individuals who seek power and control. While it is impossible to attribute most conflicts to a single factor, many elements are clearly decisive when it comes to a conflict's escalation. Louis Kriesberg notes that leadership is imperative in the polarization and escalation process because group members must be convinced that their grievances can be attributed to the adversary or "Other." Followers must also be convinced that the change and particular course of action suggested by the leadership is possible.

Root causes

It is important to distinguish between root causes and triggers. While root causes refer to the underlying fundamental incompatibilities of a conflict, triggers constitute more proximate events or factors that cause a conflict to escalate. This distinction is relevant for understanding both the sources and the dynamics of a conflict, as well as for coordinating the efforts of management and resolution. Triggers must be identified and tackled for effective preventive action. Root causes must be addressed and eradicated in order to find long term and sustainable solutions.

Michael E. Brown, in his book The International Dimension of Internal Conflict, writes that the literature identifies five main clusters of variables that "predispose" some places in the world to conflict, while not others. They are:

Ethnic and identity affiliations are often blamed for instigating violence and prolonging the duration of a conflict. However, they cannot solely explain the advent of conflict. Instead, they often act as triggers. Laitin & Rothchild identify the main cause for ethnic conflict as being a collective fear for the future, lived through the past. They see ethnic membership, political ideologies or religion serving as rallying cries in the mobilization and politicization of a collectivity. Land, economic resources, or other forms of control, are the stakes.

Collective fear for survival or physical safety occurs when a state loses its ability to arbitrate between rival groups. The state either becomes so weak that it loses legitimacy with its people, or its operations are biased in favor of one particular group. Combined with collective perceptions of diversity and diffidence, such circumstances can lead to the creation of a "security dilemma." In his book, The Security Dilemma and Ethnic Conflict, Barry Posen explains that the security dilemma can often explain escalations in conflict. K.J. Holsti identifies the cause of state failure in the erosion of vertical and horizontal legitimacy. This refers to the recognition of the right to rule (vertical) and the cohesion of the community (horizontal). Inefficient, unfair and discriminatory policies alienate the loyalty of the people and divide society along regional and ethnic lines.

Although the root causes of a conflict may be different for each case, the severance of inter-personal communications across group lines produced by the polarization process often leads to the development of policies of dehumanization and discrimination towards the adversary as well as a heightened sense of zero-sum thinking.

Triggers

If we were to know exactly the circumstances that precede conflict, and in which order they occur, it would be possible (given the right resources) to prevent conflicts from taking place. However, these circumstances would have to be universally recognized for external actors to be willing to invest in an intervention in order to avoid more costly endeavors in the future. Moreover, the parties themselves would have to be willing to relinquish their hopes of gains from any future escalation of the conflict.

The Minorities At Risk Project collects data about 275 minorities in the world, in order to determine the most important factors responsible for the onset of inter-group violence. By categorizing minority groups according to specific characteristics such as the degree of mobilization or discrimination, it becomes possible to determine the degree of risk entailed for each case in terms of escalating violence. In his presentation of the results of the project in the book People vs. States, Gurr writes that four general variables help us understand the outbreak of ethnopolitical or identity-based conflict. They are the salience of ethnocultural identity, extent of collective incentive, extent of capacity for collective action, and the availability of opportunities increasing the chance of success.

Brown mirrors his list of Underlying Causes with a corresponding number of Proximate Causes or triggers. He identifies four types that he says often precipitate an escalation. They are:

Inside or Outside Explanations

The explanation of conflict may be external or internal. External factors include those discussed above, where a collective is threatened either by rival group or by another state. The causes for conflict and the material stakes become salient from the interaction and rivalry between two groups. The "inside perspective" that we refer to here is the scapegoat theory, claiming that it is the internal experience of a group (i.e., it’s lack of cohesion) that gives rise to its inter-group behavior. According to this explanation, leaders sometimes resort to violence against an outside group in order to evade internal dissention or weakness.

Threats to Security

Content for this section is coming soon. Thank you for your patience