How are the causes of war and peace related? Is it possible to bridge the conceptual gap between causes-of-war theory and conflict resolution theory? This article from the European Journal of International Relations puts forward a new conceptual framework to facilitate the analysis of the outbreak, conduct and resolution of armed conflict within states. This ‘Triple-R’ framework involves consideration of reasons, resources and resolve for engaging in violence.
The causes of war can be explained in terms of the “Triple-R Triangle”. In order to resort to violence, an actor must have reasons, resources and resolve. These are three distinct, but interacting, clusters of variables which explain changes in the behaviour and attitudes of conflicting parties. These three “R”s can thus be said to form a triangle.
- Reasons relate to the question: “Do we want to go to war?” They relate to issue-generated cleavages in society.
- There are two types of reasons: background reasons and proximate reasons.
- Resources are what is needed to answer ‘Yes’ to the question: “Can we go to war?” Resources therefore relate to military capabilities, organisational capabilities and opportunity structure.
- Opportunity structure is the environment of constraints and possibilities.
- Reasons and resources do not alone explain the outbreak of war. A heightened state of resolve is also crucial for explaining why a conflict moves from a state of tension into organised, large-scale physical violence.
- Resolve has to do with the question: “Do we dare to go to war?” It is, in part, about belief systems. Reasons and resources are inputted into a belief system and decisions are then made about whether to use violence or not.
In order to establish peace, conflict parties must move through three phases: 1) Mutually Hurting Stalemate (MHS), when the disincentives for fighting become so great that it ceases and talks may begin; 2) Mutually Enticing Opportunities (MEO), when the incentives for peace are such that the conflicting parties see it as preferable to war and may reach a peace agreement; and 3) Mutually Obtained Rewards (MOR), when peace is consolidated. The parties’ progress through these phases can also be explained with reference to the “Triple-R Triangle”.
- Mutually Hurting Stalemate: The perception that the costs of continuing to fight outweigh the benefits is primarily to do with resources. Often, fighting ends due to resource constraints and reduced opportunities to prosecute the war.
- Mutually Enticing Opportunities: International actors can be influential during MEO because they can help to build the perception that peace is the preferable option. Such actors can use two types of tools: leverage and problem-solving ability.
- Leverage mainly relates to the resources corner of the “Triple-R Triangle”. It refers to the ability of the mediator to alter the resources and opportunities at the parties’ disposal, for example by offering security guarantees.
- Problem-solving relates to the reasons corner of the ‘Triple-R Triangle’. It refers to the ability to devise solutions that deal with the grievances and concerns of the parties.
- Mutually Obtained Rewards: Acceptance that peace is the preferable option depends on the extent to which the resources for conflict have been constrained, the reasons for conflict addressed and thus the resolve for peace increased.
