Intractable Conflicts and Dispute Streams

2. Intractable Conflict Threat and Opportunity

In Brief

This page explains the distinction we make (following John Burton) that "conflicts," are long-term, deep-rooted, usually needs-based problems that are difficult to resolve (hence, are often intractable), and "disputes," which are short-term disagreements, often based on interests, that are much easier to resolve.

Though both types of disagreement can occur independently of one another, they may also be connected: short-term disputes may exist within a larger, longer-running conflict. That means it is often possible to resolve some aspects of a conflict, while other aspects remain in contention.

Most people use the terms "conflict" and "dispute" to mean the same thing, but conflict scholars, particularly those, like John Burton, who focus on human needs as a primary driver of conflict, make a distinction between these two concepts. Disputes, Burton suggested, are short-term disagreements that are relatively easy to resolve. Long-term, deep-rooted, problems that involve seemingly non-negotiable issues and are resistant to resolution are what Burton referred to as "conflicts."¹

Though both types of disagreement can occur independently of one another, they may also be connected. Short-term disputes may exist within a larger, longer-running conflict. A similar concept would be the notion of battles, which occur within the broader context of a war, or even wars, within the context of a long-running conflict. So, for example, the most recent Israeli/Palestinian war that started on October 7, 2023 (and is still going on as of this writing), as horrific as it is, is one dispute within the larger, longer-lasting Israel/Palestinian conflict. The 1948 War of Independence [or the Nakba (catastrophe) from the Palestinian point of view] the 1956 Suez War, the 1967 "Six-Day War," and the 1973 Yom Kippur War, were all "disputes" that were, indeed, "resolved" with ceasefires that termporarily ended the fighting. They did not, however, resolve the underlying conflict, which continued to ebb and flow until the next major war broke out.

The conflict/dispute distinction is important in smaller scale conflicts as well. Following Burton's distinction, disputes involve interests that are negotiable. That means it is possible to find a solution that at least partially meets the interests and needs of both sides. For example, it generally is possible to find an agreeable price for a piece of merchandise. The seller may want more, the buyer may want to pay less, but eventually they can agree on a price that is acceptable to both. Likewise, co-workers may disagree about who is to do what task in an office. After negotiating, each may have to do something they did not want to do, but in exchange they will get enough of what they did want to settle the dispute (see compromise).

Long-term conflicts, on the other hand, usually involve non-negotiable issues. They may involve deep-rooted moral or value differences, high-stakes distributional questions, and/or conflicts about who dominates whom. Fundamental human psychological needs for identity, security, and recognition are often in contention in these conflicts. None of these issues are negotiable. People will not compromise fundamental values. They will not give up their chance for a better life by submitting to continued injustice or domination, nor will they change or give up their self-identity. Deep-rooted conflicts over these types of issues tend to be drawn out and highly resistant to resolution, often escalating or evolving into intractable conflicts.

-----------------

¹We should note that some conflict scholars define these terms differently, and the distinctions can be found in the original BI Knowledge Base Essay, linked to below. We find Burton's distinction most suited for our study of intractability, so that is the one we are using in this Guide.