The Nature of Intractable Conflict

The Intractable Conflict Challenge: the Most Serious Problem Facing Humanity (and a Great Opportunity)

Decorative Masthead Graphic

In Brief

This section provides a quick overview (but not as quick as this) on what makes intractable conflicts different from other conflicts. Though "intractable" does not mean "impossible," intractable conflicts are very difficult to resolve, no matter what strategy is employed. And even when they appear to be "resolved," they sometimes come back, as is illustrated by the renewed Cold War between U.S. and Russia — a war, that in 1990, we thought was "over."

Intractable conflicts tend to be very complex, with myriad causes: some being core differences, and many others being what we call "conflict overlay" or "complicating" factors such as communication problems, framing problems, procedural problems, fact-finding problems, and the biggest of all, escalation. This is why the way in which one handles a conflict determines whether it becomes intractable or not.

We also briefly discuss the effects of intractable conflict: pain, inability to attain one's goals, at the societal level, increased chances of democratic failure and protracted, widespread violence. All of this is discussed briefly here, and is explored in depth throughout this guide.

The term "intractable" was controversial when we started to use it in 2000, when we were first creating BI; it still is. Some people, particularly mediators and peacebuilders, dislike the term, seeing it as too negative. Intractable conflicts are impossible to resolve, they say, so people think they are not worth dealing with. "Do not use a term that undermines everything we are trying to do," argued one project member at an early planning meetings. Scholars, in general, were more comfortable with the term, because they were studying conflicts such as Israel/Palestine that certainly seemed "intractable," We pointed out then and now — that "intractable" does not mean "impossible;" it means "really, really difficult to resolve." Looking at the conflict landscape in 2024, more and more of our communities and countries seem to be embroiled in conflicts that are very, very difficult to resolve.

And even when resolution seems to be achieved, it can later vanish. Reading through our original "What are Intractable Conflicts?" essay in 2024, I hiccupped on the paragraph towards the end that said "... sometimes, seemingly endless, hopeless intractable conflicts are resolved." It then cites the Cold War and South Africa as examples. The Cold War is very much alive again and has even become "hot" in Ukraine, and while South Africa has not returned to Apartheid, race relations and politics are not nearly as settled there as many of us had hoped or believed. The same can be said for Northern Ireland, although "the Troubles" have not re-ignited in full force. So continued vigilance is necessary with these conflicts, even after "resolution" has apparently been achieved.

We will be exploring in great detail elsewhere what intractable conflicts "look like" and how they are different from other "tractable" conflicts. We will also explore in depth the consequences of intractability. But for those who want the basics quickly, we have a few observations here.

How Do Intractable Conflicts Differ from "Regular" or "Tractable Conflicts?

In his BI essay entitled "Nature of Intractability," Louis Kriesberg stresses three dimensions, all of which must exist simultaneously:

First, intractable conflicts are protracted, he says, lasting for a long time. (What constitutes "a long time" is contextual, he observes. For some interpersonal conflicts that are usually resolved in a matter of days or weeks, one year might be considered "long." But for complex, large-scale social conflict, Kriesberg suggests that "persistence beyond one social generation is appropriate. "That indicates that the parties in the conflict are likely to have learned and internalized reasons to continue their fight with each other.")
Second, they are waged in ways that adversaries or interested observers regard as destructive.
Third, partisans and intermediaries attempt, but fail to end or transform them.

However, we should note that tractability and intractability is not a dichotomy, it is a continuum. Some conflicts are very easily resolved; others are extremely difficult, and most lie somewhere in between, tending toward one end of the continuum or the other. Which way they go is often determined by how they are handled. Constructive strategies will help resolve them; destructive strategies are more likely to push them toward the intractable side of the continuum.

Why Do Some Conflicts Become Intractable, While Others Do Not?

There are a great many factors that make a conflict more likely to become intractable, that we will be discussing in detail in subsidiary pages. But at a very general level, intractable conflicts tend to involve non-negotiable issues, such as very high-stakes distributional conflicts, moral conflicts, and status conflicts, as well as conflicts over fundamental human needs such as identity and security. They tend to have many "overlay" or "complicating" factors that make it difficult to understand or deal with the fundamental, core issues, because they are obscured by what we call "overlay factors" — communication problems, framing problems, procedural problems, fact-finding problems, and the biggest of all, escalation. This is why the way in which one handles a conflict determines whether it becomes intractable or not. If one communicates with hostility, fakes facts, cheats on standard procedures, and engages with the other in ways that escalate the conflict, it is more likely that conflict will become intractable. And finally, many intractable conflicts (particularly the ones we study here) are very large scale and complex. The causes and effects are all tangled up with each other: Guy likens them to a game of billiards with 1000s of people, 1000s of balls, and everyone trying to hit their ball into the same few pockets at once. Controlling your shot, or predicting the outcome is all but impossible.

What are the Consequences of Intractable Conflict

We are going to devote quite a few articles to this question too, but basically, intractable conflict causes pain to the people who are in them, makes the disputants (and others) unable to attain their needs or goals; makes it difficult, if not impossible, to successfully address community or societal problems, and increases the probability of anarchy, authoritarianism, and/or violence. But, as we pointed out, intractable conflict also presents us with opportunities to come up with creative new ways to solve problems. While we agree with Lou Kriesberg's definition of intractability that includes harm as one of the three defining factors, we do think it is possible to transform these conflicts in a way that eliminates or at least minimizes the harm, and comes up with solutions to problems that haven't been identified before.