Now let us try to set down, step by step, the procedures that seem to be required in the resolution of a communal or inter-state conflict – or, indeed, any conflict – and to give the theoretical reasons for each.

This third part of our study has been called ‘Prescription’ because we have moved from an analysis of world society to applied social science. Our concern with dysfunctional conflict is a concern with how to prevent it, or to resolve it when it has occurred. In some ways this is a departure from traditional studies. We are not concerned merely with the absence of war, that is a peace kept by threat, collective security or nuclear deterrence. This has been the main concern of scholars and politicians. We are now looking for means of dealing with conflict so that there can be a self-supporting condition of peace. This means that we are making a distinction between the ‘settlement’ and the ‘resolution’ of conflict, that is, a distinction between an outcome determined by a third party and forced upon those in conflict, and an outcome acceptable to the parties which requires no enforcement.

Traditional approaches to the settlement of conflict

There are three elements in the settlement or resolution of conflict: the degree of third-party coercive intervention, the degree of participation by the conflicting parties, and the degree of communication between the parties. The history of attempts to deal with conflicts shows a continuous decline in the degree of third-party coercion, and a continuous increase in both participation and communication between the parties. The implication is that there has been a continuous shift away from ‘settlements’ toward attempts at ‘resolution’.