Conflict dynamics describe the shifting relationships, actions and perceptions that lead a conflict to emerge, escalate, de-escalate or recur. Conflict is a process, not a single outbreak of violence.

Galtung’s conflict triangle

Galtung’s conflict triangle sets out three connected dimensions:

• Contradiction: an underlying incompatibility, such as rival territorial claims or competition over political authority.
• Attitude: fear, hostility, mistrust and beliefs about the opposing side.
• Behaviour: actions that range from discrimination and threats to organized violence.

When one dimension changes, it can affect the others. Violent behaviour may strengthen hostile attitudes. Negotiations that deal with the underlying contradiction, by contrast, can reduce incentives for violence.

Positions, interests and needs

The positions, interests and needs model distinguishes between actors’ public demands and the reasons that lie behind them.

• Positions are declared outcomes, such as control of a city or the resignation of a government.
• Interests are the political or material advantages actors seek through that position, such as security, influence or access to trade.
• Needs are deeper requirements such as physical safety, recognition, identity and political participation.

Positions may seem irreconcilable even when the underlying interests leave room for compromise. A settlement is more likely to last if it addresses basic needs instead of simply dividing territory or offices.

Conflict cycles

A conflict cycle follows movement through latent tension, escalation, crisis, de-escalation and a post-conflict phase. This sequence isn’t automatic or linear. Unresolved grievances, weak institutions or renewed mobilization can push a society back towards escalation.

Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine in 2022 shows the interaction between contradiction, attitude and behaviour. Rival claims about sovereignty, territory and regional security were reinforced by antagonistic historical narratives. Invasion and occupation then intensified hostility, making compromise politically costly.

The conflict between the Sudanese Armed Forces and Rapid Support Forces began in 2023 and grew out of competition over state authority and the proposed integration of armed forces. Repeated ceasefire failures show a conflict cycle in which pauses in violence failed to resolve either the interests of military leaders or civilians’ needs for security and representative government.

Contested interpretations

Realists focus on shifts in power, military capability and actors’ calculations of survival. Liberals place more emphasis on failed bargaining, weak institutions and the absence of enforceable agreements. Constructivists look at how identities and narratives make particular interests appear legitimate.

Feminist analysis asks whose security formal negotiations represent. A ceasefire between armed leaders may reduce battlefield deaths while displacement, gender-based violence or the political exclusion of women continue. This links conflict dynamics to rights and justice, since the movement from war to peace changes how people experience security, liberty and equality.

Causes of conflict are the conditions, motives and triggering events that produce or sustain confrontation between political actors. A conflict usually has several causes working together, and their relative importance is often contested.

Main causes

Greed and grievance

The greed explanation views conflict as an opportunity to acquire wealth, territory or power. By contrast, the grievance explanation focuses on perceived injustice, political exclusion and threatened identity. The two can operate at the same time. Leaders may draw on genuine grievances to recruit supporters while pursuing material interests of their own.

Control of territory can serve either purpose. It might protect a community or support an ideological claim. At the same time, it may offer taxation, smuggling routes and access to natural resources. Resource scarcity also becomes politically dangerous when institutions distribute its costs and benefits unequally.

Myanmar’s conflict expanded after the military coup of 2021. Resistance to military government grew from an ideological and institutional struggle over democracy and authority. Long-running ethnic conflicts also involved demands for autonomy, recognition and territorial control, while uneven development and access to resources shaped local grievances further.

The insurgency in Cabo Delgado, Mozambique, escalated from 2017. It combined socio-economic exclusion with weak state provision and resentment over who would benefit from major gas and mineral projects. Armed groups drew on local grievances when recruiting, but controlling people, routes and resources created material incentives that also support a greed-based interpretation.

Contested perspectives

Realists usually give priority to territorial control, security and material interests. Liberals focus on whether political institutions can resolve disputes peacefully and distribute authority in a legitimate way. Constructivists reject the idea that identity automatically produces violence. Instead, they argue that political narratives and elite mobilization turn social differences into perceived threats.

Postcolonial perspectives highlight the borders, economic structures and institutions inherited from colonial rule. Feminist perspectives examine how socio-economic divisions and insecurity affect groups differently. They also show how accounts focused on armed elites can overlook household insecurity, displacement and gendered violence. These causes link peace and conflict to poverty, inequality, development and justice.

Types of conflict sort organized confrontations by who takes part—states or non-state actors—and by where the fighting happens. The categories may overlap. A local conflict, for example, can draw in foreign states, armed movements or transnational networks.

Comparison of conflict types

An internationalized intra-state conflict is still rooted within one state, but external states intervene substantially. Classification therefore depends on the level of analysis and may shift over time.

Contemporary examples

The fighting between Armenia and Azerbaijan over Nagorno-Karabakh in 2020 was inter-state: the armed forces of two sovereign states fought each other directly. However, its territorial and identity dimensions show that identifying the participants doesn’t explain the causes of a conflict.

Beginning in 2020, the conflict between Ethiopia’s federal government and Tigrayan forces was primarily intra-state. Ethiopia’s central government was fighting an organized force based within the country. Eritrea’s involvement complicated this classification, showing how an internal conflict can take on an international dimension.

Armed confrontations between major criminal organizations in Mexico during the 2020s can be viewed as non-state conflict when organized groups fight each other and government forces aren’t one of the two direct parties. The classification is still contested because criminal violence and insurgency can occur at the same time as confrontation with the state.

Türkiye’s military operations against the Kurdistan Workers’ Party in northern Iraq, including operations launched from 2019, provide an example of extra-state conflict. The state has used force against a non-state armed organization outside its own borders, which raises further questions about Iraqi sovereignty.

Why the distinction matters

The type of conflict shapes which laws, institutions and forms of intervention seem applicable. In inter-state conflict, sovereignty and territorial integrity take centre stage. Intra-state and non-state conflicts instead create difficult questions about recognition and legitimacy, as well as whether outside intervention protects people or violates state authority.

Realists often see growing external involvement as competition among states, regardless of how the conflict was originally categorized. Liberals focus on international law and multilateral management. Constructivists look at how labels such as “terrorist,” “rebel” or “criminal” shape legitimacy and the possibility of negotiation.

Peacemaking uses political and diplomatic processes to move hostile parties towards an agreement and end or reduce active conflict. The aim is to reach a settlement through negotiation, mediation, arbitration, ceasefires or treaties.

Routes out of conflict

Conflict can also end through military victory, where one side defeats the other, or an imposed settlement, where a stronger actor dictates the terms. Either outcome may stop organized fighting, though defeated or excluded groups may not see it as legitimate.

Negotiation in practice

The 2022 Pretoria Agreement between Ethiopia’s federal government and the Tigray People’s Liberation Front emerged from negotiations facilitated by the African Union. It provided for a permanent cessation of hostilities and humanitarian access. Whether it could produce a durable peace, however, depended on implementation and accountability.

The 2014 Comprehensive Agreement on the Bangsamoro between the Philippine government and the Moro Islamic Liberation Front followed prolonged negotiation with Malaysian facilitation. Its implementation through new autonomous institutions showed that negotiators must turn an agreement into legitimate political arrangements rather than treat it as the final step.

Contested evaluation

Realists assess peacemaking partly by asking whether the balance of power gives each party a reason to comply. Liberals stress mediation, monitoring, legal commitments and institutions that reduce uncertainty. Constructivists pay more attention to recognition and shifts in hostile narratives, since agreements may fail when either side continues to deny the other’s legitimate identity.

Settlements can favour armed leaders while excluding civilians, women or displaced communities. Feminist and rights-based perspectives therefore question whether reducing violence is enough if negotiations leave unequal power relationships intact. Peacemaking also connects to justice: demands for accountability may strengthen legitimacy, but they can make leaders fear the costs of compromise.

Peacekeeping deploys international or regional personnel to contain conflict, protect a peace process and create conditions for pursuing a political settlement. A mission may combine military, police and civilian components.

How peacekeeping works

UN peacekeeping operations rest on three basic principles:

• consent from the main parties
• impartial implementation of the mandate
• limited use of force, normally in self-defence or defence of the mandate

Peacekeepers may monitor ceasefires, patrol separation zones, protect civilians or support elections. They can also assist humanitarian access and report violations. Inadequate resources can weaken a mandate, as can restrictions imposed by a host government or the lack of a genuine political settlement.

Unlike peacemaking, peacekeeping usually manages security conditions instead of negotiating the original agreement. It also differs from peacebuilding, which focuses on the longer-term institutions and relationships needed to prevent conflict from recurring.

Peacekeeping in practice

Established in 2011, the United Nations Mission in South Sudan shifted much of its attention to civilian protection after large-scale conflict began in 2013. Its bases sheltered threatened civilians. Even so, continued violence and restrictions on movement showed that peacekeepers can’t replace a political agreement among national actors.

During the Israel–Lebanon escalation of 2024, the United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon continued to monitor the border area and liaise with the parties under its existing mandate. Attacks near its positions, along with disputes over compliance, highlighted the value of an international presence but also its limited ability to stop determined armed actors.

Debates over effectiveness and legitimacy

Liberals see peacekeeping as collective security in practice. International personnel can reduce mistrust, verify compliance and lower the risk of accidental escalation. Realists respond that missions succeed only when powerful actors and the conflict parties already favour restraint.

Postcolonial critics ask whose priorities shape mandates and whether operations designed externally reproduce unequal relationships between interveners and host societies. Feminist analysis considers whether missions protect people from gender-based violence and involve women in security decisions, rather than judging success only by battlefield stability.

Peacekeeping creates a tension between sovereignty and protection. Host-state consent strengthens legitimacy, yet deference to state authorities may restrict action when those authorities threaten rights or obstruct humanitarian access.

Peacebuilding is the long-term work of addressing institutions and relationships, as well as the underlying conditions that could cause conflict to recur. Rather than simply stopping violence, it aims to build a more stable and legitimate political order.

From settlement to sustainable peace

Peacebuilding may involve:

• reforming political, legal and security institutions
• reintegrating former combatants
• restoring public services and livelihoods
• enabling displaced people to return safely
• supporting reconciliation and political participation
• establishing institutions to investigate harm and deliver justice

These measures link peace with development and sustainability. Poverty, unequal access to resources and weak public institutions can threaten a settlement. Renewed conflict, in turn, can reverse development.

Reconciliation

Reconciliation is the process of rebuilding workable relationships after serious division or violence. This may involve truth-telling and acknowledgement, along with forgiveness or empathy. Victims aren’t required to forget the harm they suffered or give up their demands for justice.

Truth and reconciliation bodies can create a public record and give recognition to victims. To be seen as legitimate, they need independence and meaningful participation. Their findings must also lead to action rather than symbolic acknowledgement alone.

Justice institutions

Courts and other transitional justice bodies may prosecute perpetrators or determine responsibility. They can also provide reparations and establish an authoritative account of abuses. Criminal accountability can affirm rights and challenge impunity, though selective prosecution or excessive delay may weaken legitimacy.

Colombia’s peace process created the Special Jurisdiction for Peace in 2017 to address crimes connected to the conflict between the state and the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia. It used a conditional and restorative approach, seeking truth and accountability while supporting the peace agreement. However, victims and political groups have disagreed over whether its penalties are sufficiently just.

Nepal’s transitional justice process included a major amendment adopted in 2024 to the law governing institutions dealing with disappearances and abuses from the civil war. Supporters saw renewed legal action as necessary for a peacebuilding process that had been delayed. Victims’ groups continued to scrutinize whether the arrangements would prevent impunity and allow meaningful participation.

Peace versus justice?

One position argues that prosecution can obstruct peace, since leaders who expect punishment have fewer incentives to disarm. The opposing view is that amnesty without accountability leaves grievances unresolved and signals that political violence carries no consequences.

Liberal approaches emphasize courts, rights and accountable institutions. Constructivists concentrate on recognition and memory, as well as changes in relationships. Feminist perspectives ask whether reconciliation processes address sexual violence and unequal access to justice. Postcolonial perspectives question whether externally promoted models fit local ideas of justice and authority.

Durable peacebuilding combines institutions with social change. A formally successful agreement may still be fragile if communities don’t experience security, political inclusion and justice, or see a credible improvement in everyday life.