Hubbry Logo
Protracted social conflictProtracted social conflictMain
Open search
Protracted social conflict
Community hub
Protracted social conflict
logo
8 pages, 0 posts
0 subscribers
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Protracted social conflict
Protracted social conflict
Protracted social conflict
View on Wikipedia
from Wikipedia
Indigenous women gather to commemorate the National Day for Truth and Reconciliation in Huntsville, Ontario.

Protracted social conflict is a technical term that generally refers to conflicts which are complex, severe, enduring, and often violent. The term was first presented in a theory developed by Edward Azar[1] and contemporary researchers and conflict scholars continue to use it.

There are a number of sources and preconditions that lead to protracted social conflict. One understanding focuses on hostile interactions between groups that are based in deep-seated racial, ethnic, religious and cultural hatred. These conflicts often also have other causes, such as entrenched economic inequality and differentials in political power. They usually persist over long periods of time with sporadic outbreaks of violence. When a group's identity is threatened or frustrated, protracted social conflict is more likely to occur.[2][3]

There are a number of different methods utilized for resolving protracted social conflict. Some of these include the ARIA model, the STAR model, truth and reconciliation commissions, contact models, identity affirmation frameworks, and amnesty models.

Protracted social conflicts have proliferated throughout the world. Examples include the Israeli–Palestinian conflict, the Kashmir conflict, the Sri Lankan civil war, the Cyprus problem, the first, second, and current Sudanese civil wars, apartheid in South Africa, the Rohingya genocide, the Troubles in Northern Ireland, and the Western Sahara conflict.

Definition

[edit]

Protracted social conflict describes a theory originally developed by Edward Azar.[1] The term refers to conflict situations characterized by prolonged and often violent struggle between communal groups for such basic needs as security, recognition, acceptance, fair access to political institutions, and economic participation.[4]

The communal groups may experience deep-seated cleavages based upon racial, religious, cultural or ethnic lines. These cleavages are characterized by continuing hostility with sporadic outbreaks of violence. They are caused by the frustration of human needs for security, recognition, and distributive justice. Cross-cuttiness is also very common along cleavage structures where divisions within society overlap and “cross-cut" on another group that may have similarities in ethnicity, religion, or social background. Greater association with ethnicity and religious affiliation leads to solidified loyalty groups, motivating harmony on social issues and reducing the chances of civil war onset which hinders protracted social conflict.[5]

Such identity-driven rifts are the result of an underlying fear of extinction that often grows within vulnerable ethnic groups who live with the memories or fear of persecution and massacre.[6] Ethnic divisions and perceived threats often result in the domination of the state machinery by a single group or coalition of elites who deny access to basic human needs for the majority of the population.[7]

Causes and preconditions

[edit]
Palestinian refugees fleeing Galilee in 1948 during the first Nakba

The causes of protracted social conflicts are diverse and numerous. However, there are often common themes: disputes over land, entrenched racial or ethnic tension, political marginalization of certain groups, and prolonged structural inequality are all examples.[8] Since Azar's original work on protracted social conflict, other scholars have developed and continue to contribute to our understanding of its causes and preconditions.

Conflicts tend to be intractable if the adversaries have incompatible goals. This may involve fights over items that cannot be divided, shared, compromised, or substituted. A conflict may be protracted even if, for example, a contested piece of land could theoretically be divided. The dynamics of a conflict may involve a repeated action–reaction sequence leading to escalation of violence as well as increased military mobilization and enlargement of the conflict by involving neighbor territories and external support (proxy war). Leaders of the conflicting adversaries may become entrapped by their own rhetoric and propaganda so that they are continuing the conflict in order to save face and to stay in office.[8]

Asymmetric conflicts are often protracted because of unequal negotiating power. A negotiated peace agreement is unlikely to be satisfactory to a weak part with weak negotiating power.[9][10] The conflict is likely to flare up again as long as the grievances of the weak party are not addressed in a satisfactory way.[11][12]

Azar's preconditions

[edit]

Azar argued that the denial of basic human needs to a large portion of the population initiated instances of protracted social violence. Four preconditions are isolated by Azar as the predominant sources of protracted social conflict: communal content, deprivation of human needs, governance and the state's role, and international linkages.[13]

Communal content

[edit]

This element, which contributes to the initial creation of protracted social conflict, consists of the fact that people involved in protracted social conflicts create their own identity groups. Azar notes, "that it is the relationship between identity groups and the states, which is at the core of the problem." He also cited the "disarticulation between the state and society as a whole" as a source of violence within a society.[14]

This precondition also involves the reliance that many people have on their social groups; because governments in areas that experience protracted social conflict are often unable, incapable or unwilling to provide basic human necessities to the population, individuals turn to their social groups for stability. The resultant disconnection of society and the state can be linked to the colonial legacy, which, "artificially imposed European ideas of territorial statehood onto a multitude of communal groups."[15]

This results in the domination of certain identity groups over others. The dominant group isolates itself from the needs of other groups, leading to an even bigger separation between groups even within an ethnicity. To overcome this division of society, national identity must be stressed over individual group identity.

Deprivation of human needs

[edit]

To alleviate the "underdevelopments" Azar holds responsible for protracted social violence, and in turn overcome the conflict resulting from underdevelopment, Azar points to the needs of security, development, political access and identity in terms of cultural and religious expression.[15] Azar refers to these needs as non-negotiable; therefore, if these needs are not met, people will inevitably want a structural change to take place. Such a need for structural change is likely to result in a violent conflict.[14]

This in turn emphasizes Azar's theory that the "deprivation of human needs is the underlying source of protracted social conflict" where conflict is emphasized by the collective grievances of a group of people.[15] To overcome this deprivation of human needs to entire groups of people, the government must offer security on a multiplicity of levels to all of the constituent population.

Governance and the state's role

[edit]

With government being "endowed with the authority to govern and use force where necessary to regulate society, to protect citizens, and to provide collective goods,"[15] the government plays a leading role in the satisfaction or lack of satisfaction of minority and identity groups.

Azar states that protracted social conflicts can be characterized by "incompetent, parochial, fragile, and authoritarian governments that fail to satisfy basic human needs."[16] It is said that governments, expected to be unbiased and impartial, tend to be dominated by the leading identity groups or those groups that have been able to monopolize power within a country or territorial entity. This creates a "crisis of legitimacy"[16] in the governance of these countries. The structure of the government needs to be changed so that all citizens are equally cared for and equally represented without bias or corruption.

International linkages

[edit]

This involves the "political-economic relations of economic dependency within the international economic system, and the network of political-military linkages constituting regional and global patterns of clientage and cross-border interest."[16]

Weaker states, like those often involved in protracted social conflict, tend to be more influenced by outside connections both economically and politically. For example, many states are dependent on an external supply of armament. To overcome the dominance of the international economy, the country in question must work to build institutions that can ease global dependency and stimulate domestic economic growth.

Historical trauma

[edit]

One increasingly discussed cause of protracted social conflict is historical trauma, which is the collection of adverse responses and experiences groups have after being subjected to violence such as colonization, ethnocide, and structural inequalities. In this view, historical trauma is a very common underlying causes of protracted social conflict and is often under-addressed in conflict resolution processes.[17]

Resolving protracted social conflict

[edit]

As Edward Azar stated:

Reducing overt conflict requires reduction in levels of underdevelopment. Groups that seek to satisfy their identity and security needs through conflict are in effect seeking change in the structure of their society. Conflict resolution can truly occur and last if satisfactory amelioration of underdevelopment occurs as well. Studying protracted conflict leads one to conclude that peace is development in the broadest sense of the term.[15]

Conflict resolution approaches that focus on resources, or the interests of parties, may be appropriate means of conflict resolution in conflicts where the only issues are those of resource and interests; however, in protracted social conflicts the main issue is identity-based. Therefore, to be effective, a conflict resolution framework must specifically emphasize the needs and identities of the conflicting parties.

One conflict resolution model, known as STAR or Strategies for Trauma Awareness and Resilience, may also show promise as a strategy for resolving protracted conflicts: this model specifically emphasizes historical trauma as a root cause of violence.[18]

ARIA model

[edit]

Rothman developed a unique approach of conflict resolution that is specifically designed to mitigate protracted social conflict. He terms this approach the ARIA model. In contrast to the model of interactive conflict resolution (ICR) that Fisher proposed in 1996, which includes identity as one of many human needs, the ARIA model "keeps its focus more narrowly attuned to identity issues in particular."[19][20] Rothman and Olson suggest that conflict can only be truly resolved when identity issues have been sufficiently addressed.

The ARIA model is a comprehensive, yet specific approach to resolving protracted social conflict. It attempts to break down "the barrier of identity through a four-phased process."[19][20] The various stages of the ARIA model are outlined below:

Antagonism (adversarial framing)

[edit]

This first step focuses on the tangible "what of the conflict." It is defined in "us" versus "them" terms and calls on the various entities to elaborate and make clear their underlying values and needs. By bringing animosities to the forefront, it is hoped that the mutual benefits of ending the conflict can be realized.[19][20]

Resonance (reflexive–reframing)

[edit]

After parties have articulated their animosities, the next stage is termed the reflexive–reframing stage where the "why" and "who" of the issue is examined. The identity needs of all sides are brought to the forefront with the goal of getting "the disputants to move from positional bargaining to interest-based approaches."[19][20] Rothman and Olson suggest that the parties should now engage in a "deep dialogue" to give a voice and structure to the underlying needs of the various parties. The needs of the various parties are, in turn, the underlying causes of the conflict. The effect of this stage is termed resonance, as each side has articulated their core concerns and heard the concerns of the other actors. At this point, actors begin to see where their identities converge, and where they diverge.[19][20]

Invention

[edit]

The third stage is termed "inventing" and focuses on the "how" of "cooperatively resolving the conflict and its core through integrative solutions." This stage suggests a mutual attempt by all actors involved to create a mean of ending the conflict.[19][20] It is suggested by Rothman and Olson that since both parties have now come to recognize the other's identity through the two previous stages, "they can concretely explore collaboratively how the tangible issues ... of the conflict can be resolved without threatening the identity of the other."[19][20] The invention of possible means of solutions leads directly to the fourth stage.

Action

[edit]

The fourth and final stage of the ARIA model addresses the "why" and "who" of the conflict, as well as the "how" of cooperation through the tangible "what" of solutions.[21] Here, the conflict resolution process based on identity is completed by the concrete outlining of future actions. This stage leads to the tangible resolution of the conflict.

STAR model

[edit]

One conflict resolution model, known as STAR or Strategies for Trauma Awareness and Resilience, may also show promise as a strategy for resolving protracted conflicts: this model specifically emphasizes historical trauma as a root cause of violence. The model involves a number of stages which are framed as a spiral, which moves from the initial experience of trauma toward the possibility of reconciliation and includes stages that involve the cultivation of tolerance, engaging offenders, mourning, reflecting on root causes of conflicts, and creating a new group identity through the integration of trauma.[17]

Pumla Madikizela, a South African Truth and Reconciliation Commissioner, is pictured on the left

Truth and reconciliation commissions

[edit]

Truth commissions are official groups which are intended to investigate the causes and impacts of human rights abuses and war crimes. They typically give reports that present their findings and that include recommendations about how to repair past harms and prevent future ones.[22]

Contact

[edit]

Contact methods involve, quite simply, putting groups who are engaged in protracted conflicts in contact with each other toward reducing hostility and increasing inter-group understanding and tolerance. This strategy of conflict resolution can also involve the use of other models within the broader strategy. There are ongoing questions within the field about the efficacy of this model in situations that involve asymmetrical conflict.[23]

Amnesty

[edit]

Amnesty is a tool that is sometimes used in protracted social conflict resolution processes. This is a process where people who have committed crimes are pardoned from the typical legal proceedings and consequences associated with those crimes. This tool is considered controversial, but it can be particularly useful in the course of signing peace agreements.[24]

Identity Affirmation

[edit]

The identity affirmation model centers around an intent to disrupt negative views dominant in-groups hold regarding less powerful and more marginalized groups. It uses the same strategies that dominant groups employ to enforce dehumanized and objectified depictions of marginalized groups, and it then turns those strategies around to socially reconstruct the dominant group's view of the humanity of the marginalized group.[25]

Examples

[edit]
Percentage of Sri Lankan Tamils per district based on 2001 or 1981 (italic) census

Sri Lankan Civil War

[edit]

The Sri Lankan conflict exists primarily between the two majority ethnic groups, the Sinhalese, who are mostly Buddhist and represent around 74% of the population, and the Tamil, who are mostly Hindu, representing around 18%. The majority of Tamils live in northern and eastern provinces and claim them as their traditional homeland.[26]

Since its independence in 1948 there has been a conflict between Sinhalese, which gained control over the Sri Lankan government, and different Tamil separatist movements. Among the Sinhalese, the anti-Tamil chauvinism started to spread and the Tamils were more and more disadvantaged and excluded. The incidents escalated into a civil war in July 1983, after the island-wide pogrom against Tamils.

Tamil secessionists saw the establishment of their own separate state as the only way for securing their people. The war, that has continued since then, has almost completely disrupted civil administration in the northern province and caused economic devastation of the whole country.[27] As a consequence of this ethno-political violence around 65,000 people have been killed, hundreds of thousands injured, and millions displaced.

Tamil protesters in Parliament Square (UK) in May 2009 flying the flag of the LTTE, Tamil Tigers.

Among various Tamil separatist groups that have emerged, the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE) have risen as the dominant fighting force in Sri Lanka. Their tactics, proscribed as terrorist by many countries, are ruthless, brutal and highly efficient in eliminating their opposition. They run a parallel government in many areas of the north and east of Sri Lanka.[27]

Since the start of war there were some attempts to reach a ceasefire. In 2002 the Ceasefire agreement was signed, and the government agreed to disarm all paramilitary groups in the north and east. But hostilities continued and even intensified.

Government security forces conquered the LTTE on May 19, 2009, ending the conflict.

Cyprus Problem

[edit]
The division of Cyprus

Before the independence of Cyprus, the island's Greek and Turkish communities coexisted relatively peacefully. The major conflict began with the independence in 1960, when members of the Greek community wanted a union (enosis) with Greece, to which the Turkish community opposed. The 1960 constitution brought a complex system of power-sharing, but both groups wanted to gain more advantages.

When Greek Cypriots wanted to reduce autonomy and representation of Turkish Cypriots, the latter opposed it and intercommunal violence broke out. That led the two communities to embark on a hostile and protracted process of separation and segregation.[28]

With the military coup in 1974 the situation erupted into a major crisis. Turkish military intervention followed and Turkish forces occupied around 38% of the northern part of the island. This invasion caused an exodus of about 160,000 Greek Cypriots to the south. Later voluntary regrouping of population resulted in another 10,000 Greek Cypriots leaving the northern part, and 40,000 Turkish Cypriots moving to the north, which created two homogeneous ethnic zones on the island.[29]

In 1975 the northern part declared Turkish Federated State of Cyprus, which declared independence in 1983 as the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus, recognized only by Turkey. In 1990s the southern Republic of Cyprus applied for a membership in the European Union, and the Turkish Cypriots on the other side turned to Turkey.

Although the Cyprus conflict has lasted for a long time, its resolution still seems distant. Numerous peace proposals and plans have been made, but they have been more or less unsuccessful. The pre-1974 proposals of different federal or centralist arrangements failed as either one or the other side or the other rejected them.

See also

[edit]

References

[edit]
Revisions and contributorsEdit on WikipediaRead on Wikipedia

Protracted social conflict

View on Grokipedia
from Grokipedia
Protracted social conflict denotes a framework in theory, formulated by political scientist Edward E. Azar in the late 1970s, characterizing prolonged, multifaceted disputes among identity-based communal groups arising from the systemic denial of fundamental human needs such as , identity recognition, and equitable participation in and resource distribution, typically within weak or unresponsive states in the developing world. These conflicts persist due to self-reinforcing cycles of deprivation, mobilization of proximate actors (e.g., elites, factions), and distal influences like international interventions that sustain rather than resolve underlying incompatibilities. Central to Azar's model are four principal elements: the deprivation of by dominant groups or ineffective states, which fosters grievances; the dynamics of through internal divisions and external linkages that politicize issues; a wherein groups perceive threats to their , leading to defensive ; and the role of multiple actors, including non-state entities, that complicate resolution efforts. Unlike short-term interstate wars driven by territorial or power disputes, protracted social conflicts exhibit no distinct onset or termination, fluctuating intensities of violence, and deep-rooted intangible factors like historical animosities and identity fears, rendering them resistant to traditional diplomatic or fixes. The theory has been applied to emblematic cases such as the Arab-Israeli dispute, the partition, and ethnic insurgencies in , highlighting how unmet needs perpetuate cycles of retaliation and stalemate, often outlasting generations. While influential in emphasizing root-cause interventions like institutional reforms and multilateral mediation over superficial ceasefires, the framework has drawn critique for underemphasizing gender dimensions in conflict perpetuation and for potentially overlooking agency-driven power asymmetries in favor of needs-based . Azar's approach underscores causal realism by tracing intractability to structural failures rather than episodic events, informing policies aimed at long-term de-escalation through need satisfaction and trust-building.

Definition and Theoretical Origins

Core Definition

Protracted social conflict (PSC) denotes a prolonged and intractable form of confrontation that emerges when communal groups—defined by shared ethnic, religious, cultural, or racial identities—face systemic deprivation of fundamental human needs, such as , recognition, and equitable access to political and economic resources. These needs are pursued collectively through communal affiliations, and their frustration stems from the dominance of one group over state institutions, which resist inclusive participation and fair distribution. Unlike interstate wars driven by territorial or power rivalries, PSC is predominantly intra-state or transnational, involving non-state actors in enduring struggles that may manifest as sporadic , political mobilization, or social unrest rather than continuous warfare. The identifies four interrelated structural antecedents: communal content, where multi-ethnic or multi-religious societies foster competing identity-based claims; the deprivation of basic and developmental needs, leading to grievances over , identity affirmation, and welfare; the role of the state as a repressive apparatus controlled by elites unresponsive to minority demands; and international linkages, including economic dependencies and foreign interventions that sustain or exacerbate domestic tensions. PSC is marked by negative-sum outcomes, where no party achieves full satisfaction, perpetuating cycles of hostility through mechanisms like historical legacies (e.g., colonial boundaries exacerbating ethnic divisions) and reactive policies that entrench divisions. Azar outlined PSC as unfolding in three phases: genesis, rooted in preconditions like arbitrary and unequal power distributions; process dynamics, involving activated deprivations, state , and oppositional ; and outcomes, characterized by prolonged insecurity, dependency, and failed resolutions. This framework underscores causal realism by prioritizing empirical patterns of need frustration and institutional failure over ideological or short-term explanations, explaining the persistence of conflicts in regions like the , , and since the post-colonial era.

Development by Edward Azar

Edward E. Azar, a Lebanese-American political scientist born in 1938, developed the theory of protracted social conflict (PSC) during the 1970s through empirical analysis of persistent communal clashes in the developing world, drawing on datasets compiled at the University of Maryland's Center for International Development, which he directed after founding the Center for the Study of Protracted Social Conflicts (COPBAD) in 1969. Azar's framework emerged as a response to the limitations of traditional conflict resolution models, which emphasized interstate disputes and rational actor assumptions, by instead prioritizing the prolonged, identity-driven nature of intra-societal conflicts that defy quick diplomatic fixes, as evidenced in his early studies of Middle Eastern dynamics published from the early 1970s onward. In a seminal article, applied PSC to the Arab-Israeli conflict, outlining its core as a multi-generational struggle rooted in the frustration of basic human needs—such as identity recognition, , and —for communal groups within fragile states, exacerbated by external interventions that sustain rather than resolve tensions. He formalized the theory further in 1984, positing that PSC arises from the interplay of four preconditions: the pursuit of communal identity by ethnic or religious groups, deprivation of fundamental needs due to failures, international linkages that politicize conflicts, and historical animosities that entrench cycles of . Azar's approach integrated quantitative on conflict duration and intensity with qualitative insights into social structures, arguing that protraction stems from states' inability or unwillingness to address these deprivations, leading to self-perpetuating dynamics of insecurity and mobilization. Azar's development of PSC emphasized causal mechanisms over mere description, identifying incompetent, parochial as a primary driver that fragments societies along ascriptive lines, while external actors—through , alliances, or arms flows—often reinforce domestic pathologies rather than fostering equitable development. This theory, refined through case studies like those in the and , shifted scholarly focus toward preventive strategies centered on need satisfaction and , influencing subsequent conflict analysis by highlighting the futility of power-based negotiations in contexts where underlying social inequities persist.

Evolution and Key Proponents

Edward E. Azar, a Lebanese-American political scientist and professor at Johns Hopkins University's School of Advanced International Studies, originated the protracted social conflict (PSC) framework in the early 1970s to address the limitations of traditional theories in explaining prolonged, intra-state conflicts in the developing world. Drawing from empirical observations of post-World War II conflicts—such as those in , , and —Azar shifted emphasis from interstate power dynamics to domestic deprivations of basic human needs, communal identity fragmentation, and dysfunctional state institutions, which he argued perpetuated cycles of violence. His initial formulations appeared in academic articles during the 1970s, building on data from the Conflict and Peace Data Bank (COPDAB) he co-developed to quantify conflict indicators like violence and tension levels across 135 countries from 1948 to 1978. Azar systematically evolved the PSC model through iterative publications over two decades, culminating in his 1983 monograph "The Theory of Protracted Social Conflict and the Challenge of Transforming Conflict Situations," which formalized its core elements: the interplay of unmet needs, identity mobilization, and failures as drivers of intractability. By 1990, in his posthumously published book The Management of Protracted Social Conflict: Theory and Cases, Azar integrated case studies from the and , advocating "development diplomacy" involving third-party facilitation to address root causes rather than symptoms, thus extending the toward practical resolution strategies. This progression marked a departure from realist paradigms, incorporating psychological and social dimensions influenced by human needs theorists like John Burton, though Azar distinguished PSC by its focus on protracted, multi-actor entrenchment in peripheral states. While Azar remains the foundational proponent, key extensions emerged from collaborators and later scholars. Azar co-authored works with Chung-in on managing PSC through multilateral interventions, applying the framework to cases and emphasizing economic equity as a conflict de-escalator. Post-1990 developments include Oliver Ramsbotham's analyses, which tribute Azar's contributions while critiquing PSC for underemphasizing agency in transformation processes, and applications by researchers like those examining , where identity-based typologies refine Azar's communal dynamics. These evolutions have sustained PSC's relevance in scholarship, though empirical validations remain concentrated on qualitative case studies rather than large-scale quantitative models.

Preconditions and Causal Factors

Communal Identity Dynamics

In Edward Azar's framework of protracted social conflict, communal identities refer to groups organized around shared attributes such as , , race, or , which become focal points for when fundamental human needs—, recognition, and —are systematically denied by the state or dominant actors. These identities gain salience as communities perceive deprivation not as individual but as collective injustice tied to group membership, fostering a sense of existential threat that politicizes social cleavages. Azar emphasized that societies with strong communal divisions, often exacerbated by colonial legacies or historical rivalries, are prone to such dynamics, where one dominant identity group monopolizes power and resources, alienating others. The dynamics of these identities perpetuate conflict through mechanisms of reinforcement and entrenchment: narratives of historical and victimhood solidify in-group cohesion while demonizing out-groups, creating self-perpetuating cycles of . For instance, observed that in multi-communal states, unmet needs lead to identity-based competition for political authority and economic access, where groups seek or as remedies, prolonging violence beyond immediate s. This process is causal in , as identity fills the vacuum left by state failures, transforming latent tensions into enduring confrontations resistant to resolution. Empirical patterns in Azar's analysis show that communal identity dynamics intensify when external intervene, often amplifying group perceptions of threat and validating irredentist claims, as seen in conflicts where communities or patrons reinforce homeland identities. Unlike class-based or ideological conflicts, PSC's identity core resists compromise, as concessions risk eroding group legitimacy, leading to protracted stalemates. Azar argued this stems from the psychological primacy of identity needs over material ones, where satisfaction requires not just but affirmative recognition of group worth.

Deprivation of Fundamental Needs

In Edward Azar's theory of protracted social conflict, deprivation of fundamental needs constitutes a primary precondition for the emergence and persistence of such conflicts, occurring when communal groups are systematically denied satisfaction of basic human requirements due to their collective identities. This deprivation generates profound grievances, as dominant groups or state structures prioritize their own interests, fostering frustration, polarization, and mobilization along identity lines. Azar describes protracted social conflicts as "prolonged and often violent struggle by communal groups for such basic needs as security, recognition and acceptance, fair access to political institutions and economic participation." Azar identifies several core categories of these needs, which are ontological and universal but pursued collectively within communal frameworks. needs encompass material essentials for physical , , and , where exposes groups to ongoing threats and subsistence insecurity, intensifying defensive postures. Acceptance needs involve recognition of a group's distinctive identity and cultural values, without which communities experience existential marginalization, leading to assertions of through conflict. Political access needs effective participation in , markets, and processes; exclusion from these arenas perpetuates power asymmetries and erodes trust in state legitimacy. Economic participation needs similarly require equitable opportunities for development and distribution, with deprivation manifesting as systemic inequality that fuels and competition. This needs deprivation interacts dynamically with other preconditions, such as weak , to protract conflicts by embedding grievances in generational cycles of . When unmet, these needs drive "increasing grievances, which individuals express collectively," often escalating into intractable as groups seek redress outside formal institutions. emphasizes that such conflicts are "fought over the deprivation of as a result of communal identity," distinguishing them from resource wars or interstate rivalries by their focus on ontological fulfillment rather than transient gains. Resolution thus requires addressing these deprivations holistically, beyond ceasefires, through inclusive mechanisms that restore access and recognition.

State Governance Failures

In Edward Azar's theory of protracted social conflict, state failures constitute a core precondition, manifesting as the state's inability or refusal to equitably mediate competing communal claims, distribute resources fairly, and fulfill basic human needs such as security and participation. Azar posited that effective requires the state to act as an impartial provider of collective goods, but when it prioritizes elite interests or employs repression over accommodation, it exacerbates deprivation and fosters reliance on non-state actors for protection and identity affirmation. This dynamic transforms latent tensions into enduring conflicts, as aggrieved groups perceive the state as illegitimate and unresponsive to their grievances. Key manifestations include institutional corruption, nepotistic resource allocation, and discriminatory policies that privilege dominant ethnic or communal factions, thereby deepening among marginalized groups. Weak enforcement of and provision further erodes state legitimacy, creating power vacuums exploited by communal militias or insurgents, which prolongs through cycles of retaliation and failed co-optation attempts. Empirical analyses link such failures to heightened risks of ethnic , as state weakness signals to predation, incentivizing preemptive communal over institutional trust. These failures often stem from structural legacies like colonial boundaries that mismatched administrative capacity with diverse populations, compounded by post-independence that prioritizes short-term survival over long-term stability. In turn, breakdowns perpetuate protraction by undermining diplomatic resolutions, as external actors encounter states too fractured to implement agreements, thus embedding conflicts in generational mistrust. Unlike temporary policy errors, chronic state incapacity—evident in metrics like low indices from sources such as the World Bank's —correlates with sustained internal strife, distinguishing PSC from resolvable disputes.

External Interventions and Linkages

In Edward 's framework of protracted social conflict (PSC), external interventions and international linkages serve as a foundational , encompassing political-economic dependencies on foreign powers and cross-border political-military networks that embed domestic disputes within broader geopolitical structures. These elements arise when weak states or communal groups form client relationships with external actors, such as superpowers or neighboring regimes, leading to sustained resource flows that prioritize conflict perpetuation over resolution. Azar argued that such linkages exacerbate internal governance failures and unmet needs by shifting the locus of power dynamics outward, allowing conflicting parties to externalize their dependencies rather than pursue endogenous reforms. Mechanisms of external intervention typically involve direct or proxy support, including arms supplies, financial , and diplomatic backing aligned with interveners' strategic interests, which in turn fuel communal mobilization and violence. For instance, cross-border fomentation—such as ideological propagation or remittances—intensifies identity-based grievances, while economic dependencies (e.g., tied to ) undermine state and incentivize prolonged hostilities over . emphasized that these interventions create a feedback loop, where external resources reduce the domestic costs of intransigence, thereby entrenching patterns of deprivation and insecurity that define PSC. In over 60 cases analyzed, such as those in the and , foreign patrons' involvement blurred internal-external boundaries, transforming local struggles into arenas of global rivalry. The causal impact of these linkages lies in their ability to decouple from local agency, as parties gain alternatives to through sustained external , often irrespective of shifting global conditions. This protraction is evident in how interventions amplify historical traumas and deficits, fostering a self-reinforcing cycle where resolution requires disentangling these ties— a process rarely achieved without coordinated multilateral pressure. Empirical patterns from Azar's work indicate that without mitigating external supports, efforts to address communal needs or state legitimacy alone prove insufficient, as interveners' geopolitical calculations override incentives for de-escalation.

Role of Historical Grievances

Historical grievances constitute a critical in Edward 's framework of protracted social conflict, where they embed perceptions of past injustices—such as ethnic violence, territorial dispossession, or systemic —into communal identities, thereby intensifying group antagonisms and obstructing resolution. These grievances emerge from specific historical contexts, including colonial legacies or intergroup massacres, that shape the multi-communal structures of societies vulnerable to prolonged strife, as Azar outlined in his analysis of conflicts persisting beyond immediate triggers. For instance, in Azar's view, the historical setting fosters narratives of existential threat, where groups perceive current deprivations as continuations of unresolved past wrongs, fueling intransigence against state mediation or external interventions. Collective memory mechanisms amplify these grievances, transmitting selective recollections of suffering across generations via , , and , which in turn legitimize retaliatory actions and erode trust between parties. Scholarly examinations indicate that such memories correlate with heightened support for , as individuals invoke historical precedents to frame adversaries as inherently malevolent, thereby rationalizing escalation even amid opportunities for . This dynamic is evident in how grievances interact with : groups experiencing interpret policy failures or resource competition through the lens of historical betrayal, converting latent tensions into enduring conflicts resistant to short-term remedies. The protractive effect stems from grievances' role in sustaining psychological entrenchment, where concessions by one side are viewed as capitulation to an unrepentant foe, perpetuating zero-sum perceptions that prioritize historical rectification over pragmatic compromise. Empirical cases, such as those analyzed under PSC , demonstrate that unaddressed grievances—often rooted in events from decades or centuries prior—correlate with recurrent cycles, as seen in ethnic disputes where land claims or demands trace back to pre-modern partitions or wartime displacements. While some academic sources emphasize empathetic to mitigate these effects, causal analyses underscore that grievances endure due to their utility in mobilizing cohesion and resources, rather than inherent inevitability, highlighting the need for mechanisms that challenge distorted historical narratives without denying verified atrocities.

Dynamics of Protraction

Mechanisms of Endurance

Protracted social conflicts endure through self-reinforcing cycles where the denial of basic human needs—such as , recognition, and —fosters collective insecurity among communal groups, prompting mobilization and defensive actions that exacerbate deprivation for adversaries. This dynamic creates a feedback loop: initial grievances rooted in identity-based exclusions lead to , which in turn justifies further exclusionary policies by the state or dominant groups, entrenching mutual perceptions of threat and animosities. For instance, in Azar's framework, unmet needs polarize societies, transforming latent tensions into persistent confrontations as groups prioritize survival over . Identity dynamics contribute significantly to longevity by solidifying communal boundaries during conflict, rendering identities more rigid and mutually exclusive over time. emphasized that conflicts arise and persist when needs satisfaction is obstructed along communal lines, leading to the hardening of group narratives that frame the other as an existential enemy. This entrenchment is amplified by reciprocal and "bad images," where each side's actions reinforce stereotypes, inhibiting or ; historical policies, such as colonial divide-and-rule strategies, can accelerate this by sharpening pre-existing affiliations. Consequently, resolution efforts falter as identities become non-negotiable markers of legitimacy, perpetuating low-level even amid ceasefires. State governance failures sustain endurance by undermining legitimacy and failing to mediate needs equitably, often monopolizing power in ways that alienate minorities and provoke parallel structures. In protracted scenarios, states dominated by one communal faction ignore oppositional needs, sparking legitimacy crises that invite secessionism or , as seen in breakdowns of power-sharing constitutions. This institutional weakness allows conflicts to outlast regimes, with voids filled by non-state actors who derive from communal rather than inclusive policies. Structural inequalities embedded in state apparatuses further prolong strife by linking economic disparities to political exclusion, creating incentives for elites to maintain the status quo over reform. External interventions and linkages extend conflicts by providing material and ideological sustenance to belligerents, often prioritizing geopolitical interests over resolution. Patron states or diasporas supply arms, funds, or diplomatic cover, offsetting internal exhaustion and enabling sustained resistance; for example, alliances with foreign powers can militarize disputes, as military presences deter concessions. These linkages also internationalize grievances, framing local needs deprivation as global injustices and attracting interventions that inadvertently balance forces, preventing decisive victories. While intended to stabilize, such supports embed conflicts in broader rivalries, transforming domestic struggles into arenas of proxy endurance.

Patterns of Violence and Escalation

In protracted social conflicts, manifests as intermittent outbreaks rather than continuous, high-intensity warfare, often characterized by low casualty rates sustained over decades—such as an average of approximately 25 deaths per year in many cases—encompassing tactics like guerrilla actions, riots, and targeted attacks by non-state communal groups. These patterns arise from frustrated identities and unmet needs, where initial non-violent protests evolve into coercive measures when met with state resistance, perpetuating a cycle of reciprocal antagonism without decisive resolution. Empirical analyses of such conflicts highlight their through fluctuating intensities, with punctuating periods of relative , as seen in the avoidance of thresholds for full-scale civil war definitions due to sporadic rather than concentrated hostilities. Escalation dynamics typically begin with perceived threats or deprivations—such as insults to group dignity or denial of political access—prompting communal mobilization into organized resistance, including or armed insurgency, which provokes disproportionate state coercion like military crackdowns or co-optation failures. This triggers retaliatory spirals, where each reinforces negative perceptions and hopelessness among parties, amplifying grievances and drawing in external patrons that supply resources, thereby internationalizing the conflict and hindering . State dominance by a group often exacerbates escalation by prioritizing over inclusive , leading to institutional deformities that embed as a recurring tool for addressing needs deprivation. Such patterns contribute to protraction by eroding mutual trust and , fostering dependency on violence-prone strategies, with from intra-state cases showing how initial low-level clashes evolve into broader confrontations involving displacement and economic disruption, yet rarely culminate in victory for either side due to the asymmetric power balances and entrenched communal divisions. Analyses updating Azar's framework emphasize that escalation is not merely reactive but structurally driven by power asymmetries, including hidden hierarchies that sustain without addressing root causes like identity-based exclusion.

Psychological and Social Entrenchment

In protracted social conflicts, psychological entrenchment manifests through rigid collective identities that fuse group self-concepts with opposition to the adversary, fostering a and of the outgroup. This process is amplified by collective emotional orientations dominated by , , and , which create self-reinforcing feedback loops that sustain hostility and resist efforts. For instance, in dynamical systems analyses of such conflicts, negative emotions harden into stable "attractor states," where perceived threats trigger escalating responses, embedding enmity into cognitive and affective structures. Social entrenchment occurs via the institutionalization of an ethos of conflict, a pervasive belief system that justifies the group's goals as existential, portrays the society as victimized, and delegitimizes the opponent through selective narratives propagated by media, education, and cultural institutions. These narratives, rooted in collective memory of historical traumas, are selectively curated to emphasize grievances and in-group virtues while omitting reconciliatory elements, thereby socializing subsequent generations into perpetual antagonism. Collective trauma functions as a latent driver, manifesting as a "collective disease" that outweighs immediate material deprivations by perpetuating cycles of retaliation and mistrust, as evidenced in analyses linking unresolved past violence to ongoing intractability. Polarization deepens entrenchment through social mechanisms like residential segregation and echo chambers, which limit intergroup contact and reinforce binary worldviews of "us versus them." In this , conflict becomes a core element of social identity, providing purpose and unity but also incentivizing elites and factions to maintain the for political or economic gain, thus transforming transient disputes into enduring societal fixtures. Empirical observations from prolonged intra-state wars indicate that such dynamics can span decades, with identity rigidification preventing shifts toward unless disrupted by exogenous shocks or deliberate interventions.

Empirical Case Studies

Israeli-Palestinian Conflict

The Israeli-Palestinian conflict exemplifies protracted social conflict through persistent clashes between Jewish and Arab communal identities, rooted in competing national claims to the same territory. Emerging in the early 20th century amid Zionist immigration to Ottoman and then British Mandate Palestine, the conflict intensified after the 1917 Balfour Declaration supporting a Jewish national home, which Arabs viewed as infringing on their majority rights. The 1947 United Nations Partition Plan proposed dividing the land into Jewish and Arab states, a proposal accepted by Jewish leaders but rejected by Arab states and Palestinian representatives, leading to the 1948 Arab-Israeli War upon Israel's declaration of independence on May 14, 1948. This war resulted in Israeli victory, control over 78% of Mandate Palestine, and the displacement of approximately 700,000 Palestinians, known as the Nakba, alongside the deaths of around 6,000 Israelis and 10,000 Arabs. Subsequent conflicts, including the 1967 Six-Day War where Israel captured the West Bank, Gaza Strip, and East Jerusalem in response to mobilization by Arab states, entrenched territorial disputes and deepened grievances over security needs and self-determination. Governance failures have perpetuated the conflict's endurance, with Palestinian leadership marked by rejection of compromise and internal divisions. The (PLO), founded in 1964, pursued armed struggle against , culminating in the 1987-1993 and later the 2000-2005 , which involved suicide bombings killing over 1,000 . The 1993 established the Palestinian Authority (PA) for limited self-rule, but implementation faltered amid PA corruption, incitement, and failure to curb terrorism, as evidenced by the collapse of negotiations at the 2000 where Palestinian leader rejected an offer of over 90% of the and Gaza with land swaps. Similar rejections occurred in 2008 when PA President declined Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert's proposal encompassing 93-97% of the . The 2007 takeover of Gaza after winning 2006 elections introduced Islamist governance prioritizing against , as stated in its 1988 charter calling for the obliteration of through holy war and deeming peace initiatives contrary to Islamic doctrine. External interventions and historical grievances sustain cycles of violence, with Arab states and providing support to rejectionist factions while receives U.S. aid for defense. Hamas's governance in Gaza has involved diverting aid to military tunnels and rockets, launching over 20,000 projectiles at Israeli civilians since , prompting Israeli operations like the 2008-2009, , and 2021 conflicts. The October 7, 2023, attack killed 1,200 Israelis and took 250 hostages, triggering a war with (Hamas-controlled) reporting over 40,000 Palestinian deaths by mid-2024, though Israeli estimates indicate up to 17,000 were combatants, highlighting discrepancies in casualty data due to lack of independent verification. Protraction stems from unmet fundamental needs—Israeli security amid existential threats and Palestinian autonomy without territorial maximalism—as Palestinian elites benefit from conflict perpetuation, evidenced by repeated refusals of statehood offers since , fostering psychological entrenchment of victimhood narratives over pragmatic governance. This dynamic aligns with Azar's framework, where communal intransigence and state incapacity override resolution despite international mediation attempts.

Sri Lankan Civil War

The Sri Lankan Civil War, spanning from July 1983 to May 2009, exemplified protracted social conflict through entrenched ethnic divisions between the Sinhalese majority and minority, driven by unmet human needs for identity, security, and equitable participation. The conflict pitted the Sinhalese-dominated government against the (LTTE), a militant group seeking an independent Tamil state () in the northern and eastern provinces, where Tamils formed demographic majorities. Emerging from post-colonial imbalances, the war involved cycles of , , and failed ceasefires, resulting in an estimated 80,000 to 100,000 deaths, including combatants and civilians, with significant destruction in Tamil regions. Rooted in historical grievances amplified by state policies, the conflict aligned with Edward Azar's framework of protracted social conflict, where denial of fundamental needs perpetuates communal antagonism. During British colonial rule, received disproportionate access to and positions, fostering Sinhalese perceptions of favoritism that fueled resentment after independence in 1948. Post-independence governments enacted discriminatory measures, such as the 1956 , which made Sinhala the sole official language, marginalizing Tamil speakers in and . Further exacerbating Tamil insecurity were university admission quotas introduced in 1971 that disadvantaged Tamil students, who previously outperformed Sinhalese applicants, and state-sponsored colonization schemes from the onward that resettled Sinhalese farmers into traditional Tamil areas, altering demographic balances and threatening Tamil cultural identity. These policies, justified by Sinhalese nationalists as corrective equity, systematically deprived of recognition and development opportunities, breeding separatist sentiments and LTTE mobilization by the late 1970s. The war's protraction stemmed from mechanisms of endurance, including the LTTE's innovative guerrilla tactics—such as suicide bombings, sea operations, and forced recruitment of child soldiers—which sustained control over Tamil territories despite military setbacks. responses, marked by heavy-handed military operations and regulations, often intensified civilian suffering and radicalized Tamil youth, entrenching psychological divisions through mutual demonization: Sinhalese viewed LTTE as terrorists extinguishing national unity, while perceived the state as genocidal aggressors. Multiple initiatives, including Indian intervention via the 1987 Indo-Sri Lanka Accord and the deployment of the () until 1990, failed due to LTTE intransigence and eroded trust, as the group assassinated Indian Prime Minister in 1991. Subsequent Norwegian-brokered ceasefires in 2002 collapsed amid violations, prolonging the conflict until a 2006-2009 offensive, bolstered by superior resources, decisively defeated the LTTE on May 18, 2009, amid allegations of 40,000 civilian deaths in the final no-fire zones. In Azar's terms, the Sri Lankan case highlighted governance failures in addressing identity-based needs, where centralized Sinhalese majoritarianism neglected Tamil autonomy aspirations, fostering violence escalation and social entrenchment via diaspora for LTTE and domestic polarization. Post-war, persistent Tamil grievances over land reclamation, political marginalization, and unaddressed war crimes underscore unresolved structural issues, despite economic reconstruction efforts. The conflict's resolution through military victory, rather than negotiated needs fulfillment, raises questions about long-term stability, as suppressed identities risk resurgence absent inclusive .

Cyprus Dispute

The Cyprus dispute represents a paradigmatic case of protracted social conflict, characterized by prolonged ethnic antagonism between and , rooted in competing national aspirations and exacerbated by external state interventions from and . Following 's independence from Britain in 1960 under the and Agreements, which established a power-sharing guaranteeing Turkish Cypriot veto rights and , intercommunal tensions escalated after the Greek Cypriot-dominated government attempted constitutional amendments in 1963, leading to widespread violence and the collapse of the bicommunal administration. This period of unrest from 1963 to 1974 displaced thousands and entrenched mutual fears, with forming self-defense enclaves amid attacks by Greek Cypriot paramilitaries aligned with EOKA-B. The conflict's pivotal escalation occurred in 1974, when a coup orchestrated by the Greek military junta on July 15 sought to achieve enosis (union with Greece), prompting Turkey—acting under its guarantor power from the 1960 treaties—to launch a military intervention on July 20. Turkish forces advanced in two phases, ultimately controlling approximately 37% of the island's territory by August 16, after ceasefires brokered by the UN, resulting in the displacement of around 200,000 Greek Cypriots southward and 50,000 Turkish Cypriots northward, alongside thousands of casualties and unresolved missing persons cases exceeding 1,500 initially reported. The invasion established the "Green Line" dividing the island, with the United Nations Force in Cyprus (UNFICYP) deployed since 1964 to maintain a buffer zone separating the lines, a role it continues amid sporadic violations. In Azar's framework of protracted social conflict, the Cyprus case illustrates how unmet human needs for identity, , and recognition sustain intractability, as view the partition as an illegal occupation denying their claim to the whole , while perceive it as essential protection against assimilationist threats from the larger Greek community. External linkages perpetuate the stalemate: maintains 30,000-40,000 troops in the north as a guarantor, reinforcing Turkish Cypriot statehood claims, whereas supports the internationally recognized Republic of Cyprus (RoC) in the south, which joined the in 2004 despite the division. Failed UN-led negotiations, such as the 2004 —a bizonal federation proposal endorsed by 65% of but rejected by 76% of in simultaneous referenda—highlight Greek Cypriot reluctance to concede power-sharing or property returns, prioritizing maximalist reunification under RoC sovereignty. Mechanisms of endurance include psychological entrenchment through divergent historical narratives— emphasizing Turkish aggression, the coup's existential threat—and economic disparities, with the RoC enjoying prosperity while the Turkish Republic of (TRNC), recognized only by , faces isolation and dependency. Recent developments, including stalled talks post-2017 Crans-Montana conference and the 2025 election of TRNC leader Tufan Erhürman advocating federal solutions with timelines but insisting on political equality, underscore persistent barriers like veto asymmetries and guarantor rights abolition demands. UN mediation persists without breakthroughs, as causal realities of demographic imbalances ( ~80% of population) clash with needs for equal security, rendering coercive alternatives like partition formalization politically unviable yet enduring.

Other Applications (e.g., Kashmir, Northern Ireland)

The exemplifies protracted social conflict through the denial of communal identity needs and aspirations among its Muslim-majority population, stemming from the 1947 partition of British and the disputed accession of Jammu and Kashmir to amid promises of a plebiscite that were never fulfilled. erupted in 1989, fueled by grievances over rigged elections in 1987 and perceived Indian state repression, leading to over 41,000 deaths by 2017 from militant violence, operations, and cross-border incursions supported by . Protraction mechanisms include cyclical escalations, such as the 1999 and periodic flare-ups tied to identity-based mobilization, where Kashmiri demands for azadi (freedom) or merger with entrench psychological divisions, reinforced by international linkages that sustain external patronage without resolution. Azar's framework highlights how unmet security and recognition needs perpetuate intractability, though critics note that power asymmetries and geopolitical rivalries between nuclear-armed and amplify endurance beyond purely communal dynamics. In , (1968–1998) align with protracted social conflict via entrenched ethno-national identities—Catholic nationalists seeking Irish unification versus Protestant unionists favoring British ties—exacerbated by historical grievances from the 1921 partition and systemic in , , and voting until the late . Civil rights marches in 1968 devolved into violence, resulting in approximately 3,532 deaths from attacks, bombings, and security force responses, with patterns of tit-for-tat reprisals entrenching social divisions through segregated communities and zero-sum perceptions of security needs. Azar's model captures the role of state incapacity in addressing identity-based deprivations, compounded by external interventions like Irish republican support from the U.S. , yet the conflict's partial resolution via the 1998 —emphasizing power-sharing and decommissioning—suggests that institutional accommodations can interrupt protraction when mutual recognition overrides ideological rigidity, diverging from Azar's emphasis on needs denial in less resolved cases. Empirical analysis indicates that while psychological entrenchment persisted post-agreement, with sporadic violence like the 2021 riots, causal factors such as and demilitarization mitigated escalation more effectively than in identity-driven stalemates elsewhere.

Criticisms and Debates

Shortcomings in Azar's Framework

Critics have argued that Azar's protracted social conflict (PSC) framework suffers from a static that inadequately captures the dynamic evolution of conflicts, where new actors, grievances, and motivations emerge over time, as observed in African cases like the Democratic Republic of Congo and . This rigidity in Azar's four-cluster preconditions—communal content, deprivation of human needs, the role of the state, and —fails to accommodate shifting alliances or opportunistic escalations, rendering the model less predictive for protracted intra-state violence. The framework has also been critiqued for its gender blindness, overlooking how patriarchal structures and gendered power asymmetries exacerbate conflict dynamics across its core elements. For instance, in the communal content cluster, colonial legacies often entrenched gendered land dispossession, reducing female ownership in contexts like by half between 1901 and 1921, yet Azar's model does not integrate such intra-group inequalities. Similarly, human needs are treated as universal, ignoring gender-specific vulnerabilities such as heightened and stigma for female-headed households, while state roles neglect intra-household violence affecting up to 60% of women in conflict zones like . International linkages further expose this gap, as female migrants—comprising 80% of workers in some regions—face unaddressed exploitation. Prescriptive elements of the PSC model, particularly its advocacy for Track II diplomacy like problem-solving workshops, have been faulted for overoptimism and limited empirical success, as these approaches encounter the same perceptual barriers as official negotiations, evident in the dispute where mutual distrust persisted despite interventions. Moreover, the framework assumes a baseline of state functionality, which collapses in scenarios of total state failure, such as after 1991, undermining its applicability to anarchy-driven protractions. These structural limitations highlight a broader challenge: while influential in conflict studies, Azar's model requires supplementation with dynamic, context-specific variables to enhance .

Overemphasis on Needs vs. Power Realities

Critics of Edward Azar's protracted social conflict (PSC) framework argue that it places undue emphasis on the deprivation of universal human needs—such as identity, , and recognition—as the core drivers of prolonged disputes, while insufficiently addressing the primacy of power competition, material resource control, and elite self-interest. Azar's model posits that incompetent states fail to mediate these needs, leading to communal mobilization and international involvement, but radical scholars contend this approach oversimplifies causality by treating needs as endogenous and apolitical, sidelining how dominant groups weaponize identity to consolidate over state institutions and economic assets. In this view, conflicts endure not merely from unmet psychological imperatives but from structured power asymmetries where ruling elites resist power-sharing to preserve access to networks and rents, as evidenced in cases of patrimonial in . Empirical analyses reinforce this critique by highlighting "greed" motives over "grievance"-driven needs. Economist , in his examination of , asserts that opportunities for economic predation—such as exploiting lootable natural resources like in the of Congo or in —often sustain violence more than identity-based deprivations, with combatants motivated by feasible rents rather than . This contrasts with Azar's human needs orientation, derived from John Burton's theory, which realists dismiss as idealistic for neglecting how conflicts reflect zero-sum struggles for territorial control and geopolitical advantage, as seen in proxy engagements during the that amplified local disputes through arms flows and ideological alignments independent of domestic need satisfaction. Such power realities, including state-sponsored repression to maintain , are argued to protract conflicts by design, rendering needs rhetoric a post-hoc justification rather than a root cause. The overemphasis on needs also distorts resolution strategies, prioritizing and recognition over realist interventions like deterrence or partition that address power imbalances directly. For instance, in resource-rich protracted conflicts, ceasefires collapse when economic incentives persist, as data from the World Bank shows higher relapse rates in wars with high-value extractables (e.g., 50% recurrence in diamond-dependent states versus lower in agrarian ones). Critics from structuralist perspectives further note that Azar's framework underplays how global linkages exacerbate power disparities, such as foreign corporations enabling , which needs-based models fail to counter with causal precision. This limitation, prevalent in conflict studies literature influenced by liberal paradigms, risks misallocating resources toward interventions while ignoring verifiable material incentives that empirical datasets consistently validate as conflict prolongers.

Neglect of Cultural Incompatibilities

Critics of Edward Azar's protracted social conflict (PSC) theory argue that it underemphasizes fundamental cultural incompatibilities between identity groups, framing conflicts primarily as outcomes of unmet human needs, state fragility, and international meddling rather than in values, religions, and worldviews. Azar's model acknowledges communal identities—such as ethnic or religious affiliations—as loci of deprivation but treats them as malleable through needs satisfaction and reform, neglecting how clashing cultural norms often generate zero-sum goals that defy integration or power-sharing. This oversight stems from the theory's roots in universalist human needs paradigms, which prioritize structural remedies over primordialist or constructivist views of culture as a persistent barrier to . In empirical cases, cultural mismatches manifest as incompatible visions of and society, prolonging conflicts despite interventions aimed at equity. For instance, in Sri Lanka's civil war (1983–2009), clashed with Tamil demands for cultural , rooted in divergent religious hierarchies and linguistic policies that Azar's framework attributes mainly to discriminatory state actions rather than inherent ethnic-cultural friction. Sinhala-only policies enacted in 1956 exacerbated Tamil alienation, but deeper incompatibilities—such as Buddhist-majority resistance to Hindu-minority equivalence—fueled LTTE , with over by 2009 underscoring failed assimilation attempts. Similarly, the Cyprus dispute since 1963 highlights Greek Cypriot aspirations for enosis (union with ) against Turkish Cypriot taksim (partition), driven by Orthodox Christian vs. Sunni Muslim identities and historical narratives of dominance, rendering bi-communal illusory despite UN efforts. Such neglect risks prescribing dialogue and institutional fixes that ignore causal realities, as seen in partitioned resolutions like India's 1947 division, where Hindu-Muslim cultural schisms proved intractable under shared rule, leading to over 1 million deaths in attendant violence. Primordialist critiques posit that ethnic conflicts often reduce to cultural incompatibilities necessitating separation, contrasting PSC's optimism with evidence from 20th-century decolonizations where forced protracted violence. In religiously charged arenas like the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, competing Abrahamic claims to sacred sites exemplify zero-sum cultural logics, where needs-based approaches falter against theological absolutes, as Hamas's 1988 charter invokes Islamic incompatible with Jewish sovereignty. Academic reluctance to foreground these dynamics, often labeled essentialist, may reflect broader institutional preferences for constructivist narratives, yet data from failed multicultural experiments—such as Yugoslavia's breakup—affirm culture's causal primacy in entrenching divisions. Resolution efficacy suffers accordingly, with PSC-inspired strategies like truth commissions overlooking how cultural sustains grievances; South Africa's 1995 commission mitigated violence but left Afrikaner cultural enclaves amid persistent racial-cultural tensions. Empirical reviews of 72 ethnic (1945–1999) show power-sharing succeeds only 40% of the time when cultural identities are fluid, versus near-zero for rigid religious-ethnic binaries, underscoring the need to integrate incompatibility assessments into analysis. This critique does not dismiss needs deprivation but insists on causal realism: cultural clashes often amplify and outlast structural fixes, demanding realist alternatives like managed separation over perpetual .

Resolution Strategies and Their Efficacy

Dialogue-Based Models (e.g., , )

Dialogue-based models address protracted social conflicts by facilitating structured conversations among adversaries to uncover unmet human needs, rebuild trust, and foster mutual understanding, contrasting with power-oriented strategies. These approaches draw from Azar's emphasis on identity and deprivation, positing that can interrupt cycles of hostility by humanizing opponents and co-creating solutions grounded in shared humanity. Proponents argue they are particularly suited to identity-driven conflicts where coercive tactics exacerbate grievances, though critics note their vulnerability to manipulation by dominant parties or failure in high-violence contexts. The framework, developed by Jay Rothman in the 1990s, structures dialogue into four sequential yet iterative phases: Antagonism, where participants voice frustrations and identity threats without interruption to validate grievances; , emphasizing empathetic reflection to build relational bridges and reduce ; , brainstorming novel options that transcend ; and Action, committing to concrete, monitored steps for implementation. Rothman designed ARIA for identity-based disputes, applying it in cases like workplace ethnic tensions and community mediations, with programs emphasizing neutrality to prevent escalation. Empirical evaluations, such as Rothman's field tests, report short-term gains but highlight challenges in sustaining actions amid ongoing structural inequalities. The (Strategies for Trauma Awareness and Resilience) model, originating from Eastern Mennonite University's initiatives around 2005, integrates trauma healing into dialogue to counter the psychological legacies fueling protracted conflicts, viewing trauma as a that perpetuates aggression cycles. It proceeds through stages of trauma education, empathetic , resilience-building exercises, and joint action , often in multi-session workshops that prioritize survivor narratives to reframe victim-perpetrator dynamics. has been piloted in post-conflict settings like African civil wars, where facilitators report reduced revenge motivations via neurobiological insights into trauma responses, though longitudinal data on conflict termination remains scarce, with tied to voluntary participation and external guarantees. Both models underscore dialogue's causal role in de-escalation by addressing Azar's core deprivations—identity denial and insecurity—through relational repair, yet their efficacy hinges on low asymmetry and cultural receptivity to ; in asymmetric PSCs, such as those involving state repression, dialogue risks entrenching status quo without parallel power concessions. Applications in mixed settings, like intercommunal forums, yield incremental trust metrics (e.g., 20-30% attitude shifts in controlled studies), but rare full resolutions underscore the need for hybrid strategies integrating dialogue with institutional reforms.

Institutional Approaches (e.g., Truth Commissions, )

Truth commissions represent a non-judicial institutional mechanism designed to document violations in protracted social conflicts, aiming to fulfill psychological needs for recognition and truth while recommending institutional reforms to prevent recurrence. Typically temporary and , they lack powers of prosecution or enforcement, relying instead on public hearings and reports to catalyze dialogue and accountability. In Sri Lanka's post-civil war context, the Lessons Learnt and Reconciliation Commission (LLRC), appointed on May 7, 2010, by President , investigated events from 2002 to 2009, acknowledging some government shortcomings but recommending amnesties and demilitarization without pursuing individual culpability for war crimes. Critics, including international observers, highlighted its government-appointed composition and restrictive mandate as undermining credibility, leading to negligible progress in addressing Tamil grievances or fostering interethnic trust, with over 100 recommendations largely unimplemented by 2023. Empirical assessments of truth commissions' role in averting conflict relapse reveal modest effects at best; quantitative studies across post-conflict cases find they correlate with slightly lower risks of renewed through enhanced societal awareness, but diminishes in ethnically polarized settings where commissions fail to alter power dynamics or deliver reparations. For instance, in contexts akin to protracted social conflicts—characterized by protracted identity-based deprivations—commissions often reopen wounds without resolving causal insecurities, as seen in participant dissatisfaction rates exceeding 50% in surveys from multiple implementations, potentially entrenching divisions if viewed as victors' justice. Proponents argue they advance transitional stability by legitimizing narratives, yet causal evidence prioritizes complementary prosecutions or economic interventions for durable , underscoring commissions' inadequacy as standalone tools in Azar-like frameworks. Amnesty, conversely, entails legal pardons or reduced penalties for conflict-related offenses to induce surrenders, ceasefires, or negotiations, trading for immediate in protracted disputes. In 's , the 1998 incorporated accelerated prisoner releases—effectively conditional amnesties—for roughly 850 paramilitary inmates, tied to decommissioning and power-sharing, which contributed to a 90% drop in annual conflict deaths from over 100 in the to under 10 by 2000, enabling devolved governance. However, this approach faced backlash for victim exclusion, with later proposals like the 2023 (Legacy and Reconciliation) Act granting de facto amnesties via immunity for incomplete investigations ruled incompatible with European human rights standards in February 2024, perpetuating perceptions and legal challenges from over 20 families. Cross-case analyses of amnesties in internal conflicts, including protracted ones, show they facilitate 20-30% more negotiated endings by lowering combatants' expected costs, particularly in rebel-government stalemates, but elevate relapse probabilities by 15-25% absent enforcement mechanisms or need-satisfaction reforms, as impunity erodes deterrence and fuels revanchism. Examples like Aceh's 2005 Helsinki Accord amnesty spurred demobilization of 3,000 guerrillas, yielding sustained peace through autonomy concessions, yet in ungoverned spaces like the Central African Republic, amnesties without structural fixes have prolonged cycles, affirming that efficacy hinges on context-specific integration with coercive or dialogue-based strategies rather than isolated application.

Contact and Identity Strategies

Contact strategies in protracted social conflicts draw from Gordon Allport's , which posits that and between groups can diminish through sustained, positive interactions under conditions of equal status, common goals, cooperative interdependence, and institutional support. In the context of identity-driven conflicts like those in or , such strategies involve structured programs such as bi-communal workshops, joint economic projects, or integrated education initiatives aimed at humanizing outgroup members and reducing . For instance, in following the 1998 , cross-community contact programs, including shared sports events and school exchanges, correlated with modest reductions in sectarian among participants, as measured by longitudinal surveys tracking attitudinal shifts over 5-10 years. However, efficacy remains limited in asymmetrical conflicts, where power disparities—such as state dominance over minorities—undermine equality conditions, leading to reinforced grievances rather than reconciliation; a 2011 analysis of seven contact interventions in and Israel-Palestine found only temporary attitude improvements without structural changes. Identity strategies complement contact by addressing the core communal cleavages in protracted social conflicts, focusing on reframing group narratives to foster mutual recognition or superordinate identities without erasing distinct cultural claims. These include decoupling conflict from identity cores through narrative —acknowledging historical traumas while emphasizing shared human needs—or applying the common ingroup identity model, which recategorizes adversaries into broader categories like "co-citizens" to dilute zero-sum perceptions. In , post-1974 division efforts like the 2008-2017 technical committees under UN auspices facilitated identity dialogues that promoted parallel recognition of Greek Cypriot and Turkish Cypriot narratives, yielding incremental trust-building as evidenced by increased cross-line trade from 1.2 million euros in 2003 to over 5 million by 2015. Yet, in cases like Sri Lanka's Tamil-Sinhalese divide, identity strategies faltered when imposed without addressing dominance hierarchies; post-2009 war commissions emphasized unitary but ignored Tamil autonomy demands, resulting in persistent alienation per ethnographic studies of and local sentiments. Empirical assessments highlight conditional efficacy: meta-analyses of over 500 intergroup contact studies report average prejudice reductions of 0.21-0.44 standard deviations, stronger in cooperative settings but weaker amid ongoing violence or inequality. Identity interventions succeed more when phased—starting with antagonist acknowledgment before integration—as in Rothman's model for intractable identity conflicts, applied in Northern Ireland's victim-centered dialogues that linked 1,200+ participants to policy inputs by 2010. Critics note risks of backlash, such as heightened threat perceptions in high-conflict zones, underscoring that contact and identity tactics require integration with power-balancing measures; isolated applications in asymmetrical protracted conflicts often yield superficial gains, with relapse rates exceeding 50% without institutional enforcement.

Coercive and Realist Alternatives

Coercive strategies in protracted social conflicts prioritize the application of military force or threats thereof to compel compliance, deter escalation, or achieve over or accommodation. These approaches view prolonged violence as stemming from imbalances in coercive capacity rather than unmet human needs, positing that state or non-state actors can impose order by neutralizing adversaries' ability to sustain resistance. Empirical analyses of , which often overlap with protracted social conflicts, indicate that military victories have historically resolved a of such disputes, particularly prior to the shift toward negotiated settlements. For instance, in Sri Lanka's , the government's 2009 offensive defeated the (LTTE), ending three decades of through overwhelming force, though at the cost of significant civilian casualties estimated at over 40,000 in the final phase. Such outcomes demonstrate coercion's potential to truncate conflict duration when one side possesses superior resources, contrasting Azar's emphasis on structural deprivation by highlighting tactical asymmetries in violence deployment. The efficacy of coercive measures is supported by data on postwar stability: civil wars terminating in rebel or government victory exhibit lower recurrence rates—around 20-30% within five years—compared to negotiated endings, which hover near 50%, due to the elimination of spoilers' operational capacity. In Cyprus, Turkey's 1974 military intervention partitioned the island, enforcing a de facto separation that has prevented all-out resumption of intercommunal fighting despite ongoing disputes, as the balance of coercive power deterred Greek Cypriot irredentism. However, coercion risks entrenching grievances if not paired with minimal concessions, as seen in prolonged low-level insurgencies following incomplete defeats, underscoring that while force addresses immediate security dilemmas, it seldom resolves underlying identity cleavages without supplementary partition or dominance. Realist alternatives reframe protracted social conflicts as arenas of zero-sum power competition, where resolution emerges from recalibrating capabilities rather than satisfying communal needs or fostering . Drawing from , these perspectives argue that actors prioritize survival and relative gains, rendering identity-based demands secondary to strategic deterrence or ; thus, effective strategies involve bolstering alliances, arms buildups, or preemptive strikes to shift equilibria. In , Britain's maintenance of military superiority and integration into structures under the 1998 reflected realist calculus, where coercive presence underpinned power-sharing by ensuring no unilateral , leading to over two decades of relative peace despite persistent sectarian tensions. Critiques of needs-centric models like Azar's note their underappreciation of such dynamics, as empirical patterns in ethnic conflicts show durable cessations correlating more with victors' consolidation of control than equitable resource distribution. Realist interventions, including third-party enforcement, succeed when they exploit windows of asymmetry, as in U.S.-led coalitions disrupting insurgencies, but falter amid mutual vulnerabilities that prolong stalemates. Overall, these alternatives privilege causal mechanisms of compulsion over persuasion, yielding shorter conflicts in cases of decisive imbalance but risking escalation where parity persists.

References

  1. https://www.bbau.ac.in/dept/dps/TM/Edward%20Azar.pdf
  2. https://godsonug.files.wordpress.com/2018/03/poli358_session-3.pdf
  3. https://www.bradford.ac.uk/library/library-resources/journal-of-peace-conflict-and-development/Reimann.pdf
  4. https://cyprusreview.org/index.php/cr/article/download/270/233/342
  5. https://www.africanscholarpublications.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/AJASD_Vol22_No2_September2021-1.pdf
  6. https://ses-journal.com/?sdm_process_download=1&download_id=1416
  7. https://ciaotest.cc.columbia.edu/olj/ojpcr/ojpcr_2_3/ojpcr_2_3b.html
  8. https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Serkan-Kara/publication/324507082_A_THEORY_OF_PROTRACTED_SOCIAL_CONFLICT/links/5ad1187a458515c60f4fd999/A-THEORY-OF-PROTRACTED-SOCIAL-CONFLICT
  9. https://www.jstor.org/stable/2536101
  10. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/324507082_A_THEORY_OF_PROTRACTED_SOCIAL_CONFLICT
  11. https://www.jstor.org/stable/pdf/40072074.pdf
  12. https://es.scribd.com/document/59936225/Protracted-Social-Conflict
  13. https://www.scirp.org/reference/referencespapers?referenceid=3279098
  14. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/231880050_The_analysis_of_protracted_social_conflict_A_tribute_to_Edward_Azar
  15. https://www3.gmu.edu/programs/icar/pcs/CM83PCS.htm?gmuw-rd=sm&gmuw-rdm=ht
  16. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/360626786_Application_of_Edward_Azar%27s_Theory_Protracted_Social_Conflict_A_Case_Study_of_Palestine-Israel_Conflict
  17. https://www.academia.edu/12140321/Protracted_Conflict
  18. https://www.girrjournal.com/article/application-of-edward-azars-theory-protracted-social-conflict-a-case-study-of-palestineisrael-conflict
  19. https://www.academia.edu/69474329/Edward_Azar_s_Protracted_Social_Conflict_Theory_and_Drivers_of_Self_Determination_the_Case_of_Nigeria
  20. https://web.stanford.edu/group/fearon-research/cgi-bin/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/Weak-States-Rough-Terrain-and-Large-Scale-Ethnic-Violence-Since-1945.pdf
  21. https://www.academia.edu/36523075/A_Theory_of_Protracted_Social_Conflict
  22. https://academicjournals.org/journal/AJPSIR/article-abstract/430205973708
  23. https://www.brookings.edu/wp-content/uploads/2016/07/statefailureandstateweaknessinatimeofterror_chapter.pdf
  24. https://www3.gmu.edu/programs/icar/ijps/vol16_2/InvisibilitiesofWarFINAL.pdf
  25. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/317047928_The_role_of_collective_memory_in_protracted_conflict
  26. https://books.openbookpublishers.com/10.11647/obp.0014/chap04.html
  27. https://quizlet.com/study-guides/analysis-of-protracted-social-conflict-key-concepts-and-recent-perspectives-in-ir-d5f7f0f1-4a5f-4740-9cc5-101e78b21cdc
  28. https://www.jstor.org/stable/pdf/10.5325/bustan.9.1.0084.pdf
  29. https://scholarworks.calstate.edu/downloads/6q182s972
  30. https://spb.psychopen.eu/index.php/spb/article/view/2437
  31. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0022002720909886
  32. https://www.academia.edu/7812490/Protracted_Social_Conflict_A_Fresh_Look_at_the_Theoretical_Approach_to_the_Study_of_Enduring_Social_Conflict
  33. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/258095712_Intractable_conflicts_Socio-psychological_foundations_and_dynamics
  34. https://www.beyondintractability.org/bi_affiliated_projects/dsap/publications/navigating-landscape-conflict-coleman.pdf
  35. https://psycnet.apa.org/record/2018-09481-001
  36. https://www.un.org/unispal/history/
  37. https://www.ajc.org/IsraelConflictTimeline
  38. https://uca.edu/politicalscience/home/research-projects/dadm-project/middle-eastnorth-africapersian-gulf-region/israelpalestine-1948-present/
  39. https://www.un.org/unispal/timeline/
  40. https://besacenter.org/palestinian-rejectionism/
  41. https://avalon.law.yale.edu/21st_century/hamas.asp
  42. https://www.cfr.org/global-conflict-tracker/conflict/israeli-palestinian-conflict
  43. https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2025/8/21/israeli-data-shows-83-percent-of-gaza-war-dead-are-civilians-report
  44. https://scholar.harvard.edu/files/jfrieden/files/frieden_israelpalestine_dec2015.pdf
  45. https://hir.harvard.edu/sri-lankan-civil-war/
  46. https://www.amacad.org/publication/daedalus/ending-sri-lankan-civil-war
  47. https://direct.mit.edu/daed/article/147/1/78/27184/Ending-the-Sri-Lankan-Civil-War
  48. http://www.mar.umd.edu/assessment.asp?groupId=78002
  49. http://repository.kln.ac.lk/bitstream/handle/123456789/17718/529-535.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y
  50. https://www.jstor.org/stable/48563408
  51. https://www.cfr.org/backgrounder/sri-lankan-conflict
  52. https://www.mfa.gov.tr/cyprus-_historical-overview_.en.mfa
  53. https://in-cyprus.philenews.com/local/the-crime-of-1974-in-numbers/
  54. https://peacekeeping.un.org/en/mission/unficyp
  55. https://www.robert-schuman.eu/en/monitor/290-failure-of-the-referendum-on-the-reunification-of-the-island
  56. https://uncyprustalks.unmissions.org/recent-developments-cyprus-peace-talks
  57. https://www.anews.com.tr/world/2025/10/25/trnc-president-underscores-political-equality-as-red-line-highlights-turkiyes-guarantor-role
  58. https://cissajk.org.pk/2023/07/15/unravelling-the-correlation-of-intractability-and-human-security-in-the-kashmir-conflict-an-analysis-using-edward-azars-social-protracted-conflict-theory/
  59. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/341598468_Drivers_of_Conflict_in_Kashmir
  60. https://www.humapub.com/admin/alljournals/gfpr/papers/UBjvG2ui40.pdf
  61. https://scholarcommons.sc.edu/etd/1772/
  62. https://www.iwm.org.uk/history/what-you-need-to-know-about-the-troubles
  63. https://repository.usfca.edu/context/thes/article/1013/viewcontent/1MAISTHESIS.pdf
  64. https://commons.lib.jmu.edu/ijps/vol24/iss1/6/
  65. https://www3.gmu.edu/programs/icar/ijps/vol6_1/Rubenstein.htm
  66. https://www.manchesterhive.com/display/9781526130990/9781526130990.00006.xml
  67. https://www.jstor.org/stable/27095398
  68. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/396003331_THEORIES_CAUSES_AND_RESOLUTION_MECHANISMS_OF_ETHNIC_AND_INTERCULTURAL_CONFLICTS_A_SYSTEMATIC_LITERATURE_REVIEW
  69. https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/identity-process-theory/collective-identity-and-intractable-conflict/1B3489196A1C4A2DD828E53659160B40
  70. https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/psychology/articles/10.3389/fpsyg.2017.00335/full
  71. https://link.springer.com/book/10.1007/978-1-4614-3679-9
  72. https://thesystemsthinker.com/the-aria-approach-to-conflict-resolution/
  73. https://icmglt.org/icmlibrary/trauma-as-a-collective-disease-and-root-cause-of-protracted-social-conflict/
  74. https://www.beyondintractability.org/bksum/rothman-resolving
  75. https://www.crisisgroup.org/asia-pacific/sri-lanka/sri-lanka-needs-truth-not-yet-truth-commission
  76. https://academic.oup.com/ijtj/article/5/1/31/2576972
  77. https://humanrightscommission.house.gov/sites/evo-subsites/humanrightscommission.house.gov/files/documents/SPSSI_Truth%2520commission%2520testimony_TLHRC.pdf
  78. https://academic.oup.com/ijtj/article/17/2/303/7208893
  79. https://gjia.georgetown.edu/2020/04/16/peace-in-northern-ireland-model-for-ending-wars/
  80. https://www.reuters.com/world/uk/uks-northern-ireland-amnesty-law-breach-human-rights-court-rules-2024-02-28/
  81. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0022002720909884
  82. https://ideapublishers.org/index.php/lassij/article/view/888
  83. https://oxfordre.com/psychology/display/10.1093/acrefore/9780190236557.001.0001/acrefore-9780190236557-e-269
  84. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0022343310389506
  85. https://spssi.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1540-4560.1994.tb02397.x
  86. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/276181794_Managing_Intractable_Identity_Conflicts
  87. https://www.beyondintractability.org/essay/identity_issues
  88. https://compass.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/spc3.12295
  89. https://direct.mit.edu/isec/article/42/3/127/12187/How-Civil-Wars-End-The-International-System-Norms
  90. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8427816/
  91. https://behorizon.org/third-party-intervention-to-civil-wars-realist-liberalist-and-english-school-theoretical-perspectives/
  92. https://digitalcommons.macalester.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1044&context=poli_honors
  93. https://publications.armywarcollege.edu/News/Display/Article/4305100/coercive-deterrence-adapting-deterrence-for-strategic-competition-with-china/
Add your contribution
Related Hubs
User Avatar
No comments yet.