This article was downloaded by: [Universitaets und Landesbibliothek]

On: 10 October 2013, At: 04:50

Publisher: Routledge
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954
Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH,
UK

Medicine, Conflict and Survival

Publication details, including instructions for authors
and subscription information:
http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/fmcs20

Contemporary conflict
resolution
a
Frank Boulton
a
Medact , UK
Published online: 30 Jan 2012.

To cite this article: Frank Boulton (2011) Contemporary conflict resolution, Medicine,
Conflict and Survival, 27:4, 247-249, DOI: 10.1080/13623699.2011.645292

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13623699.2011.645292

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the
information (the “Content”) contained in the publications on our platform.
However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make no
representations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or
suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions and views expressed
in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, and are not the
views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content should
not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sources
of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions,
claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities
whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection
with, in relation to or arising out of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes.
Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-
licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly
 forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://
www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions
Downloaded by [Universitaets und Landesbibliothek] at 04:50 10 October 2013
 Medicine, Conflict and Survival
Vol. 27, No. 4, October–December 2011, 247–252

BOOK REVIEWS

Contemporary conflict resolution, by Oliver Ramsbotham, Tom Woodhouse

and Hugh Miall, 3rd edition, Cambridge, Polity Press, 2011, 507 pp.,
including chapter notes, references and index, £24.99 (paperback), ISBN
Downloaded by [Universitaets und Landesbibliothek] at 04:50 10 October 2013

978-0-7456-4974-0

This reviewer makes no claims to any academic expertise in this increasingly

vital field, and at first struggled with some of the diagrammatic
representations and terminology used in this new edition (particularly
Figure 14.1, page 320, although the accompanying text came to my rescue).
But by the end I felt well rewarded by the opportunity to study the range
and depth of its coverage. The topics include aspects of anthropology,
ecology, economics, history (not least of the conflict-resolution field itself),
political theory and sociology. But such is the pace of events in this second
decade of the twenty-first century (CE) that even this ‘fully revised and
expanded edition’ (double the size of the first edition of 1999) does not
include references to the Arab Spring, or to the anti-capitalist Occupy Wall
Street movement of late 2011 and its progeny. Nor does it fully recognize
the power – as demonstrated by these movements – of the ‘twitter-sphere’ as
although the section on modern media and cyber technology (including
cyber-warfare and cyber-peacemaking) draws attention to the need for
responsible journalism, the very speed and ill-disciplined nature of the public
‘bloggosphere’ and mobile ‘photophones’, reaching as they can into the
most remote societies, may have been understated.
Nevertheless this third edition advances the book’s definitive status in
the academic literature of conflict resolution, with 12 more chapters than
the first edition, mostly in Part II (‘Cosmopolitan conflict resolution’,
pp. 265–423). These new chapters include conflict resolution in a changing
international order; environmental conflict resolution (very important);
conflict resolution in the arts and popular culture; in the media (including
cyberspace); managing intractable conflict; and upcoming challenges.
Questions of gender, of culture and religion are addressed, and references
made to the work of many people among whom are some of this reviewer’s
personal heroes such as Elise and Kenneth Boulding and Adam Curle.
The early chapters outline the concepts and definitions in conflict
resolution, including the place of ‘Track III diplomacy’ (by peace
constituencies within the conflict, building social cohesion, etc) and the
need to locate contemporary armed conflicts within a framework that

ISSN 1362-3699 print/ISSN 1743-9396 online

http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13623699.2011.645292
http://www.tandfonline.com
 248 Book reviews
encompasses different levels, from international down to societal level.
There follows a logical sequence of chapters on prevention, containment,
and the ending of violent conflict, post-war reconstruction, peace-building
and reconciliation. There are several case studies, including Somalia (which
gives a far more sophisticated account than is popularly understood),
Kenya, and particularly Israel/Palestine. Although the text is assisted by the
use of explanatory boxes and the 51 pages of references, a more thorough
cross-reference system with the pages of text to which these references refer
might have given further help to the researcher, although the 21-page index
is adequate for most purposes.
Downloaded by [Universitaets und Landesbibliothek] at 04:50 10 October 2013

The authors are to be particularly commended for identifying a

difference of opinion within themselves as to the ethics of forcible
intervention although all agree that firm and carefully applied ethical
criteria are an essential consideration for those who intervene in conflict, at
any level (page 331). These remarks, made in a section in chapter 14 on the
principles of the Responsibility to Protect, centre around the degree to
which armed intervention might become acceptable. As I am writing this
review, the death of Gadaffi is being announced, which heightens my
sensitivities on such points (including the limited and proportionate use of
force and the effects on the civil population and the environment). The
Responsibility to Protect was enunciated by the International Commission
set up by the Canadian Prime Minister Jean Chretien in August 2001 in the
wake of the lack of intervention in Srebrenica and Rwanda, and of the
intervention that did occur in Kosovo: this ‘R2P’ was tragically subsumed in
the short term by 9/11 although its principles were endorsed by the ‘World
Summit’ in September 2005.
Particularly welcome contributions to the book are made in ‘main-
streaming gender and in the empowerment of women’ (chapter 13, 15
pages); and on cultural variation (including the fact that Buddhism
and Islamic traditions contain deep resources for non-violent conflict
resolution – but can also be used to justify violence and repression; page
346). But I found the most interesting contribution to be in chapter 18 with a
clear exposition of the concept of ‘radical disagreement’. This adds a new
dimension to conflict resolution theory which up till now has largely (and
justifiably) been based on the Bohmian concept of a dialogue of mutual
understanding (Box 2.1, page 57), which looks for common ground and a
preparedness for each side to improve its own understanding of the opposite
points of view. By recognizing rather than discounting the validity of radical
disagreement, a Strategic Engagement of Discourses (SED) may be
promoted within and between conflicting parties. Although such discourses
may appear to be counter-intuitive to more conventional dialogic
approaches, there are times when the application of Bohmian principles
would be premature. Under these circumstances SED may offer the more
appropriate starting point, as it starts from where the conflict parties are,
 Medicine, Conflict and Survival 249
not from where a third party thinks that they should be (380). Using the
Israeli/Palestinian conflict as a case study, the authors advocate a
‘hexagonal’ approach during which radical differences within each conflict
party (such as between Hamas and Fatah on the Palestinian side, and
between equally profound divisions on the Israeli side) are addressed before
taking on the even more fundamental conflicts between Israel and Palestine
themselves. This way, the authors argue (and indeed have been practicing in
recent years through the Oxford Research Group), gives an opportunity to
break 60 years of deadlock. Such a novel insight is, in the view of this
reviewer, thoroughly well worth supporting, but is – as described somewhat
Downloaded by [Universitaets und Landesbibliothek] at 04:50 10 October 2013

charmingly on page 379 – an immensely tall order.

This book is therefore thoroughly recommended for all conflict
resolution workers whether in academe, government or other parliamentary
organizations, civil service, military departments, and NGOs and their
supporters. It would not disgrace the shelves of philosophers or those in
schools of politics, religion, medicine or sociology. Indeed, anyone prepared
to study it in any depth would be amply rewarded.

Frank Boulton
Medact, UK
frank.boulton@gmail.com
Ó 2011, Frank Boulton

The US commitment to global health: Recommendations for the public and

private sectors, by the Committee on the US Commitment to Global Health,
Washington, DC, National Academies Press, The Institute of Medicine,
2009, 298 pp., £22.85, ISBN 978-0-309-13821 (free PDF of summary and
report in brief)

In a new era of politics in the United States, the Obama administration has
the opportunity to redefine global health and to ensure its ubiquitous
provision.
A decade since their last publication examining the interest of US policy-
makers in global health, the Institute of Medicine (IoM) has launched their
latest report, with the support of a number of US government agencies and
five private foundations – The Gates Foundation, Rockerfeller Foundation,
Burrough Wellcome Fund, Merck Company Foundation and Google.
In the report, the IoM explore the current commitment of US
government policies and non-governmental sectors to global health and
give suggestions for how health in low and middle income countries can be
improved in the future. Five areas are identified to be furthered by the US
‘global health enterprise’ – the multidisciplinary collaboration of govern-
mental and non-governmental institutions. They include: scaling up current