Reflections on the Future of Violent Conflict

Battle deaths and homicide rates are only one set of indicators of the extent to which violence is prevalent globally. All our societies are – to varying degrees – witnessing forms of chronic violence that cannot be measured in body bags alone. The World Health Organization (WHO) defines violence as “the intentional use of physical force or power, threatened or actual, against oneself, another person, or against a group or community, that either results in or has a high likelihood of resulting in injury, death, psychological harm, maldevelopment, or deprivation”. This is a definition worth keeping in mind, not least when trying to examine and address the gendered dynamics of violent conflict.

Conflict – broadly understood to denote differences of opinion, values and beliefs, as well as material interests – is arguably an intrinsic part of human interaction and a driver of change and innovation. Our challenge is thus not to prevent conflict per se, but to try to mitigate and prevent violent manifestations of conflict, while harnessing its positive potential. This, indeed, is the ultimate aim of peacebuilding: to establish and consolidate a set of societal institutions and mechanisms that allow people to settle their differences peacefully and interact in mutually constructive ways.

Just as violent conflict takes on many forms, so does the way in which we study it. “Armed conflict” is a well-established legal category, with a corpus of international humanitarian and human rights law at our disposal. Our challenge is thus not to prevent conflict per se, but to try to mitigate and prevent violent manifestations of conflict, while harnessing its positive potential. Yet, as the contributions to this dossier highlight, other perspectives are needed to make sense of the many ways in which violent conflict manifests itself in and across our states and societies – with anthropology, criminology, political science, psychology, public health and urban studies being just some of the academic fields contributing to this discussion.

Conflict studies are as old as humanity itself. Yet there continues to be a need for further reflection as the conditions under which violence manifests itself change over time. We close this dossier with a few observations to invite further debate.

• The commodification of security. Empirically, security is not the exclusive remit of the state, which theoretically obliges citizens to abide by its laws in return for providing security as a basic public good. Instead, private military and security personnel, having a vested interest in selling their product (and thus of convincing us of the gravity of the threats that surround us), have begun to outnumber those working for state security and public law enforcement.
• The rise of protracted crises. Many wars and settings of armed violence are chronic conditions that drag on for years, if not decades. In terms of international responses, the differentiation between humanitarian action during and in the immediate aftermath of violent conflict, (postconflict) peacebuilding, and long-term reconstruction and development becomes increasingly blurred. The linkages between violent conflict and sustaining peace require further clarification – and Goal 16 of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development on peaceful, just and inclusive societies is an important vehicle in this regard.
• Technological innovation. As humanity continues its quest to understand the natural world and control our physical environment, the means at our disposal to engage in “biopolitics” are ever greater. Complex algorithms, robots and ultimately artificial intelligence have limitless potential to improve our lives and our societies, but the same technologies are also at the heart of new weapons systems and more sophisticated means of surveillance and coercion.
• Violent conflict in the city. With the human world urbanising at unprecedented rates, chances are that violent conflict will also increasingly be waged in cities. The many manifestations of urban conflict – and debates on how the built-up urban space itself is a catalyst for certain types of violence – require a fundamental rethink of our intervention strategies geared towards preventing and reducing rates of violence in all its forms.
• The gendered nature of violent conflict. The above-mentioned manifestations of violent conflict affect women, girls, men and boys differently. Addressing the challenges they pose necessitates an understanding of societal inequalities and power relations. We must make sure that policies, programmes and interventions aiming to address violent conflict are not simply sensitive to the safety and security needs of different communities, but that they work at transforming society towards greater inclusion and gender equality.