Rethinking Conflict Transformation from a Human Rights Perspective

Michelle Parlevliet
or willingness) to establish the rule of law and provide public security. At the elite level, it will
challenge trust between the leadership of different parties in one another’s commitment to finding an
effective and sustainable political solution if they suspect others of orchestrating violence behind the
scenes. Thus, negotiations in Northern Ireland between the main political actors before and after the
signing of the 1998 Good Friday/Belfast Agreement were affected by parading disputes that showed
little sign of abating, in which nationalist and unionist communities were pitted against one another
(Jarman 2009). The disputes were long dogged by allegations that contrary actions by the unionistaligned
Orange Order were being condoned or even encouraged by unionist political parties, and
that Sinn Fein was fomenting protests amongst nationalist residents.
A primary challenge is to deal with symptoms while keeping in mind the larger, more
structural conditions to be addressed. This is also relevant because many rights-focused activities in
conflict tend to be symptom-oriented (handling complaints of human rights violations, investigation
of individual cases, monitoring abuses) and as such run the risk of disregarding underlying patterns. 8
Thus the question arises, can symptoms be tackled in a way that contributes to the desired long-term
change, and if so, how?
I have found it useful in this regard to draw on Lederach’s work on levels of response
in addressing conflict situations, based on Dugan’s nested paradigm model (1996). This model
proposes that conflict can be analysed and understood at four different yet interconnected levels:
issue, relationships, sub-system, system (Lederach 1997, 56-60). While interventions at both the
issue and the system level are necessary, Lederach argues that strategies focusing on the relationship
and sub-system levels have the potential to “serve as sources of practical, immediate action and to
sustain long-term transformation in settings” (1997, 61). The nested paradigm can be linked to the
discussion at hand on human rights and conflict transformation by relating it to the iceberg metaphor
(see Diagram 2).
Diagram 2
© Berghof Research Center for Constructive Conflict Management
Source: Dugan 1996, 9-20; Lederach 1997, 56-60; see also Diagram 1
8 This is somewhat paradoxical, since a human rights perspective on conflict emphasises structural conditions underpinning
conflict and hence structural solutions for conflict. The symptom-oriented nature of some human rights methods can result
in human rights actors viewing individual cases and complaints in isolation instead of seeing them as indicators of broader
systemic human rights issues, which can diminish their effectiveness (e.g. ICHRP 2004, 71-72; Felner 2004, 4).
Rethinking Conflict Transformation from a Human Rights Perspective
12