Case Studies for Unit 4 Flashcards
non-violent conflict and resolution
Iran nuclear weapons programme
conflict of ideas and security interests between nation states may be resolved through diplomacy and negotiation.
- 2015
- Iran, US, P5+1 (+ Germany) -> disagreed over Irans nuclear programme
- used diplomacy and negotiation to discuss conflicting interests and priorities (rather than violent conflict)
- result: economic sanctions were relaxed in exchange for weapons inspections
at times during negotiations, threat of military action by US endangered the progress of process
violent conflict
Syria
- civil war began in 2011, after initially peacful protesters were shot at by gov. forces
- end of 2015: 250,000 people killed in conflict, much of infrastructure destroyed
- UN confirmed: 2013, gov. forces used chemical weapons in attack on Damascus
- one of the insurgent groups (Islamic State) executed Western air workers and journalists in Syria
types of conflict, actors involved, contradiction causing conflict
Afghanistan 2001-2014
type:
- state-led
- against state and non-state groups (Taliban and al-Queda)
actors involved:
- US
- NATO-mandated International Security Assistance Force
- Taliban
- al-Qaeda
- Nothern Alliance
contradicition causing conflict:
- US began War on Terror
- Taliban gov. refused to surrender al-Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden + denied giving al-Qaeda operating space in Afghanistan
- US/allies removed Talbian from power + sought to degrade and destroy al-Qaeda + bring bin Laden to justice
types of conflict, actors involved, contradiction causing conflict
Iraq 2003-2011
type:
- interstate conflict: US vs. Iraq under Sadam Hussein (president)
- 2004 -> asymmetric conflict: US vs. Sunni insurgent non-state groups
actors involved:
- US led coalition without UN Security Council approval
- Iraqi Army under Saddam Hussein
- later -> Sunni insurgent groups
- principally al-Qaeda in Iraq
contradicition causing conflict:
- US accused Hussein of failure to comply with UN weapons inspections
- US claims suspected Weapons of Mass Destruction represent international security threat and justifiying regime change
- -> 2004: Sunni insurgency developed in opposition to prolonged presence of US troops in Iraq
types of conflict, actors involved, contradiction causing conflict
Mexico 2006-
type:
- violent organised criminals vs. Mexican government
actors involved:
- Mexican gov.
- law enforcement agencies
- drug cartels (eg. Sinaloa Cartel, worlds largest drug-trafficking organisation in the world)
contradicition causing conflict:
- Mexican security forces fighting to control drug-related violence in Mexico
- Cartels fight for control of trafficking routs
types of conflict, actors involved, contradiction causing conflict
Sri Lanka 1983-2009
type:
- civil war of secession (a country or state officially stops being part of another country and becomes independent): Tamil Tigers vs. Sri Lankan government
actors involved:
- Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam
- Sri Lankan state
contradicition causing conflict:
- Tamil Tigers fought an insurgency against the Sri Lankan state -> wanted independent Tamil state in north of Sri Lanka
- gov. defeated the Tamil Tigers in long battel in the north
- Tamils surrendered
violence can also be used to achieve a similar final political objective as non-violence
give an example
Islamism
- frequently associated with violent extremism eg. in Islamic States violent military campaign to create an Islamic state in Syria and Iraq
- the objective of a purely Islamic form of government is also pursued non-violently in other contexts eg. the Muslim Brotherhood set up a political party (the Freedom and Justice Party) winning parliamentary and presidential elections in 2011/2012
some analysts see the potential for non-violent Islamists to progress to violent Islamists and argue they strongly influence each other
Invasion of Ukraine
- direct violence
- just war theory
- realism (maximising power)
Russia’s 2022 invasion of Ukraine serves as a powerful case study of direct violence, as it involved deliberate use of military force causing mass civilian casualties, displacement, and infrastructure destruction. It demonstrates how state conflict escalates into full-scale warfare with devastating humanitarian consequences.
From the perspective of Just War Theory, Russia’s rationale—claiming self-defense and protection of Russian-speaking populations—fails to meet core criteria such as just cause, legitimate authority, and last resort. The invasion was condemned by the UN as a violation of Ukrainian sovereignty, suggesting it lacks moral and legal justification under jus ad bellum.
Applying Realist theory, Russia’s actions can be seen as a strategic attempt to maximize its power in an anarchic international system. By trying to block NATO’s eastward expansion and reassert dominance over a former Soviet state, Russia prioritized national interest and survival over international law or ethical concerns. This aligns with realism’s core belief that states act primarily out of self-interest and security, even through aggressive means.
Syrian War
- international intervention
- role of non-state actors
- conduct during war
The Syrian Civil War, which began in 2011, highlights the complexity of modern conflict through the involvement of both state and non-state actors, contested international intervention, and violations of wartime conduct. Initially sparked by anti-government protests, the conflict escalated into a brutal multi-sided war involving the Assad regime, rebel groups, Islamist factions, Kurdish militias, and major foreign powers.
International intervention played a critical role, with Russia and Iran supporting Assad, while the U.S., Turkey, and Gulf states backed various opposition forces. These interventions often pursued strategic interests rather than humanitarian aims, reflecting a realist approach focused on power and influence. This fragmented involvement also hindered peace efforts and prolonged the conflict.
Non-state actors such as ISIS and the Free Syrian Army significantly influenced the war’s dynamics. ISIS, in particular, controlled territory and used extreme violence, challenging traditional ideas of sovereignty and exposing the global threat posed by transnational militant groups.
In terms of conduct during war, the Syrian conflict saw widespread breaches of international humanitarian law, including chemical weapon use, sieges of civilian areas, and targeting of hospitals—violating the Geneva Conventions and the principle of distinction. These actions exemplify the breakdown of ethical norms in protracted civil wars and highlight the limits of international enforcement mechanisms.
Rwandan Genocide
- crimes against humanity
- remedy thrhough international tribunal
- positive peace
- reconcilitation
Though the Rwandan Genocide occurred in 1994, it remains a critical case for understanding long-term concepts such as crimes against humanity, international justice, and the pursuit of positive peace. The genocide, in which approximately 800,000 Tutsi and moderate Hutu were killed over 100 days, is a stark example of crimes against humanity, marked by mass killings, systematic rape, and incitement to violence—violating the most basic principles of international human rights and humanitarian law.
The International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda (ICTR) was established by the UN to provide remedy through international justice, holding key leaders accountable for orchestrating the genocide. While it faced criticism for being slow and costly, it set a precedent for international tribunals and helped develop the legal definition of genocide, aiding the global norm of accountability.
Because positive peace requires more than just the absence of violence, Rwanda’s long-term efforts at reconciliation are essential to study. Through local Gacaca courts, truth-telling, reintegration programs, and a national narrative of unity, Rwanda has aimed to rebuild social cohesion. While critiques remain about limits on political freedoms, the case still offers insight into how societies can attempt to move from violent conflict to sustainable peace. As some political concepts—like reconciliation and positive peace—unfold over decades, older case studies like Rwanda are necessary to evaluate their outcomes meaningfully.
