In order to choose one of the 4 main methods of approach to an armed inter or intra state conflict we will be analysing state conflict from the perspective of 3 time periods;
-History
-The Modern Time
-The Immediate Time.
Within each of these time sections you are using the contexts of;
-Economics
-Politics
-Military
to analyse (1) The Individual Structures of the warring states and (2) The Relations between the warring states.
State conflict can be resolved through one or more of the 4 main different methods;
(1) Non Interference
(2) Intermediary Conciliation
(3) Bipolar Pressure
(4) Singular Support.
(1) Non Interference
The first of these methods being non interference regarding the bilateral or multilateral sides engaged in violent opposition to allow the forces of military ability, finance, leadership and human will to run their course and decide the result, if any, of the conflict.
(2) Intermediary Conciliation
The second method of resolution would be to attempt to provide the bilateral or multilateral sides to a conflict with intermediary conciliation that opens up channels of communication in order to attain a common or relatable perspective between the sides. This perspective can be used to produce a compromise that avoids or phases out the continuance of further violent opposition.
(3) Bipolar Pressure
The third method, which involves pacificatory navigation, would concern a situation where the positions of both sides in conflict remain morally and ethically untenable concerning their causes and/or means of violent engagement. This method would then involve exerting bipolar political, financial or military pressure in order to nullify and isolate both sides in question suppressing their motivation and ability to iniquitously conduct and perpetuate armed warfare.
(4) Singular Support
The fourth and final method of resolving militaristic enmity would be where your state is of the political position that the completion of an inter or intra state conflict in favour of one side in particular would align a fortuitous rendering or capitulation of the moral, political and historical questions posed by the conflict.
Therefore your state conducts one or a combination of the following six actions in order to assist the favoured side in question; military intervention, political lobbying, financial pressure, financial support, military training, weapons support.
Nuclear Deterrent
The Nuclear Deterrent initially provided a very abrupt means of conflict resolution at the end of World War 2, before evolving into global policies of mutually assured destruction. These policies have been very productive in bringing an end to war in Europe and the wider world, allowing international commerce and diplomacy to take the place of major industrialised state conflict. However for the states that have engaged in war since the nuclear intervention, the nuclear deterrent could be described more as providing a conflictual ceiling to any persistent armed engagement rather than a means of resolution.
The Criteria for the 4 Methods of Conflict Resolution
The dilemma then, or lack thereof for a state or group of states external to a conflict would be the examination of the criteria informing which of and how these 4 main methodologies should be adopted with regards to a case of warfare.
The analysis of this criteria would involve reviewing the conflict at hand contextually along political, economic and militaristic conditions and relations firstly from a historical perspective, secondly from a modern perspective up until the commencement of active engagement and thirdly from an immediate current overview during the active conflict itself.
The History
Comprehensive awareness within said contextual categories of the historicity of the individual functionality of the warring states and equally the historicity of the relations between them is paramount in discerning their relativity of structure as well as intentions that form the foundations of their antipathy.
After attaining an optimal historical insight, equally as important in deciding methodological manner of approach to conflict is the same political, economic and militaristic cognisance of the conditions of the warring states and their relations within the two more present time sections.
The Modern Time
The first of these time sections being their modern to next to contiguous conditions and relations preceding the commencement of war, again politically, economically and militarily. This is in order to ascertain the impact of the aforementioned history and to divulge or reveal any further development or catalysts from the modern intervening period that contributed to the introduction of violent conflict further compartmentalising and accentuating our understanding of the conflicts cause.
The Immediate Time
The final time section of analysis is the observation of the most immediate updated wartime conditions and relations of the states at war along the same political, economic and militaristic contextual lines.
The scrutiny of the present time section of the conflict should be conducted in order to assess the current military situation, the military conduct of either side and how the historic and modern time sections have shaped and influenced this military situation.
The immediate scrutiny should also include the measurement of attempts at diplomacy, or lack thereof, that exists between the warring states and also the measurement of diplomacy that exists between the individual warring states and other states external to the conflict. This exams the level of support or hostility that exists within those external bipartisan relations. The previously conducted historical and modern time periods should also be used to discern how the past has shaped and influenced those external bipartisan relations and resulting levels of support or antipathy.
The analysis of the contiguous economic ability or capacity of the individual warring states will provide a compass and also a protractor of velocity regarding the direction of the conflict. The analysis of external economic support can also be used to further magnify and illuminate the external bilateral relations with noncombative states and thus again the velocity of the conflict as a whole.
Summary
Before the commencement of the active warfare we are using our historical and modern analysis of the individual condition of the structures of the warring states and also the condition of the relations between them, within the context of politics, economics and military, to establish why and how the current armed conflict was brought into being.
After the beginning of the active engagement itself, we are using the immediate time section for the same political, economic and militaristic examination of the individual structures of the warring states and also the relations between the warring states to ascertain the nature of the conflict and its direction.
The entirety of this criteria analysis is conducted in order to supremely inform our selection of one or more of the 4 main methods of resolving external state conflict;
(1) Non Interference
(2) Intermediary Conciliation
(3) Bipolar Pressure
(4) Singular Support.
We will be applying this Daylight Conflict Resolution Model to any warfare which Daylight includes within its coverage in the future, in order to obtain and maintain the most informed position possible.
Comments