The Peaceful Settlement of Interstate Conflict: Saar, Austria, and Berlin

An integrative process model of conflict settlement is developed and compared in the cases of three conflicts. The basic idea is that conflict settlement should be understood as a process unfolding in two steps, each of which needs to be explained. The first step is `getting to the table' (negotiation), the second step is `getting to yes' (agreement). Different conditions must be satisfied for the opponents to take these two essential steps of conflict settlement. Serious negotiations are causally linked to the emergence of a mixed-motives situation, and agreement is dependent on cost-benefit calculations that favor cooperation over self-help. A set of hypotheses drawn from the literature on conflict management is developed into an integrative model of conflict settlement. The model is integrative in that it offers a rationale for considering together hypotheses which are usually discussed separately. The model is applied to three conflicts which have all a territorial component and have all finally been settled in a peaceful way. The conflicts show a similar pattern of conflict management and conflict settlement. The analysis reveals that the successful settlement of conflict in the three cases was due mainly to three factors: a hurting stalemate in the issue-area, a crisis of the security situation of one conflict party, and time pressure. By acting together, these factors brought about conflict-settling agreements which had not been possible before.