Bridging the Divide: The Competing Priorities of Human Rights Advocates and Conflict Resolution Practitioners

Author: Cynthia Egole

May 1, 2025

Abstract

This essay will examine the dimensions of varying aspects of human rights in conflict resolution settings. By conflict resolution, the definition to be discussed in the following essay is essentially pacification; not to be mistaken for, conflict transformation, which involves the influence of systemic changes in a society’s apparatuses. The dimensions of human rights to be discussed are: human rights as rules; human rights as structures and institutions; human rights as relationships; and, human rights as process. The essay will then examine the contraposition between how human rights advocates work and how conflict resolution practitioners work; this essay finds that conflict resolution practitioners come from a variety of backgrounds and do not follow any constituted principles except  for those that enable them to work in various fields, whereas human rights advocates often come from a legal background and have to adhere to the overarching principles of international human rights law. This study is important in order to understand the role and responsibilities of human rights advocates.

[Image source: Google Search]

1. Iceberg Analogy: Human Rights as Symptom and Causes

The situation of human rights in conflict resolution can be analogized via the image of an iceberg.[1]

The top of the iceberg, the part that can be seen above the water the iceberg sits in, represents human rights violations as overt signs of violent conflict. These breaches are easily spotted and may include any of the following factors: intimidation of political opponents; excessive use of force by the police; rape; disappearances; summary executions; censorship; and/or torture.[2] The bottom of the iceberg, hidden beneath the water’s surface, is full of human rights situations seen as underlying causes of conflict. This section more so references a potential situation where the denial of human rights is embedded in preexisting structures of society and governance.[3]

Rights, by definition, are “an instrument of individual and collective struggle to protect core interests.”[4] If rights are not guaranteed and given to the citizens of a given nation, the needs of those citizens are obstructed from view; this hindrance can create conflict, as people tend to look for ways to address their otherwise unmet needs, even if their chosen methods are violent or unorthodox.[5]

2. The Dimension of Human Rights in Conflict

Human rights have several dimensions in conflict resolution. The first dimension of human rights, rights as rules, refers to the legal aspects of human rights:[6]

For example, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) contains the right to take part in the government of one’s country, which implies the need for democratic governance. The need  for democratic governance needs to be implemented across the legal institutions. Fundamental human rights can be taken as absolute rights— non-negotiable; however, their application, interpretation, and realization are not as rigid in definition.[7] Instead, these other aspects are able to be molded  to specific political, cultural, and historical contexts. Thus, rights set the parameters for conflict transformation. But, it should also be noted that there is great room for variation in how specific rights are realized in a given context.[8]

The second dimension, human rights as structures and institutions, refers to the application of human rights beyond the paper they are written on, especially during a period of conflict resolution.[9] Conflict transformation activities must include the development of legitimate, independent, and capable institutions to support the realization and expression of rights and remedies.[10] For example, “the question is not only whether particular laws or institutions exist or how they appear, but rather how laws and institutions relate to people and how people perceive, use, change and develop them”.[11]

The third dimension, human rights as relationships, refers to how rights are construed between state and citizens and amongst individuals and groups in society so that they are constructive, allow for recognition of humanity in others, and geared towards nonviolence.[12]

For example, the right to private family life recognizes the need for others in a person’s life and is construed among individuals, with the state needing to respect this right. A vertical application of human rights happens when the state is involved and is necessary to emphasize the responsibility of the state towards its citizens, and to provide citizens with a platform for demanding accountability.[13] This application implies addressing the overarching need for nations and governments to develop “vertical capacity”[14], i.e., building connections between leadership at different levels of society and subsequently helping leaders recognize how their roles, capacities, and contributions to conflict transformation are interdependent to one another.[15] 

Whereas, a horizontal application of human rights  happens when there is an interaction between citizens and highlights that ordinary people also have responsibilities in how society functions. It acknowledges that human rights have existence in a social context and are reciprocal, and that “recognition of the other” is a core value of human rights.[16]

Furthermore, the dimension of human rights as a process means that certain human rights specify criteria for an acceptable process of conflict transformation and also highlight the need to give meaning to fundamental human rights values and principles – such as dignity, inclusion, participation, protection of marginalized or minority voices, accountability – by integrating them into conflict transformation processes at various levels of society.[17]

Applying them will help lay the foundation for tolerance, pluralism, equality, and participation in society, and all of these aspects in tandem can break the pattern of negative interaction prevailing thus far.[18]

Let’s take for example, the peace accord established in South Africa during the transition in the early 1990s. Various actors were brought into the peace agreement (i.e. political parties, police, trade unions, business, churches, traditional leaders). Peace committees' dialogue and problem-solving created the different stakeholders. Peace committees were able to do that because others' humanity were recognized and a culture of participation, decision-making and collaboration were developed. Also, shared responsibility in dealing with local problems was encouraged.[19]

3. Human Rights as Symptoms and Causes

At the top level of the iceberg there is the level of human rights violations (HRV) as a sign  of ongoing conflict – e.g. violence, intimidation of political opponents for example – the primary objective is to stop ongoing direct, physical violence through methods such as humanitarian relief, human rights monitoring, negotiation of ceasefires, and  peacekeeping.[20]

At the causal level, the objective is to transform the underlying conditions that create a societal propensity for violence. The focus  is thus on structural violence and institution building, accommodation of diversity by protecting minorities, development and reconstruction and strengthening of the rule of law.[21]

4. The Clash Between Human Rights Advocates and Conflict Resolution Practitioners

Two top scholars in conflict resolution, Mertus and Helsing, argue that the divergences in views between human rights advocates and conflict resolution practitioners are “in outlook how much to do with the setting of priorities.”[22] They clash when both want to finish first at the same time when dealing with conflicts. It is necessary to get the right combination of human rights and conflict resolution without prejudicing the legitimate rights of victims and the interest of society; this interest generally,  is to end conflict., “In general, human rights people and conflict resolution people don't speak the same language. They come from different backgrounds and there is a lot of suspicion between them. Human rights people are judgmental and tend to come from a legal background, whereas conflict resolution people are more interested in stopping hot conflict and are willing to rub hands with bad actors.”[23]

A conflict resolution theorist by the name of John Burton stated that  basic human needs are universal incentives that are a part of human beings. They are concerns for the human being. They are food, clothing and shelter, and non-material concerns such as respect, dignity, and affection.[24]

Another conflict resolution theorist, Manfred Max-Neef, developed a theory of basic human needs: understanding, freedom, leisure, identity, protection, creation, affection, participation, and subsistence.[25] All the needs relate to one another, and the denial of one may affect the enjoyment of others. For example, the denial of freedom would relate to the denial of participation, identity, subsistence, and so forth. [26] The principle notion about the basic human needs theory for human rights is that every basic need is directly associated with basic human rights.[27] 

It is possible to compare the basic human needs theory and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and find direct links. For example, a need for freedom may be associated with the rights to freedom of movement and expression, the right to participate, the right to dignity, etc.[28] Therefore, not having basic human needs leads to violations of human rights, which, in turn, intensify the potential for conflict. In that sense, denial of basic human needs may be said to be the root cause of violent conflicts.[29] 

5. Human Rights Advocates

The perspectives associated with effective conflict resolution are  championed by people “who focus on resolving, managing, preventing, or transforming violent conflict.”[30] The principal goal of conflict resolution practitioners is “to help the parties in a conflict to achieve a settlement while decreasing the overall level of violence. Over the long term, they try to facilitate improved relations between the parties in a conflict so that those parties will be in a better position to resolve or de-escalate future conflict before it turns violent.”[31] For these professionals, their utmost priority is in silencing the guns and ultimately ending the violence. An example of this is the peace negotiations of October-November 1995 in Dayton,aimed at ending the conflict in Bosnia and Herzegovina. The participants included people suspected of atrocities, such as President Milosevic.

Putnam argues that human rights advocates want to expand  international human rights instruments and also to emphasize “[the achievement] of formal expression of human rights provisions in the body of peace settlements.”[32] 

Human rights advocates believe that sticking to international human rights law and its most effective forms of  implementation is non-negotiable, especially  during peace negotiations and other conversations surrounding the resolution of violent conflicts. The role of international human rights investigators and human rights advocates in addressing rights abuses is about  finding the facts whenever rights abuses are alleged and aim to publish their findings.[33]

Human rights advocates hope that their reports will change the  behavior of the government or other entities whose abuses they spotlight, but their main quest is the policymakers who are in a position to put pressure on rights violators.[34]

What happens is that international human rights NGOs see themselves as advocates. Post-conflict societies often ask help from human rights experts and treat them as advisors during peace-building. Survivors of human rights abuses trust International NGOs and want them as their advocates.[35] Truth commissions and courts seek them out  as accurate sources of information about what happened. Sometimes leading figures in the domestic human rights movements are called upon to take extraordinary governing roles.[36] For example, Mandela was later called into government.

Bell, a legal scholar specializing in human rights, argues that disregarding issues of justice and accountability in peace negotiations can be understood as rewarding “aggression and ethnic cleansing.”[37] Elaborating on Bell’s argument, Schirch, a peace building researcher also discusses that “some human rights activists express concern or object when human rights violators are allowed to take part in peace settlements, since it appears to reward their brutality and legitimize their tenuous authority, which they may have achieved in the first place through violent means rather than community support.”[38]

Lutz, a human rights writer, understands that repeated human rights abuse can make  victims resort to violence to reclaim their rights, unless they believe that there is a peaceful alternative. Echoing this argument, Mertus and Helsing say that the “neglect or dismissal of human rights demands can raise the stakes from low-intensity conflict to high-intensity conflict … the daily abuses that are part of systematic government oppression may initially leave citizens feeling insecure and powerless, but at the same point those citizens may conclude that the only possible response to a violent system is violence.”[39]

Systematic government oppression creates an environment where citizens feel marginalized and ignored. This neglect can foster a sense of hopelessness, as individuals may perceive that peaceful avenues for change are unavailable or ineffective. Over time, this can lead to a collective realization that non-violent resistance may not yield results, pushing individuals towards more extreme measures.

6. Conflict Resolution Practitioners

International conflict resolution practitioners  come from a number of fields. They are scholars and practitioners from many of the social sciences (e.g., sociology, psychology, political science),public policy, law, and even the health sciences. Unlike human rights, there is no codified set of norms that govern the field of conflict resolution. However, there is an implicit set of principles that shape their practice.[40]

The first principle is participation, where the parties who have direct stakes in the outcome are actively engaged. This means to bring stakeholders into some kind of ad hoc or institutionalized forum and guarantee them of an opportunity for meaningful speaking out.[41]

The second principle is inclusion. In the conflict resolution field, the preferred method is to involve  as many stakeholders as possible, even those that might be potentially disruptive, on the grounds that it is best for a durable peace to have all parties involved, and that there will be no undermining of the agreement if everybody was involved in creating it.[42]

The third principle is empowerment. A party may have less experience in dealing with peace negotiation than others, or may have less resources. To help balance the different sides of a conflict and the various parties involved in it, conflict resolvers may incorporate training, teaching, and coaching into the process of constructing peace to maximize the effectiveness of all of the parties.[43]

The fourth principle is cultural sensitivity. Most cultures have already made methods

for handling conflict. It may be more effective to have in place culturally familiar and appropriate practices and solutions, so that when an outside intervener, such as a conflict resolution practitioner has departed, there will be fewer problems, for example on how to adhere to international human rights norms with the customs of the area.

Thus, it is very important for practitioners to know what those practices are in order to keep up with the localised needs and, insofar as possible, to build upon and enhance indigenous localised methods.[44]

The fifth principle is equity. Equity, as opposed to equality, is the notion that a mediator should treat all parties at the table with equal respect, giving each equal time and attention, even if there are differences in power.[45] Equity recognizes that individuals may have different levels of power and needs, and therefore, a mediator should ensure that all parties receive appropriate attention and respect based on their unique circumstances

Perpetrators often continue committing crimes if their interests are not met; they may agree to negotiate to avoid prosecution for their crimes. If they do not feel secure they may halt all efforts to stop the conflict at hand.

Efforts that disregard crimes committed by negotiators and make concessions on issues of accountability as a means to stop the bullets could prove lethal for the redressing of systematic atrocities. A peace agreement that is attained without communicating issues of justice might be converted to a cold peace deal—a peace deal incapable of working in post-conflict settings.

7. Conclusion

The essay has analysed the clash between how human rights advocates work and how conflict resolution practitioners work finding that conflict resolution practitioners come from rich backgrounds and do not follow human rights principles but a set of other principles that guide their work.

Instead human rights advocates are fact finders and tend to come from a legal background. This article is important for the readers to understand what human rights treats and what it does not treat and to serve as a guide in order to distinguish the workings of peacebuilding practitioners and human rights advocates. This article also served as a reminder of the functions and dimensions of human rights.

---

Glossary

• Abstract: A short summary of a longer article or report.

• Accommodation: Making changes or compromises so different people or groups can work together.

• Accountability: Being responsible for your actions and being expected to explain them.

• Alleged: Said to be true, but not yet proven.

• Analogized: Compared to something else to help explain or understand it.

• Apparatuses: Systems or structures that help a group or government function.

• Atrocity: A very cruel or violent act, especially during war.

• Breach: Breaking a rule, law, or agreement.

• Ceasefire: An agreement to stop fighting, usually temporarily.

• Clash: A conflict or fight between different groups or ideas.

• Concessions: Things people agree to give up in order to reach an agreement.

• Conflict resolution: Finding peaceful ways to settle disagreements or disputes.

• Conflict transformation: Changing the deeper causes of a conflict to create long-term peace.

• Constituted: Made up or formed according to a rule or system.

• Construed: Understood or interpreted in a particular way.

• Contraposition: Showing two opposite ideas next to each other for contrast.

• Dialogue: A respectful and open conversation between people with different views.

• Dimension: One part of a bigger issue or idea.

• Divergence: A difference or separation between people or opinions.

• Embedded: Deeply part of something, like a system or culture.

• Ethnic cleansing: Forcing or killing people to remove a certain ethnic group from an area.

• Governance: The way decisions are made and power is used in a group or society.

• Hindrance: Something that makes it harder to do something.

• Iceberg: A way of thinking about problems where what you see is only a small part of a much bigger issue.

• Indigenous: People who are the original inhabitants of a land or region.

• Incentive: Something that encourages someone to take action.

• Interdependent: Relying on each other to work or succeed.

• Intimidation: Trying to scare or pressure someone into doing or not doing something.

• Legitimate: Seen as fair, proper, or allowed by rules or law.

• Leisure: Free time when you’re not working or busy.

• Marginalized: Pushed to the edges of society and not treated equally.

• Mediator: A neutral person who helps others resolve a disagreement.

• Negotiation: Talking with others to reach an agreement that works for everyone.

• Obstructed: Blocked or made more difficult.

• Oppression: Unfair treatment that keeps people from having equal rights or freedom.

• Ordinary: Normal, everyday, or common.

• Overt: Clearly seen or done openly.

• Pacification: Trying to calm a situation, sometimes by force or pressure.

• Parameters: The rules or limits that define how something can happen.

• Perpetrator: A person who carries out a harmful or violent act.

• Pluralism: A society where many different groups and views are accepted and valued.

• Practitioner: Someone who regularly works in a certain field, like human rights or peacebuilding.

• Prejudice: A negative opinion about someone that’s not based on facts or experience.

• Principles: Basic beliefs or rules that guide how people act.

• Priorities: The things that are most important or need attention first.

• Propensity: A natural tendency to act in a certain way.

• Prosecution: The legal process of trying someone in court for a crime.

• Reciprocal: Shared or given back in return.

• Remedies: Ways to fix a problem or make up for harm done.

• Stakeholder: Someone who is affected by or involved in a decision or issue.

• Subsistence: Basic things people need to survive, like food and shelter.

• Summary executions: Killing people without a trial, often illegally.

• Systematic: Done in a planned and organized way.

• Systemic: Related to or affecting the whole system, not just part of it.

• Tandem: Happening or working at the same time, together.

• Tenuous: Weak or not secure.

• Tolerance: Accepting and respecting people who are different from you.

• Truth commission: A group set up to learn and share the truth about past violence or injustice.

• Unorthodox: Different from usual or traditional ways.

• Vertical capacity: The ability of leaders and institutions at different levels to work together and make things happen.

---

Sources

Books 

1. John S., Rothchild D. , Cousens E.M Ending Civil Wars: The Implementation of Peace Agreements, ed. (Boulder/London: Lynne Rienner Publishers, 2002)

2. Lederach J.P. Justpeace – the Challenge of the 21st Century, in: People Building Peace. 35 Inspiring Stories from Around the World (European Centre for Conflict Prevention,1999)

3. Mertus J.A ,Helsing J.W Human Rights and Conflict: Exploring the Links between Rights, Law, and Peacebuilding (Washington, D.C.: United States Institute Peace Press, 2006)

4. Parlevliet M. Rethinking Conflict Transformation from a Human Rights Perspective (Berghof Research Center for Constructive Conflict Management  2009)

Journals

1. Amparo T, “Reforms that Benefit Poor People – Practical Solutions and Dilemmas of Rights-Based Approaches to Legal and Justice Reform” in: Paul Gready and Jonathan Ensor (eds.). Reinventing Development? Translating Rights-Based Approaches from Theory into Practice (London and New York: Zed Books 2005)

2. Lutz, E.L. ,Babbitt E.F , and  Hannum H. ‘Human Rights and Conflict Resolution from the Practitioners’ Perspectives’ (2003)The Fletcher Forum of World Affairs, vol. 27 (1)  <http://www.jstor.org/stable/45289227 > , Accessed 29th January 2025

3. Maloka V., Parlevliet M. , and Galan G.t. ‘Understanding Conflict and Its Relationship with Human Rights’(2004) National Human Rights Institutions, Conflict Management and Peacebuilding in Africa. Centre for Conflict Resolution. <http://www.jstor.org/stable/resrep05151.9>.  Accessed 25th January 2025

4. Osaghae E. E. ‘Human Rights and Ethnic Conflict Management: the Case of Nigeria’, in: Journal of Peace Research, Vol  33 (2)  Journal of Peace Research <https://doi.org/10.1177/0022343396033002004>Accessed 20th December 2024

---

Footnotes

[1] Michelle Parlevliet, Rethinking Conflict Transformation from a Human Rights Perspective (Berghof Research Center for Constructive Conflict Management,  2009) p.5

[2] Ibid

[3] Ibid

[4] Eghosa Emmanuel Osaghae ‘Human Rights and Ethnic Conflict Management: the Case of Nigeria’,  (1996)  Journal of Peace Research, Vol. 33 (2)  <https://doi.org/10.1177/0022343396033002004>Accessed 20th December 2024, p. 172

[5]  Michelle Parlevliet, Rethinking Conflict Transformation from a Human Rights Perspective (Berghof Research Center for Constructive Conflict Management  2009)p.5

[6] Ibid at p.9

[7] Ibid

[8] Ibid

[9] Ibid

[10] Ibid

[11]Tomas Amparo, “Reforms that Benefit Poor People – Practical Solutions and Dilemmas of Rights-Based Approaches to Legal and Justice Reform” in: Paul Gready and Jonathan Ensor (eds.). Reinventing Development? Translating Rights-Based Approaches from Theory into Practice (London and New York: Zed Books 2005)

[12] Michelle Parlevliet, Rethinking Conflict Transformation from a Human Rights Perspective (Berghof Research Center for Constructive Conflict Management  2009)p.9

[13] Ibid

[14] John Paul Lederach, Justpeace – the Challenge of the 21st Century, in: People Building Peace. 35 Inspiring Stories from Around the World (European Centre for Conflict Prevention,1999) p.30

[15] Ibid

[16]Michelle Parlevliet, Rethinking Conflict Transformation from a Human Rights Perspective (Berghof Research Center for Constructive Conflict Management,2009) p.10

[17] Ibid

[18] Ibid

[19] Ibid

[20] Ibid at p.11

[21] Ibid

[22] Julie A. Mertus and Jeffret W. Helsing. “Exploring the Intersection between Human Rights and Conflict,” in Human Rights and Conflict: Exploring the Links between Rights, Law, and Peacebuilding, ed. Julie A. Mertus and Jeffret W. Helsing, (Washington, D.C.: United States Institute Peace Press, 2006) p. 8

[23] Ellen L. Lutz, Eileen F. Babbitt, and Hurst Hannu,m ‘Human Rights and Conflict Resolution from the Practitioners’ Perspectives’  (2003)The Fletcher Forum of World Affairs, vol. 27 (1)  <http://www.jstor.org/stable/45289227 > p 174, Accessed 29th January 2025

[24] Victoria Maloka, Michelle Parlevliet, and Ghalib Galant. “Understanding Conflict and Its Relationship with Human Rights.” National Human Rights Institutions, Conflict Management and Peacebuilding in Africa. Centre for Conflict Resolution, 2004. <http://www.jstor.org/stable/resrep05151.9> Accessed 25th January 2025, p.18

[25] Ibid at p.19

[26] Ibid

[27] Ibid

[28] Ibid

[29] Ibid

[30] Julie A. Mertus and Jeffret W. Helsing. ‘Exploring the Intersection between Human Rights and Conflict,” in Human Rights and Conflict: Exploring the Links between Rights, Law, and Peacebuilding, ed. Julie A. Mertus and Jeffret W. Helsing, (Washington, D.C.: United States Institute Peace Press, 2006) p.5

[31] L. Ellen Lutz. “Understanding Human Rights Violations in Armed Conflict,” in Human Rights and Conflict: Exploring the Links between Rights, Law, and Peacebuilding, ed. Julie A. Mertus and Jeffret W. Helsing (Washington, D.C.: United States Institute Peace Press, 2006)p. 30

[32] Tonya L. Putnam. “Human Rights and Sustainable Peace,” in Ending Civil Wars: The Implementation of Peace Agreements, ed. Stephen John, Donald Rothchild and Elizabeth M. Cousens (Boulder/London: Lynne Rienner Publishers, 2002)p.238

[33] Ellen L. Lutz, Eileen F. Babbitt, and Hurst Hannum  ‘Human Rights and Conflict Resolution from the Practitioners’ Perspectives’  (2003)The Fletcher Forum of World Affairs, vol. 27 (1)  <http://www.jstor.org/stable/45289227 > Accessed 29th January 2025 , p 175

[34] Ibid

[35] Ibid

[36] Ibid

[37] Christine Bell. “Human Rights, Peace Agreements, and Conflict Resolution: Negotiating Justice in Northern Ireland,” in Human Rights and Conflict: Exploring the Links between Rights, Law, and Peacebuilding, ed. Julie A. Mertus and Jeffret W. Helsing (Washington, D.C.: United States Institute Peace Press, 2006)p.346

[38] Lisa Schirch. “Linking Human Rights and Conflict Transformation: A Peacebuilding Framework,” in Human Rights and Conflict: Exploring the Links between Rights, Law, and Peacebuilding, ed. Julie A. Mertus and Jeffret W. Helsing (Washington, D.C.: United States Institute Peace Press, 2006)p.79

[39] Julie A. Mertus and Jeffret W. Helsing. “Exploring the Intersection between Human Rights and Conflict,” in Human Rights and Conflict: Exploring the Links between Rights, Law, and Peacebuilding, ed. Julie A. Mertus and Jeffret W. Helsing, (Washington, D.C.: United States Institute Peace Press, 2006) p.5

[40]  Ellen L. Lutz, Eileen F. Babbitt, and Hurst Hannum  ‘Human Rights and Conflict Resolution from the Practitioners’ Perspectives’  (2003)The Fletcher Forum of World Affairs, vol. 27 (1)  <http://www.jstor.org/stable/45289227 >  Accessed 29th January 2025, p 176

[41] Ibid at p.177

[42] Ibid

[43] Ibid

[44] Ibid

[45] Ibid