The phenomenon of international intra-state armed conflicts” poses serious challenges to the theory and practice of conflict resolution. The distinction between intra-state armed conflicts and international war has created a strong perception that, while international wars were dominant in the past, most contemporary armed conflicts are intra-state. The disciplinary demarcation between Conflict Resolution and International Relations has also created bias, leading to the neglect of “international intra-state armed conflicts.” Given the growing number of such conflicts, the theory and practice of conflict resolution need to transcend the bias stemming from the artificial distinction between international wars and “international intra-state armed conflicts.” Deterrence should be discussed in the context of conflict resolution. Both international and domestic monitoring mechanisms should be combined with the mediation of conflict parties. Peacebuilding assistance should be internationally reinforced in line with the analysis of the impacts of the end of the Cold War and the Global War on Terror. With such flexible perspectives, partnerships nurtured through the framework of FOIP (Free and Open Indo-Pacific) should be enhanced. Ukraine would emerge as a maritime power in the Black Sea linked with the Indo-Pacific region through the Red Sea and the Mediterranean Sea.

full text