Prepare an APA-style, 2-3 page essay based on your readings from Chapter 30 (Intractable Conflict) in which you share your preferred paradigm for dealing with intractable conflict. Which paradigm seems to resonate with you the most? Choose at least one intractable conflict, it can be either global or domestic, and describe it within the framework of your chosen paradigm.
Preferred Paradigm for Addressing Intractable Conflict: The Human Needs Paradigm
Student Name
Institution
Course Name
Professor Name
Date
Preferred Paradigm for Addressing Intractable Conflict: The Human Needs Paradigm
Intractable conflicts are long-lasting, deeply rooted disputes that often resist resolution due to entrenched interests, identities, or values. Chapter 30 of The Handbook of Conflict Resolution explores several paradigms for understanding and managing such persistent conflicts. Among these, the Human Needs Paradigm resonates most deeply with me. This paradigm emphasizes that certain non-negotiable needs—such as identity, recognition, security, and development—must be satisfied for a conflict to be truly resolved. When these needs are unmet, the conflict persists, regardless of external negotiations or compromises (Deutsch, Coleman, & Marcus, 2014).
The Human Needs Paradigm appeals to me because it centers on the psychological and existential elements of conflict. Rather than focusing solely on material or political interests, this model recognizes the intrinsic motivations that underlie human behavior. By addressing these core needs, it promotes genuine healing and reconciliation rather than temporary solutions or surface-level agreements.
One illustrative example of an intractable conflict that can be analyzed using this paradigm is the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. This decades-long dispute is not merely about territory or political autonomy; it involves deeply rooted needs for identity, recognition, and security on both sides. For Palestinians, the need for self-determination, national identity, and freedom from occupation are central. For Israelis, the need for security, historical recognition, and survival as a Jewish state are paramount.
Attempts to resolve the conflict through negotiations—such as the Oslo Accords—have largely focused on political compromises and territorial arrangements. However, these have repeatedly failed because they neglected the deeper, non-negotiable human needs involved. For instance, Israeli recognition of Palestinian statehood remains a contested issue, just as Palestinian recognition of Israel as a Jewish state challenges their historical narrative. The Human Needs Paradigm would argue that until both groups feel their core identities and histories are acknowledged and respected, the conflict will persist (Burton, 1990).
This paradigm also underscores the importance of inclusive dialogue and grassroots peacebuilding efforts. Programs that foster interpersonal understanding—such as cross-cultural exchanges, shared narratives, and restorative justice—can help satisfy these unmet needs. For example, initiatives like the Parents Circle-Families Forum, which brings together bereaved Israeli and Palestinian families, work to humanize the “other” and create mutual recognition of suffering. Such programs are grounded in the Human Needs Paradigm, as they seek to address emotional and identity-based needs often ignored in formal diplomacy.
Critics of the Human Needs Paradigm might argue that it is too idealistic or abstract for the complexities of realpolitik. However, history shows that ignoring these needs leads to a cycle of violence and broken agreements. The failure of purely interest-based negotiation strategies in intractable conflicts further supports the necessity of integrating human needs into conflict resolution frameworks.
In conclusion, the Human Needs Paradigm provides a compelling lens through which to understand and address intractable conflicts. By recognizing that individuals and groups require more than material compensation or political power to feel whole and heard, this model offers a path toward deeper, more sustainable peace. In the case of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, a renewed focus on mutual recognition, identity validation, and psychological security may pave the way for resolution where diplomacy alone has failed.
References
Burton, J. (1990). Conflict: Resolution and prevention. St. Martin’s Press.
Deutsch, M., Coleman, P. T., & Marcus, E. C. (Eds.). (2014). The handbook of conflict resolution: Theory and practice (3rd ed.). Jossey-Bass.