ABSTRACT
The current international conflict resolution regime has been in place at least since the founding of the United Nations (UN). A well-publicized recent study from the Human Security Centre at the University of British Columbia (2005) argues that the number of violent conflicts has been decreasing along with the number of refugees, dollar value of arms transfers, number of genocides, at least since the late 1980s. It also traces other positive trends, such as the decrease in battle deaths, an increase in the amount of interrupted peace between major powers, and the reduction in the incidence of military coups back to the 1950s. This is an optimistic view of the contributions that have been made to peace as well as the confluence of historical factors, such as the end of colonialism that may make the period studied anomalous and not a representation of historical progress. Even presuming the best interpretation of the study’s conclusions, a look around the world makes it clear that more can be done. A world made up of people and groups, all interacting in an environment of positive peace, is an impossibility, but that does not mean such a goal cannot be used to measure our current success. It is clear that the contemporary world’s experience of inter-and intrastate violence need not be as significant as it is. In fact, the enterprise of conflict resolution itself is predicated on the idea that it is possible to improve our relationship to conflict, to resolve some conflicts and to mitigate the destruction that comes from others. Viewed from this perspective, no matter how successful the current system has been, it is clear that there is room for improvement. It is arguable whether more of the same is needed or if novel approaches are key to having a larger influence on the path of conflict. Writers examining conflict from a conflict-resolution perspective often carry a bias toward traditional third-party intervention, especially mediation, as the most appropriate remedy for long-term violent conflict. This should not be surprising as most of these authors themselves are seldom direct parties to the conflicts they consider. In describing a role for conflict resolution, they are often considering one they could, at least on principle, fill. However, if as noted above, the current conflict resolution regime is insufficient, it makes sense to look for alternatives outside of the usual suspects. It
would be unreasonable to expect that the tools available in the conflict resolution toolbox at this time are the only ones we will need in the future and that they are the best ones for the job. This study will address one alternative to the current conflict-handling regime: business-based peacebuilding. It is not expected that business-based peacebuilding could replace the current system or even that it is necessarily superior to any other option. It does appear, however, to be part of the solution – and one that does include a role for conflict resolution practitioners. It may not be surprising that little attention was placed on businesses aiding peacebuilding efforts until recently. Under the Westphalian state system, foreign relations was the province of states. State sovereignty has been challenged through the development of international organizations and there has been a warm acceptance of discussing issues of war and peace within the context of the United Nations or regional organizations. Likewise, the number and character of non-governmental efforts has increased greatly, also undermining the state-only claim to international relations. This has also shifted focus away from pure statemodels of peacemaking and peacebuilding and allowed the inclusion of nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) in the peacebuilding sphere. Of course, there were always individuals and groups working for peace and the mitigation of destruction, however their influence both on the ground and in academic and media realms has grown recently. Largely in discussions unrelated to the specific concerns of peacebuilding, commentators have noted the rise of the multinational corporation (MNC) and globalization, the effects of which are hotly debated. It is generally agreed that this rise has included an additional assault on traditional state sovereignty in international relations. While these studies and debates argue strongly that there is another set of actors to consider when analyzing international events, the peace and conflict resolution community has been slow to embrace or even study the potential business-based peacebuilding. Although instances of business-led conflict resolution and peacebuilding appear to be increasing there are many unanswered questions about it. This study asks what insights can be found by examining a subcategory of business activities in conflict, business-based peacebuilding. Additionally, it asks what can be contributed by focusing on whether these efforts are initiated by the companies themselves, business associations, or other organizations. The goal of the work is to provide useful insight for conflict resolution practitioners and organizations attempting to engage businesses as part of their work.
