The comprehension of conflict can be discussed regarding its resolution or transformation. This understanding considers different forms of conflict actions. How parties involve in the conflict undertake their action to achieve their goals. Some forms of conflict actions decide on the outcome in the way parties involve in the conflict behave.
We differentiate two forms of action: soft action and hard action. For both the facet can be either destructive or constructive. The soft action from constructive dimension or affirmative action mediation (www.affirmativeaction.psu.edu) includes different alternative dispute resolutions such as negotiation, mitigation, resolution, arbitration, diplomacy, etc. This assumption argues that non violent method is the greatest to resolve a particular conflict issue with the implication of third party. Soft action can also arise from a destructive dimension since parties opt to stand in their opposition such because of favoritism.
At the other hand, we have hard actions from either destructive or constructive dimension. Since there is no alternative for negotiation; if the issue addressed is not accepted by on party, and this issue is related to the implementation of a particular party, we need a violent action to break the conflict and then look for sustainable peace. Violent action, leading in formal way (in the case within a State, parties are acting in the limit of their boundaries as the State rules conceive), is useful and helpful for parities. The action can go through revolution, boycott, and agitation (e.g. Marx and Gandhi). All of those actions from constructive dimension seek to build peace, a lasting perhaps instead action from destructive dimension which keep the conflict protracted.
However the fact that hard action set up peace, a critic and analytic concern must be considered.
In Kant’s words, we can talk peace since it is perpetual. Thus the really hope of conflict resolution is a settlement of such a “lasting peace”. We were wondering if a violent action is always by the way to bring a peace without new grievances to be manifested in the future. Because those we were wounded, hurt or molested by the first end, they may look for an opportunity to revenge them (the case of Westgate mall in Nairobi). The end of conflict is the beginning of another. This is to say today’s victims are tomorrow’s murderers.
A contrast still remains by considering the nature of parties. In the context of extremist terrorism which is considered as revolutionary heroism. The violent action may be the greatest one while they use violent actions to spread terror thorough regions. Walter argues that, “there is no short-range solution to the problem of terrorism” (1990, p. 39) when they keep hostages. Question is asked which action can be taken since the refuse to negotiate and to create a common ground of understanding.