Michelle Parlevliet (‘95 Netherlands), Program Manager, Human Rights and Conflict Management, Centre for Conflict Resolution, Cape Town, South Africa

(Presented as part of the panel "In the Company of Peacemakers: Pursuing Peace After a Kroc M.A." at Fr. Ted, Man of Peace, Sept. 30, 2000)

I am currently working at the Centre for Conflict Resolution (CCR) in South Africa, a non-governmental organization based in Cape Town. We intervene in conflicts, conduct research on demilitarization, disarmament, and peacebuilding in the Southern African region, and have a number of training programs that work with different audiences in and outside South Africa. At CCR, I manage a training program on human rights and conflict management that was established at the beginning of 1999. The program looks at the relationship between the fields of human rights and conflict management and targets actors in both fields. Through the Centre for Conflict Resolution, I have also become involved with the Staff College of the United Nations as a trainer for their project on early warning and preventive measures.

About two months ago, just before I received the invitation for this event, I received a phone call from a friend who runs the regional office of a human rights NGO, Lawyers for Human Rights (LHR). An urgent matter had come to their attention. A landowner had destroyed shanty homes on his land providing housing to seven families who worked for him. Their homes were demolished by bulldozers, without any warning to the workers. (One may be glad that there was no toddler inside sleeping in a cot.) Everything the farm-workers owned was destroyed. They had nowhere to go, no money, no blankets, and at this point it was winter in South Africa. My friend explained that her organization had taken the matter to court in order to force the landowner to re-build the houses. After dragging his feet, the owner suggested that the matter be dealt with by mediation rather than litigation. It was more a tactical ploy to delay the procedure rather than any genuine commitment on his part to restore the relationship with his workers; if the latter had been the case, the farmer would have never resorted to this type of action. LHR therefore felt it had no alternative but to reject the option of mediation. They now had to set out their motivation for this decision to the court, and wanted my help in ensuring that their report used conflict resolution terminology appropriately and that due reference was made to alternative dispute resolution. We spent that evening formulating arguments explaining the preference for a rights-based approach instead of an interest-based approach in this case.

While there are situations in other parts of the world which are far more serious and complex in terms of human rights, the case highlights some issues that are relevant in the context of dealing with conflict, human rights, violence, and peacemaking. South Africa is a country that is supposedly at peace since the demise of apartheid in 1994. It is, however, a peace that should be qualified along Galtung's distinction between positive and negative peace. As he observed, conflict and violence can be present in a country at peace, since they can be manifested in structural, as well as direct, forms. Physical violence between political opponents has largely ceased in the country since the democratic transition in 1994, but conditions for political equality, and, especially, socio-economic justice are lacking in present-day South Africa. Since 1994, the rights that have been realized in South Africa are primarily of a civil and political nature. Social and economic rights have not become a reality as yet; the distribution of wealth, economic resources and opportunities is still highly uneven.

This case highlights the importance of considering the fields of human rights and conflict management in conjunction with one another. Traditionally, people in both fields have operated separately. Human rights actors tend to adopt a legal perspective that emphasizes the importance of justice, focuses on relevant standards and instruments, and judges events and parties by the extent to which they uphold or violate those standards. Wars in Africa and elsewhere have shown that this has its limitations when it comes to the management and resolution of conflict. Yet it has also become clear that conflict resolution is limited in impact and sustainability when undertaken without due consideration of human rights concerns. The relationship between conflict and human rights is both short-term and long-term in nature. In the short term, violent and destructive conflict can lead to human rights violations. In the long term, a sustained denial of human rights can lead to conflict as fundamental needs of human beings are frustrated. The protection of rights is therefore of the utmost importance if we are to deal with conflict in an effective, constructive, and sustainable manner. This direct relationship between rights and conflict is generally under-explored in theory and practice.

As far as attention is devoted to such connections, emphasis is placed on the tensions that exist between the fields of human rights and conflict management. Well-known, for example, is the ‘peace vs justice' debate as it has unfolded in various contexts, such as Bosnia, South Africa, or Sierra Leone. In situations where gross and massive human rights violations are committed during armed conflict, which of the two is the higher goal, peace or justice? Should we pursue justice in order to hold perpetrators accountable and restore the rule of law, or should we focus on the cessation of violence and the resolution of the conflict, even if that means that we may have to negotiate with the very people who are responsible for atrocities? Other tensions relate to the question of whether one favors an adversarial approach or a co-operative approach in redressing grievances, and to the extent to which human rights concerns are raised as issues to a dispute or are reframed. Tensions can also arise from the roles that actors in either field play in times of conflict. Human rights actors are geared towards advocacy, whereas conflict management practitioners generally play a more facilitative role. Human rights actors are not neutral when issues of rights and justice are involved, whereas conflict management practitioners carefully guard their impartiality in order to ensure their acceptability to all parties in conflict.

Given these tensions, should we refrain from exploring the links between human rights and conflict management? No! There is all the more reason for us to look at these fields in conjunction with one another. Human rights actors and conflict management practitioners have a common interest in promoting sustainable peace. They also often operate in the same system of conflict, and activities by people in the one field can impact on efforts by actors in the other field. For example, denouncing a certain party as violating human rights may well prompt that party to withdraw from negotiations. Fortunately, there is a growing awareness internationally that justice and peace are inextricably linked. At the same time, a growing number of individuals and organizations in the fields of human rights and conflict management realize the need to acquire more knowledge about the other field. Conflict is inevitable, a part of life – it exists at home with our families, in our work environment, and in the interaction with the wider community. By the same token, human rights are not just legal regulations – they exist in all spheres of life, ranging from the political, to the social, cultural, and economic, and from the personal level to the group and international level. We therefore must explore how actors can strengthen activities in their own field with insights and methods from the other field.

How does this work in practice? In the South African context, there are certain limitations to the use of the judicial system for safeguarding human rights. Courts are overburdened, there are few lawyers who want to take on human rights cases because those generally do not pay, and litigation often takes more time and money than people can afford. In short, access to the judicial system is limited for many South Africans. What other ways then exist for protecting rights? It is not just a matter of educating people about their rights. In fact, such education can be counter-productive in that people become aware of all the rights they have which are, however, hardly realized. Human rights education can then increase the potential for conflict; indeed, many conflicts these days, especially in the townships, relate to developmental issues. In light of this, there is a growing awareness that some conflicts over rights issues may be better dealt with through mediation, negotiation and problem-solving, especially when relationships between individuals or parties are at stake.

With the Human Rights and Conflict Management Programme, therefore, we have started working with people in the human rights field to train them in conflict resolution skills that can help them convey the importance of upholding rights in the context in which they operate. To take the case I mentioned earlier, how does a human rights fieldworker communicate with the farmer so that he understands that respecting the rights of his workers is in his interest? How can the importance of rights be advocated to police officers in a way that speaks to their interests and does not make them defensive?

We have also been approached by human rights institutions that are, due to their standing in their communities, called upon to intervene in conflicts, but lack the skills to do so. It is not really a matter of advocating that rights are negotiable – it relates more to a question of how rights are presented and to considering what approach is most suitable. In our view, litigation and mediation can be seen as alternatives on a spectrum of ways to resolve conflict. One is not necessarily better than the other, nor does a concern with rights necessarily exclude taking the interests of parties into account and vice versa. There are different approaches to conflict, some of which are based on rights, others on the use of power, or on the interests of parties. Each has advantages and disadvantages, and in every case an assessment has to be made as to which approach is most appropriate given the circumstances.

As much as human rights actors can benefit from conflict resolution skills, conflict management initiatives can be strengthened by human rights awareness. Conflict resolution must take place within certain defined legal parameters, in which rights are recognised as non-negotiables. Conflict management practitioners should therefore know what rights and standards are relevant to the context in which they operate. They must also understand how a denial of rights can cause conflict and how complying with human rights standards can address structural causes of conflict. If, in certain instances, negotiation processes result in outcomes that go against justice – for example, the amnesty in South Africa for politically motivated crimes committed during apartheid - then such outcomes can only be legitimate when they are based on a careful consideration of the interests of all parties and balance competing interests.

The relationships between conflict management and human rights apply beyond the grassroots level to the more senior governmental level. At the grassroots, the issues that arise are predominantly of a practical nature, and they can often be addressed through basic training in conflict resolution skills and human rights awareness. On a senior level, questions relating to human rights and conflict management are more policy-oriented. There, the need is more to gain a conceptual understanding of the issues concerned, grapple with them, and look at the policy implications.

This is not to argue that the two fields should or could be merged; the tensions between them indicate that there are compelling reasons for keeping human rights and conflict management separate to some extent. In those cases, however, such tensions can be dealt with better if actors in the human rights and conflict management field have some insight into the other's field of expertise.

To me, it is very exciting and innovative work that CCR is undertaking. It has been a great opportunity to combine my interests in both conflict management and human rights, and it is wonderful to deal with rights in a more positive manner than solely focussing on gross human rights violations. Of course, non-governmental organizations have their limitations in peace-making and the management of destructive conflict – they generally hold no power over parties and cannot ‘fix' the situation. As such, they are not really in the business of delivering hard ‘products.' Yet, NGOs can facilitate processes and can assist in the development of local capacity to resolve and prevent conflict. And, through linking human rights and conflict management, they can also work towards addressing structural causes of conflict and building relationships between parties. Experiences with intra-state conflict in Africa indicate that both should be taken into account, if we are to deal with conflict in an effective and sustainable manner.

My degree at the Kroc Institute has certainly helped me to grapple with these issues and to understand where I want to focus my energies. Our partnership with the Lawyers for Human Rights has taken off so well in part because both the regional manager of that organization and its national director are also former graduates of Notre Dame. At the time that I did my M.A. in International Peace Studies, both were pursuing degrees at the Center for Civil and Human Rights. In other words, both the Kroc program and Notre Dame connections can direct people in real issues of violence and conflict. We may have been academically-oriented at times, but we did not hide behind stale concepts. And for that contribution, Father Hesburgh, I thank you.

Top of Page

Home > Alumni > In the Company of Peacemakers