Chapter 5: International Conflict and War- Wakanda Forever?

5.3: Theories of Conflict Resolution

Are wars and conflicts inevitable, or is there something we can do to stop them? Theories of conflict resolution provide frameworks for ending disputes and building pathways to peace. From direct negotiations to international interventions, these strategies aim to reduce violence and address the underlying causes of conflict. In practice, conflict resolution is rarely simple—it involves balancing the interests of opposing parties, navigating power dynamics, and, in many cases, addressing longstanding grievances. The film Black Panther illustrates these complexities as Wakanda faces not only internal discord but also the responsibility of engaging in global conflict resolution. By examining interventionism, negotiation, mediation, and other approaches to peace, we can explore the tools that nations and organizations use to resolve conflicts in ways that are both practical and just.

Sometimes, stopping a conflict requires stepping in, whether invited or not. Interventionism is a foreign policy approach where a state actively engages in another country’s affairs, often to stabilize conflicts or achieve strategic, humanitarian, or ideological goals. In Black Panther, Killmonger’s interventionist philosophy drives much of the narrative conflict. He seeks to use Wakanda’s vibranium to arm oppressed people globally, aiming to topple unjust systems of power. While his methods are aggressive, his ideology raises a central question of interventionism: when is it right for a nation to interfere in the affairs of another? Remember that the current global system of nation-states was built on the concept of sovereignty—the principle that each state has authority over its own territory and domestic affairs without external interference. From this perspective, intervention can be seen as a violation of that foundational norm, no matter how well-intentioned. Historically, interventionism has been controversial. NATO’s intervention in Kosovo in 1999 aimed to prevent ethnic cleansing, but critics questioned the legitimacy of acting without UN authorization. Similarly, U.S. interventions in Iraq and Afghanistan illustrate how interventionism can provoke backlash and unintended consequences. In Wakanda’s case, T’Challa ultimately rejects Killmonger’s aggressive approach but adopts a more measured form of intervention, choosing to engage globally through diplomacy and aid. While interventionism can set the stage for peace, achieving resolution often requires direct dialogue between conflicting parties. In the realm of resolving conflicts peacefully, there are a few major approaches: negotiation, meditation, and arbitration.

Though negotiation, mediation, and arbitration all aim to resolve conflicts peacefully, each method is distinct in how it operates. Negotiation involves direct dialogue between parties without outside help, relying on mutual compromise. Mediation adds a neutral third party to guide the discussion, but the final decision still rests with the disputing sides. Arbitration, on the other hand, places authority in the hands of a third party who delivers a binding ruling. While they may seem similar at a glance, each approach reflects a different level of formality, outside involvement, and control over the outcome.

Even in the midst of deep conflict, sometimes the most powerful tool isn’t force—it’s a conversation. Negotiation is one of the most fundamental tools of conflict resolution, offering a direct and peaceful means for conflicting parties to resolve their differences. It involves face-to-face (or backchannel) dialogue where each side represents its own interests and works toward a mutually acceptable agreement. This process can produce a range of outcomes, from formal peace treaties and trade deals to ceasefires and political compromises. Crucially, negotiation respects the agency of each party—there’s no external decision-maker imposing terms—which makes it especially valuable when sovereignty and national pride are at stake. One of the most notable examples of successful negotiation in modern international relations is the Camp David Accords of 1978, where U.S. President Jimmy Carter facilitated direct talks between Egyptian President Anwar Sadat and Israeli Prime Minister Menachem Begin. Despite decades of hostility and the recent memory of war, the negotiations produced a historic peace agreement that remains in effect today. However, negotiation is far from a guaranteed solution. Power imbalances, deep-seated mistrust, or ongoing violence can make meaningful dialogue difficult, if not impossible. In such cases, negotiations may stall or break down entirely, particularly when one or both parties refuse to recognize the legitimacy of the other. Additionally, even when agreements are reached, the implementation phase can reignite tensions if expectations aren’t met or if underlying grievances are left unresolved. For negotiation to succeed, both sides must be willing not only to talk, but to compromise—an often difficult demand in the context of war, ideology, or national trauma. When these conditions are absent, third-party assistance in the form of mediation may become essential to help bridge divides, rebuild trust, and guide disputants back to the table.

Sometimes, even the fiercest rivals just need a diplomatic referee to keep the peace and keep the conversation going. Mediation offers an alternative approach to conflict resolution by introducing a neutral third party who facilitates communication between the opposing sides. Unlike negotiation, where parties engage directly and advocate for their own interests, mediation brings in someone who can help manage emotions, clarify misunderstandings, and keep the dialogue productive—without forcing a decision on anyone. The mediator’s role is not to dictate terms but to create a space where compromise becomes possible. Mediation has been a vital tool in resolving real-world conflicts, especially when direct communication is strained or has completely broken down. One notable example is Norway’s behind-the-scenes work in the Oslo Accords during the 1990s, where it helped foster secret talks between Israeli and Palestinian representatives—despite decades of hostility—leading to a breakthrough in Middle East peace efforts. By acting discreetly and impartially, the Norwegian mediators enabled both sides to engage in honest dialogue they might not have attempted publicly. Mediation can be particularly effective in de-escalating tensions, building trust, and laying the groundwork for long-term solutions. However, when the relationship between parties is so fractured that even facilitated dialogue fails, mediation might no longer be enough—opening the door for more formal and binding approaches like arbitration.

When arguments get too heated for negotiation and too stuck for mediation, sometimes the only solution is to call in the judge. Arbitration takes a more formal approach to conflict resolution by appointing a neutral third party—or panel—to hear both sides of a dispute and render a binding decision based on established legal principles or international law. Unlike mediation, where the goal is cooperation and compromise, arbitration is about reaching a definitive ruling that the parties have agreed in advance to accept. This makes arbitration less flexible but far more authoritative, offering clear and enforceable outcomes—especially useful when long-standing disputes require legal clarity. In Black Panther, tThe ritual combat challenge for the throne functions as a kind of traditional arbitration system—a binding dispute resolution mechanism based on Wakandan custom and law. It is a formal, rule-governed process to resolve disputes over leadership legitimacy. The outcome is binding and recognized by all tribes, even if it leads to political crisis when Killmonger takes the throne. While obviously more cinematic and less Geneva Convention-compliant, it’s a stylized example of arbitration: a neutral arena, a clear decision, and pre-agreed acceptance of the result (well… mostly). Arbitration has also played a central role in resolving sensitive international issues, such as the maritime boundary dispute between Chile and Peru, which was settled by the International Court of Justice (ICJ). In that case, both nations committed to abiding by the ICJ’s ruling, demonstrating how arbitration can bring closure to contentious, high-stakes disagreements without military conflict. Arbitration is especially valuable when states or international organizations need certainty and a clear path forward, such as in trade disagreements, investment disputes, or boundary claims. However, the system’s strength still relies on political will; if one party refuses to recognize or enforce the decision, even the best arbitration can falter. And even when legal disputes are resolved, the long-term maintenance of peace often depends on diplomacy, cooperation, and sometimes, the visible presence of peacekeeping forces to ensure stability holds.

Methods of Conflict Resolution

Just because the shooting stops doesn’t mean the story is over—sometimes, keeping the peace is harder than making it in the first place. Even if a peaceful resolution is reached between opposing groups, that peace is often tenuous at best, and outside forces are frequently needed to stabilize the situation. Peacekeeping refers to the deployment of neutral forces—usually under the umbrella of international organizations like the United Nations—to help maintain peace after a ceasefire, during fragile political transitions, or in the immediate aftermath of a conflict. These missions are not about waging war, but about monitoring agreements, preventing renewed violence, protecting civilians, and assisting in rebuilding institutions. A notable example is the UN mission in Sierra Leone, where peacekeepers played a critical role in ending a brutal civil war, overseeing disarmament, and supporting the reintegration of former combatants back into society. Peacekeeping operations often serve as both physical deterrents to violence and symbolic commitments to a more stable future. However, blue helmets alone can’t solve the deeper issues that drive conflict. Successful peacekeeping requires more than troops—it demands trust-building, community engagement, and persistent diplomatic efforts. That’s where Track II diplomacy comes into play: informal, behind-the-scenes dialogue carried out by NGOs, civil society actors, and academics who work to heal social wounds, mediate tensions at the grassroots level, and lay the groundwork for lasting reconciliation.

Not all diplomacy happens in grand halls or at high-profile summits—sometimes, the most important breakthroughs are made over coffee, in quiet rooms, by people without titles or flags. Track II diplomacy refers to these unofficial, informal efforts to resolve conflict, often led by academics, religious leaders, community organizers, NGOs, or other members of civil society. While they may lack formal power, these actors bring a different kind of influence: the ability to build trust, bridge cultural divides, and foster dialogue in ways that traditional diplomats often can’t. Track II efforts often work in parallel with official (Track I) negotiations, helping to ease tensions behind the scenes and explore creative solutions without the political risks that come with formal positions. A powerful example is the role of clergy, educators, and scholars during the Northern Ireland conflict, who helped facilitate conversations between Catholic and Protestant communities long before the Good Friday Agreement was signed in 1998. These efforts didn’t make headlines, but they softened hardened attitudes and laid the emotional groundwork for formal agreements to take hold. Track II diplomacy is particularly effective at tackling identity-based conflicts, where hurt, mistrust, and historical grievances run deep. By combining the authority of Track I diplomacy with the empathy and flexibility of Track II engagement, peace processes become more inclusive, adaptive, and—crucially—more likely to stick in the long term.

By examining interventionism, negotiation, mediation, arbitration, peacekeeping, and Track II diplomacy, we see how diverse strategies contribute to conflict resolution. Each approach has its strengths and limitations, and in many cases, they must be used in combination to address the multifaceted nature of war and disputes. Through the lens of Black Panther, these tools come to life, showing us how leadership, cooperation, and creativity can build pathways to peace in both fictional and real-world conflicts.