release № /

UDC 316.48(075.8)

BBK 88.53ya73

MODERN THEORIES OF CONFLICT RESOLUTION INSTITUTIONS IN FOREIGN SCIENCE

Korablin Andrey Vladimirovich

St. Petersburg State University (1992)

Abstract: The article examines modern foreign theories of conflict resolution institutions, reflecting the evolution of scientific ideas about the nature of conflicts and ways of their settlement. Based on the analysis of classical and modern concepts, the key stages of the formation of conflictology as an independent discipline are identified and the approaches of leading foreign thinkers — Talcott Parsons, Ralph Dahrendorf, Jan Tinbergen, Louis Kriesberg and Johan Galtung — are revealed. Modern conflict theory has been formed as a multi-paradigm system in which sociological, psychological and political approaches interact. Particular attention is paid to the role of international institutions (UN, OSCE, etc.) in maintaining global security and the need to reform them, taking into account the new challenges of the 21st century. It is concluded that conflicts are an integral part of public life, and the task of institutions is not to eliminate, but to constructively transform contradictions in the name of sustainable development and peace.

Keywords: conflictology; conflict resolution institute; international organizations; Parsons; Dahrendorf; Tinbergen; Kriesberg; Galtung; structural functionalism; conflict theory; peacemaking.

MODERN THEORIES OF CONFLICT RESOLUTION INSTITUTIONS IN FOREIGN SCIENCE

Korablin Andrey Vladimirovych

Saint-Petersburg State University (1992)

Abstract: The article analyzes modern foreign theories of conflict-resolution institutions, tracing the evolution of academic approaches to the nature and management of social conflicts. Based on a review of classical and contemporary concepts, the author outlines the main stages in the development of conflict studies as an independent discipline and examines the ideas of T. Parsons, R. Dahrendorf, J. Tinbergen, L. Kriesberg, and J. Galtung. The study demonstrates that modern conflict theory has evolved into a multiparadigmatic system combining sociological, psychological, and political perspectives. Particular attention is given to the role of international organizations (UN, OSCE, etc.) in maintaining global security and the need for their reform in response to 21st-century challenges. The article concludes that conflict is an inherent feature of social life, and the purpose of conflict-resolution institutions is not to eradicate it but to transform contradictions constructively in pursuit of sustainable peace.

Keywords: conflict studies; conflict-resolution institutions; international organizations; Parsons; Dahrendorf; Tinbergen; Kriesberg; Galtung; structural functionalism; conflict theory; peacebuilding.

INTRODUCTION

Since ancient times, mankind has known military and peaceful methods of conflict resolution, which are often opposed to each other. This is not surprising, because these concepts are antagonists in their fundamental essence. At the same time, throughout human history, they have complemented each other, forming an amazing unity – a war can end with a peace treaty, and vice versa – peace treaties are often violated in the course of hostilities.

The greatest thinkers have long nurtured the idea of creating a global structure capable of preventing wars and resolving conflicts. Due to the accelerating development of military-strategic, economic and political factors, the most important instrument for conflict resolution – the United Nations (UN) – was formed in the twentieth century (It is not difficult to make sure of this – it is enough just to read the daily news). This indicates the inadequacy of efforts and the low efficiency of conflict resolution[1]. There is no doubt that the Organization needs reforms in accordance with the new conditions of reality. The formation of a system for countering the threats of the 21st century (escalation of conflicts, terrorism, surging regional confrontations, drug trafficking, arms proliferation, etc.) is one of the most important tasks that the new century has set for the institutions of conflict resolution.

The theoretical and methodological scientific base provides tools and paves the way for the successful implementation of the urgent goals of conflict resolution, therefore the analysis of both previously accumulated knowledge underlying the research of conflict resolution, and the development of new scientific areas is of great importance. Extensive theoretical and practical developments in this area are presented in foreign scientific thought, which explains the relevance of chosen research topic: “Modern Theories of Conflict Resolution Institutions in Foreign Science”. The purpose of this article is to review modern theories of conflict resolution institutions in foreign science, to analyze the features of these theories and their prospects.

The object is the theories of modern conflict resolution institutions in foreign science.

The subject is the study of theories of conflict resolution by modern foreign thinkers.

In accordance with the goal, the objectives of the article are defined :

1. Study of the theoretical foundations of conflict resolution, their historical evolution, the formation of social institutions and, in particular, the institution of conflict resolution.

2. Study of the concepts of conflict resolution of foreign thinkers of the current era. Their influence on the activities of modern institutions.

3. Analysis of the features of the theories of conflict resolution of modern foreign scientists, identification of their strengths and weaknesses, prospects.

The goals and objectives of the study determined the structure of the article, which consists of an introduction, two chapters, a conclusion containing conclusions based on the results of the study and a list of sources used. The first chapter considers brief theoretical information about conflict resolution, the concept of institutionalization, social institutions, as well as their varieties – institutions of conflict resolution more detailed studies of some of the brightest concepts of representatives of the scientific community. When writing the article, the author uses the theoretical method of analyzing literary sources, electronic resources (with subsequent data synthesis), and, applying an interdisciplinary approach, considers the author’s opinions and research from Internet sources.

Chapter 1. Conflictology, conflict resolution, institutionalization of conflict resolution mechanisms

1.1 Basic concepts of conflictology. The role of modern history in the process of the emergence of conflictology and the formation of social institutionalization.

Conflictology is a relatively young field of science, nevertheless, it has deep and ancient origins. The emergence of conflictology, as an independent discipline, is largely provoked by the aggravation of social conflicts in modern society and, accordingly, the direct threat to the existence of humanity.

The last little more than a hundred years have turned out to be extremely rich in wars of global and regional scale, wars with huge bloody losses. Millions of human lives have become sacrifices sacrificed on the altar of the gods of war. None of the fallen writers, alas, will be able to create an outstanding story, a musician will not compose a magical melody, a great mathematical law will not be discovered, a new philosopher will not endow his wisdom with his wisdom… The great Albert Einstein said, “We must demand a fundamentally new way of thinking if humanity is to survive.”[2] Therefore, the most important goal of conflictology is the practice of peaceful conflict resolution, as well as the prevention and prevention of conflict situations.

The redrawing of the political map of the world, which was especially active in the second half of the 20th century and implied radical changes in the structure and status of many countries, led to a surge in institutionalization, namely, the emergence of new participants in the system of international relations and relations.

Institutionalization is the process of ordering and formalizing social relations. In addition, there is the concept of “institutionalism” – a direction of research that considers the organization of society as a complex of civil associations (institutions). Institutionalism includes the analysis of institutions and external factors, not limited only to categories and processes, and contains two related concepts – “institutions” (norms and the usual way of social behavior) and “Institutions”. The second means the consolidation of norms in the form of legislation, institutions or organizations.

The concept of “institution”, which once served only jurisprudence, has been used by sociological theory since the end of the nineteenth century. In the present context, this term implies stable connections and relationships of social subjects in society, which play the role of its peculiar archetypes, ensuring its stability and constant reproduction.[3] One of the significant moments in the development of mankind was the creation of social institutions for conflict resolution, which made it possible to significantly limit violence and, in many cases, restrain the occurrence of bloodshed.

The process of institutionalization includes several successive stages (from the emergence of a specific social need, the satisfaction of which requires organized joint actions, to a fully formed institutional structure), the result of these stages is the creation of a clear structured organization that meets the norms of the majority of participants in this process. Thus, institutionalization makes it possible to build a verified status-role structure of society, increasing its organization and efficiency of control over the quality of life. The social institution itself is the guarantor and symbol of order in society. Institutions of conflict resolution are formed on the basis of a certain type of significant needs of social subjects and serve to satisfy these needs. This issue will be discussed in detail in the next part of this chapter.

1.2 The institution of conflict resolution as a type of social institution. The essence of the concept, classification and functions.

As mentioned above, a social institution has a clear structure. This structure includes the following elements:

  • Goals and objectives;
  • Normatively formalized roles and statuses;
  • General and specific functions;
  • Methods and means of functional activity necessary for the implementation of goals and objectives;

In turn, structural elements are divided into general (for all social institutions) and specific. The latter are inherent in each of them separately and imply the individual features of each social institution. Such specific features that distinguish them from other institutions are possessed by social institutions of conflict resolution.

In order to proceed directly to the above-mentioned concept, it is necessary to briefly consider what a conflict is and, as a particularity, a social conflict. Based on the axiom that defines conflict as an indispensable attribute of social relations of human society, the methodological term of social conflict can be presented as follows: social conflict is a process of opposition of subjects aimed at resolving contradictions according to the interests and goals of each of the parties.[4]

It is believed that any social conflict consists of three obligatory components: the presence of several parties to the conflict (social subjects), the implementation of opposition by the parties to the conflict and, finally, the possibility of assessing the resistance of the parties to the conflict by an external observer.

The criterion for resolving a conflict can be considered the satisfaction of the subjects with its outcome. There are four main forms of conflict resolution: violent (war and revolution), adversarial (investigations, courts), conciliation (mediation and negotiations) and mixed (arbitration, mediation).[5]

In conflict resolution, methodologies are used, which are divided into “preventive technologies” and “technologies for resolving and resolving conflicts”. The former include the institutionalization of conflict, partnership, diagnostic analysis, and the establishment and strengthening of cooperation. Conflict resolution technologies are negotiations, arbitration, mediation, frustration, pressure, independent examinations, etc. Researchers in the field of conflict resolution come to a consensus that different methods of conflict resolution have an unequal degree of effectiveness in relation to the stages of conflicts.

Conflict, as mentioned above, is a constant component of human relations, but it is necessary and important to foresee and prevent it, and, if it exists, to manage and regulate it, minimizing the negative consequences for human society. It is to serve such goals that the institution of conflict resolution is intended. Its specificity lies in the fact that according to the functions that involve the prevention, regulation and resolution of social conflicts, the institutions of conflict resolution cannot be limited only to these aspects of this function. They are also obliged to carry out preventive activities and prevent conflicts, in order to avoid the need to create separate “conflict-preventing” institutions with their own mechanisms. Therefore, it can be said that the activities of conflict resolution institutions are mainly aimed at ensuring the stable, sustainable and safe existence of individuals, social groups and the human community as a whole.[6]

Conflict resolution institutions, like other social institutions, have a certain classification. One of the classifying criteria is the number of functions performed by the institution: one main function determines the monofunctionality of the institution, and, accordingly, institutions that perform numerous social functions are called multifunctional. In addition, institutions can be formal and informal, as well as classified depending on the level of conflict manifestation. The latter can be international and international, have different scales (micro, meso, and macro). According to political characteristics, conflicts are divided into internal political and interstate. The latter occupy a special position in the system of conflict resolution, based on the scale and potential threat. As a rule, institutions combine several classification criteria. For example, the state is one of the most important institutions of conflict resolution, which can combine institutions of a smaller caliber, and is an integrative multifunctional political institution.

At the moment, there are about 4000 international organizations in the world (300 interstate, the rest are non-governmental or mixed). All organizations are ranked in descending order of scale, number of functions, and specialization as follows:

  • International multifunctional institutions of planetary scale of general competence (UN, NATO, APEC). From the informal ones – the Big Eight.
  • Planetary multifunctional specialized macro-organizations, i.e. institutions that perform one important function, economic, financial, humanitarian, both conflict prevention and resolution. Economic organizations include: IMF, OPEC, IEMSU. Humanitarian institutions include UNESCO, ICRC, GREENPEACE, IOC.
  • Regional multifunctional international macro-political institutions with common competence and resolving issues of conflict resolution among other tasks: the EU, CIS, OAU
  • International monofunctional institutions of conflict resolution (Interpol, the International Anti-Terrorist Center, resolving conflicts with the use of repressive measures).

The rapid political and economic integration of the world is developing the negotiation mechanism and its institutionalization, which is reflected in the growing creation of such negotiating forums as the CSCE, which later transformed into the OSCE, and the large-scale use of international organizations (for example, the UN) to resolve conflict situations.

1.3 A brief evolution of the basic concepts that formed the basis for modern research

Despite the fact that the term “conflict” formulated by science appears only in the second half of the twentieth century, wars and interstate conflicts have been studied for a long time. Ancient historians have left us a lot of scientific works containing initial ideas about conflict (Herodotus and his idea of military confrontation, Thucydides, Xenophon, Heraclitus with the doctrine of “logos”, the opposition of being and non-being among the Eleatic, etc.). The classical period of antiquity introduced the concept of “agon”, which implies conflict, but is not a complete synonym for it. “Agon” is chaos, the destruction of the cosmic integral system of perceiving the world, opposition to order – precisely opposition, not collision. The cosmos and the “agon” exist simultaneously, but they do not mix, just as a ray of sunlight cannot mix with the shadow surrounding it.

The Middle Ages present a somewhat different picture – now the agonal principle lies in man, it is he who is the violator of the “Divine order”. “Agon” becomes a clash, a conflict between the Cosmos and the sinful Earth. People are a battlefield whose goal is the human soul. The medieval concept of conflict, in the context of the theological worldview, is abstract and not filled with any social content. Conflict “is a necessary evil that leaves the need to trust in the mercy of God,” Tertullian said many hundreds of years ago.

Another medieval thinker, Aurelius Augustine, understands conflict as “a sign of the wretchedness of the created world, generated as a result of man’s love for himself and contempt for God.”[7] Therefore, in this philosophy, the guarantee of non-conflict is the striving of the Earthly State (filled with sins and conflicts) to the Heavenly State by performing “human deeds”. Thomas Aquinas continues the development of this philosophy, but his State is not the bearer of the evil principle, it is an institution for resolving contradictions that are allowed by God. but still with the same good.

Medieval scholasticism was eroded under the onslaught of the Renaissance and the Enlightenment. The world is changing rapidly, dissolving the remnants of feudalism and giving rise to a new type of relations – bourgeois. The French Enlightenment gave society an understanding of the possibilities of science and knowledge, optimistic prospects for comprehending the truth, and the conviction that the liberation of society from evil and the construction of equality and fraternity lay through science.

The XVIII century came, the upheavals associated with bourgeois revolutions broke the traditional structures of social relations. The emergence of new technologies based on the use of steam and electricity, scientific methods of improving these technologies, caused a higher rate of technological renewal, which in turn affected the social structure of society. social conflict is a conflict between labor and capital. Accordingly, the resolution, or at least mitigation, of this conflict is the main task of the institution of conflict resolution in such a society. In addition, the rapid destruction of local communities that have been formed over the centuries places the individual in a “large society”, a person loses self-identification – the number of intrapersonal conflicts increases. Religion, as an institution of conflict resolution, is no longer able to solve urgent problems. For an industrial society of the capitalist type, the institutionalization of relations between employers and employees becomes the main institution. All these changes are reflected in the theories of a galaxy of contemporary thinkers.

The revolutionary epoch of the eighteenth century gave rise to Hegel’s philosophy and his theory of Civil Society. This is an important milestone for the development of subsequent theories of conflict resolution, since Hegel’s Civil Society already has some interrelated specific features of the institution of conflict resolution, namely:

  • Within the framework of civil society, all parties to the conflict are initially equal;
  • The field of conflict is open, which allows the inclusion of third-party interests;
  • The principles of cooperation are considered as the basis of interaction.

The philosopher and sociologist Herbert Spencer (1820-1903) introduced the concept of a social institution (more precisely, a “social institution”) as a stable form of life activity and social interaction of individuals and social groups to satisfy basic needs.[8] The scientist described six types of social institutions, linking their functioning with “ensuring the regularity and reliability of the process of satisfying especially significant and enduring needs of people.[9] Later, the American Thorstein Veblen (1857-1929) proposed the concept of “social institution” with an emphasis on normativity, while according to Spencer it is primarily functionality.

Starting from the middle of the century before last, the theory of social-class conflict – the sociology of Marxism – was formed. The life of society is considered primarily through the prism of uneven distribution of material wealth, social inequality, which provokes various forms of class struggle. K. Marx (1818-1883) sees the main way of conflict resolution in the social revolution and the creation of a conflict-free communist society with equal opportunities for each member of society.

Continuing the traditions of Spencer, the development of social institutions was carried out by Georg Simmel (1858-1918), who defined the inevitability of conflicts as inherent in the natural human aggressive nature, the manifestations of which should be limited by social norms. The scientist considers the conflict as a kind of “safety valve”, concentrates on its positive functions, but does not deny the negative aspects and consequences. Simmel concludes that stable social institutions are capable of coping with internal conflicts.

The German sociologist Max Weber (1864-1920) focuses on the conflict of material and spiritual interests. The complication of the social structure of society leads to changes in the political system, complicating it by the division of power functions, which in turn determines a developed bureaucratic system. The scientist considers the bureaucracy that has developed in society to be one of the main sources of conflicts. The bureaucracy, which realizes its interests through the state system, becomes a source of arbitrariness that provokes conflicts.[10]

The famous sociologist and philosopher Emile Durkheim (1858-1917) formulates the functions of social institutions as “factories for the reproduction of social relationships” that ensure social stability, since they consolidate the rules of social interactions, dictate the norms of social relations and legitimize social inequality. According to Durkheim, social upheavals in society can give rise to both a moral crisis and an increase in the cohesion of society, a patriotic upsurge (for example, during the war). This thinker is the author of a very vivid saying: “… The remedy for evil is not to try at all costs to resurrect traditions and customs which, if no longer suited to present social conditions, can only live an artificial and apparent life. What is needed is to put an end to anomie, to find ways to force the harmonious cooperation of the organs that still clash in disorderly movements, to bring more justice into their relations, further weakening the source of evil – various kinds of external inequality”.[11] The scientist considered the creation of a “new morality” in which all people form a single society subject to uniform laws. He saw the regulation of conflicts as the main component of the “new morality”.

Thus, summarizing the first chapter of this article, it can be noted that by the beginning of the second decade of the twentieth century, conflict was recognized as a permanent property of reality. Conflict is considered both as a negative and as a positive, creative factor in the development of social life. Then the League of Nations was created, which later transformed into the UN. In addition, the concepts and questions that have formed a fertile field for the cultivation of scientific fruits by the next generations of researchers of conflictological science, whose theories will be considered in the second chapter of the article, are formulated.

Chapter 2. Modern theories of conflict resolution institutions in foreign science.

2.1 General Characteristics of the Existing Directions of Modern Concepts of Conflict Resolution Institutions.

Theoretical understanding of conflicts and conflict resolution is a multidisciplinary concept that combines the accumulated knowledge within the framework of many sciences (about 16), including the main sociological, psychological, and political science areas. Political science includes theories of political groups, political stability, and ethnopolitical theory. The beginning of the twentieth century was marked by the emergence of game theory as a science capable of giving instructions for behavior in various situations and modeling military actions.

It is believed that the palm of the main directions in the development of Russian conflictology belongs to psychology, while sociologists are in the lead in Western conflictology. In accordance with the purpose of this work, we will consider in more detail the sociological direction of foreign theory, which includes: social Darwinism, Marxism, functional theory of conflict, structural functionalism, the theory of positive-functional conflict, the conflict model of society and, finally, the general theory of conflict, which states that “conflict is a universal phenomenon inherent in all living things, it cannot be avoided, but it can be regulated.”[12]

The foreign history of the study of conflict in the mainstream of sociology distinguishes three main stages:

  • the second half of the nineteenth century – social Darwinism (H. Spencer and others), which describes the manifestations of social struggle in the clash of interests, and the theory of Marx. The latter considers class conflict, but without a theoretical analysis of the diversity of its behavioral forms.
  • the first half of the twentieth century – Simmel’s functional theory of conflict and Parsons’ structural functionalism, which set themselves the task of effective conflict resolution in organizations and in production. At the same time, Parsons assesses conflict as an exclusively negative process that hinders social development.
  • the second half of the twentieth century – the theory of positive-functional conflict (L. Koser), the conflict model of society (R. Dahrendorf), the general (universal) theory of conflict (Boulding, L. Kriesberg), which considers conflict as a universal category inherent in the whole world, serving as an analytical basis for any processes.

The first, and partly the second periods, were considered in the first part of this chapter of this study, so we can move on to the modern stage of the formation of theories of conflict resolution institutions.

The nineteenth and twentieth centuries are characterized by a general increase in conflictocity, the growth of social conflicts, with the transition to state and inter-class conflicts. The established classical traditions of scientific knowledge turned out to be incapable of explaining what was happening and ensuring the structure of a harmonious surrounding world. The most acute social questions remained unanswered, which is why, in contrast to the classical, critical philosophy appeared.

In the 1920s and 1950s, as a result of the growing interest in methods of conflict resolution and conflict prevention, applied conflictology developed. The clearest social theory of structural functionalism, the concept of “social equilibrium” by Talcott Parsons,[13] was formed. His functionalist conflict-free model of society, popular in the 1930s and 1940s, will be considered in more detail in the next part of this chapter. A similar theoretical model was held by such magnitudes of scientific thought as R. Park, F. Znanetsky, Pitirim Sorokin (Parsons’ teacher), R. Merton. However, Merton, unlike Parsons, considers social institutions as a dual factor capable of both stabilizing and destabilizing the social system.[14]

The second half of the twentieth century – more and more countries are moving into a post-industrial society; industrial enterprises are losing ground to enterprises producing services. Engineering, technical, managerial and humanitarian directions came to the fore, pushing the conflict between the bourgeoisie and the proletarians to the margins. This period is characterized by the presence of protection institutions, high organization and adherence to the letter of the law. Conflict regulation is carried out in circumstances where each of its subjects must recognize the conflict nature of the situation, while retaining the right to defend their position. At the same time, the organization of the parties makes it easier to reach a consensus.

Finally, the 1950s gave rise to the first modern conflictological concepts. The German American sociologist, Lewis Alfred Coser (1913-2003), is a representative of the following sociological paradigm – “Conflict Theory”. He opposes Parson’s theory with his “idea of dynamic change”. In 1956, the scientist’s work entitled “The Functions of Social Conflict” was published, in which conflict is the central link of social change. evidence in favor of the fact that conflict is a product of internal changes in society, the result of the interaction of society, which manifests level differences – individual, social, group, community. According to Koser, conflict is not only a destructive factor, but at the same time a factor that ensures the stability and order of society. This is his “dynamic equilibrium”.[15]

Another European, Ralph Dahrendorf, whose research will be discussed in detail below, is moving in the same direction. This scientist considers conflicts to be an indispensable condition for the existence of society, and their absence to be a disease: “Those who know how to cope with conflicts by recognizing and regulating them take control of the rhythm of history. Whoever misses such an opportunity gets this rhythm as his opponent.”[16]

“General theories of conflict” are represented by such names as Kenneth Boulding and Lewis Kriesberg. Boulding (1910-1993) tried to create a general model of conflict that would be suitable in each individual case. He made a significant contribution to the formation of conflictological discipline, dividing conflicts into three groups and defining static and dynamic models of conflict.

In the 20th century, the ideas of a special type of struggle were formulated – non-violent resistance, which implies non-subordination to violence. According to some experts, today there is more interest in the practice of this type of social relations than in the theoretical substantiation of ideas. The introduction of the ideas of non-violent struggle and its practical application is associated with the world’s greatest figures: M. Gandhi, L. Tolstoy, M. L. King, Johan Galtung and others. needs begins to transform into the theory of social discussion. It is noted that the solution of the problem of human identity is directly related to the problem of preventing violent conflicts. Therefore, the formation of a culture of tolerance becomes a new important task of conflictology. In addition, the term “constructive conflict management” appears, which more qualitatively reflects the difficult and long path of conflict resolution. New variations of previous theories are being born: neo-Marxism, neoliberalism, postmodernism, characterized by its negative point of view on the ability of mankind to understand the world. From the point of view of realism, the role of international institutions of conflict resolution is secondary, they are only a field for defending state interests or a tool for their implementation. Neoliberalism and idealism give priority to international institutions and imply that their activities are the key to transforming the system of international relations.

Summing up the above, it can be noted that from the second half of the twentieth century to the present day, the process of constructing and systematizing the intra-ordered model of modern conflictology has been taking place. At the same time, both the conceptual base and the cognitive toolkit have not yet been fully formed. Nevertheless, today conflictology is an independent discipline that is ready to face the problems of the modern world.

2.2 Talcott Parsons and the “Structure of Social Action”

Talcott Parsons (1902 – 1979) was an American sociologist, philosopher and theorist, one of the founders of modern theoretical sociology. Parsons was born in the family of a Protestant minister who was interested in science (as an important addition to religion).

At college, Parsons became interested in Pareto’s sociological theory (which he would later continue). Further, Parsons studied in England, where his scientific interests continued to be formed under the influence of prevailing evolutionism and liberalism. Parsons’ great merit is that, having deeply studied the works of previous classical sociologists (mainly Europeans), he assimilated together their rich experience and ideas and made a successive connection of sociological theory.[17] Parsons defines society as a special social system that achieves the highest level of self-sufficiency in comparison with others. Self-sufficiency is understood as the function of ensuring control over the relations arising in social systems and the internal mechanisms of the system. When any function is violated, destabilization occurs in the system, which in turn leads to a conflict. including its subsystems and actions.

Parsons considered conflict resolution from the standpoint of structural-functional analysis. He attributed conflicts to the anomalies of the social system, endowing the conflict with signs of a disease that should be actively cured, and even better avoided by using preventive methods. Thus, Talcott Parsons formulates the theoretical prerequisites for conflict resolution and the creation of mechanisms for preventing the emergence of conflicts. Among the conditions for preventing social conflicts in society, he called the education of members of the local society in approved forms of behavior, the active work of agents of social control and ensuring the coincidence of individual motivations of people with social attitudes.[18]

Parsons was convinced that conflict-free, balancing relations and cooperation should be maintained between all elements of society – this was his idea of “social order”. According to this idea, consensus dominates over conflict, which is in no way a developmental factor of society. The driving force of social progress, in Parson’s ideas, is the desire for the effective functioning of the elements of the social system, with a subsequent increase in the adaptive ability that prevents the formation of conflicts. The internal integrating function is an auxiliary force in maintaining the consensus of social relations. Such a mechanism of self-regulation is social institutions in the view of Parsons’ theory. Thus, the institutions of conflict resolution (legal, religious, etc.) should ensure the order of social life by their development. For this point of view, Parsons was criticized by the scientific community of the mid-twentieth century, which did not prevent his views from remaining a weighty alternative to Western sociology.

Given the above, conflict, from Parsons’ point of view, is a destroyer of the social order and evidence of disorganization. Thus, Parson’s order excludes struggle, contradictions and chaos, in his worldview these phenomena cannot be mechanisms for achieving the stability of society.

2.3 Dahrendorf and the Theory of the “Conflict Model”

Ralph Dahrendorf (1929-2009) was an Anglo-German philosopher, sociologist, and political scientist, born in Germany during the heyday of the Social Democratic Party. Dahrendorf’s father was a deputy of this party, but later lost his position and was even arrested. During the war, he carried out agitation work against National Socialism. Thus, Ralph was involved in an active social and political life from childhood.

According to Dahrendorf, conflict is based on a material motive, the individuality of a person, his rights and freedoms, which determines the attribution of conflict for any society. Dahrendorf endows society with two hypostases: harmony and conflict, while a certain group endowed with power is able to provoke change, which in turn produces conflict. Accordingly, every society is subject to change and is a source of conflict, relying on the coercion of one against the other. Thus, conflict cannot be eradicated at the level of civil or state forces: “they can neither be abolished nor excluded by any power or social force.”[19]

The transformation of the system into a new quality is feasible in the presence of an acute class conflict, the threat of which should be leveled by the institutions of conflict resolution. In the process of development and complication of society, it is necessary to develop the mechanisms of conflict interaction.

Dahrendorf was somewhat opposed to the use of the term “conflict resolution” because it “reflects a sociologically erroneous ideology according to which the complete elimination of conflict is possible and desirable,” which is misleading.[20] In this regard, the scientist is closer to the concept of regulation.

Dahrendorf classifies the forms of overcoming conflicts, correlating them with the main possibilities as follows: “suppression” of the conflict, its “cancellation” or “regulation”. Of these three forms, only the latter, according to the scientist, is effective in working with conflicts. The scientist proposes a consistent scheme for resolving conflicts, according to which “negotiations” are first used (involving the creation of a body where the parties to the conflict and, if necessary, a “third party” will meet), then “mediation” is involved with the participation of a third party. Mediation, from Dahrendorf’s point of view, is often a very effective tool for “conflict resolution”. The next stages of the conflict resolution scheme are arbitration and compulsory arbitration, the first involves a possible appeal to a third party, and the second is mandatory, which makes it close to the method of conflict suppression.

Dahrendorf’s theory boils down to the fact that it is impossible to eradicate conflicts by regulation, as a permanently present phenomenon of society, but it is quite possible to mitigate violence.[21]

2.4 “Rethinking the International Order” by Jan Tinbergen

Jan Tinbergen (1903 – 1994), a well-known economist, was born in Holland, in the family of a linguistic teacher. Jan was the eldest of five brothers, their parents devoted a lot of time to the upbringing, education and development of children, which later bore due fruit. Nicholas Tinbergen was awarded the Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine, another of the brothers became a well-known professor in the field of zoology, and Jan Tinbergen himself (together with Ragnar Fischer) is the owner of the Nobel Prize in Economics. In addition, the scientist was also awarded the Erasmus Prize (Rotterdam) and has more than twenty honorary degrees from various universities and colleges. In terms of conflict resolution, Jan Tinbergen creates such well-known works as “Revision of the International Order” and “War and Prosperity. Integration of political security into socio-economic policy” (together with D. Fisher). In the second work, the authors highlight their vision of the global problem of the prospects for the survival of mankind and the prevention of nuclear war.[22]The humanistic ideals of social justice accompanied Tinbergen throughout his career, as evidenced by his active participation in the socialist youth organization, as well as the Social Democratic Party of the Netherlands. Tinbergen was one of the developers of the social democratic program for overcoming the economic crisis and depression. In 1936-1938, Jan Tinbergen was an economic expert of the League of Nations in Geneva. In the 60s, he actively consulted. In 1966, he became chairman of the UN Development Planning Committee, which had a great impact on international development strategies in the 70s. The problem of establishing social justice was a priority for him in the scientific and practical political aspects. From about the 1950s, when the processes of formation of such institutions as the Benelux Economic Union and the EEC began, the scientist paid great attention to the study of economic development and especially the problems of backwardness in the countries of the Third World. Actually, this term itself belongs to the authorship of Tinbergen. In recent history, the efforts of this outstanding scientist were focused on the search for methods for building an economically optimal social structure. He substantiated the need to eliminate the gap between the “rich” and the “poor” and believed that the development of the problems of developing countries would resolve conflicts and correct the consequences of colonial oppression (as a feasible compensation to the former colonial countries from the metropolises). The oil crisis is becoming a litmus test that has shown the failure of the global monetary system. The UN, together with the Club of Rome, began discussions on these problems, but no proposals that would practically resolve the current situation took place. For this reason, in 1975, the Club of Rome commissioned Tinbergen to head the work of a commission on the preparation of a report on global socio-economic problems. A feature of the Club of Rome (an international non-governmental organization engaged in the analysis of global problems of human development) is to attract the attention of the world community to certain problems through the so-called “reports”, by ordering which, the Organization determines only the topic and guarantees funding for the relevant research. Neither the course of these studies, nor the author’s conclusions, the Club has any influence. The finished report is reviewed and approved at the annual conference, then the results are published and discussed at various levels. Practical recommendations are taken into account when forecasting the development of the socio-economic sphere of countries, industrial sectors and individual corporations. The monograph-report “Revision of the International Order”, published in 1976, contains the formulated concepts and methodologies of a new complex science – global studies. “Recognizing the importance of the resolutions adopted by the United Nations and the Charter of Economic Rights and Duties of States, but at the same time aware of the uncertainty and controversy of many of their provisions, Dr. Peccei invited me to create and lead a group of specialists capable of answering the question: Is it possible to propose to the leaders and peoples of the world such a new order that will make it possible to really and fully meet the basic needs of today, and, perhaps the needs of future generations?” – this is how Tinbergen formulated the tasks facing him.[23]This report differed from its predecessors in specific recommendations in the field of world economic and political activities, the reorganization of existing institutions and the creation of new ones capable of ensuring a more sustainable development of the world system. This monograph concentrates the main provisions devoted to food, raw materials and energy shortages, the environmental situation, the gap in the standard of living between rich and poor countries, and the arms race. The idea of the interdependence of the actions and deeds of each person, which does not allow one to act in the interests of one’s own benefit alone, runs like a red thread through the entire Tinbergen report. Ensuring a decent standard of living for all inhabitants of the Earth is the main goal of the world community, and to achieve this goal, global changes are needed in the structures of power, international and market relations, institutional activities, etc. “Humanistic socialism” is the name given in this report to a new ideal social organization of people based on universal human values, observing equal opportunities within and between countries.[24]

Unfortunately, Tinbergen’s recommendations did not meet the expectations of the public, he was convincing in his justifications for the need to change economic and political relations, but according to critics, he used “old concepts that do not convey new content”, the problem of conflicts became more clearly delineated, but there was no practical conflict resolution.[25]

2.5 Louis Krisberg and his universal model of conflict behavior

Louis Crisberg (born 30.07.1926) is an American sociologist, a modern representative of conflict theory and one of the founders of the movement of practical use of theory in the field of conflict resolution. Chicago in the 30s of the last century, a poor family of immigrants from Russia, it was in this environment that Louis comprehended social inequality from childhood, which became the theme of his subsequent works. “Social Processes in International Relations” (1968), “Social Conflicts” (1973, 1982), “Social Inequality” (1979), “Studies in the Field of Social Movements, Conflicts and Changes” (1978-1992) are just some of his numerous works in the field of social conflictology. At the same time, Kriesberg is actively working on practical conflict resolution, he personally participated in the movement against the Vietnam War and has consulted and continues to consult many governmental and non-governmental organizations.

Kriesberg identifies the general parameters (dynamic and structural indicators) of the conflict process, analyzing which it is possible to diagnose and predict the development of various conflicts. The main essence of the “general theory of conflict” according to Kriesberg is several propositions, according to which: conflict consists of rational activity (formed interests, including goals and methods of achieving them) and irrational variables:

The interaction of the conflicting parties determines all phases of the conflict. Thus, the actions of each participant in the conflict may have unforeseen results;

it is necessary to take into account the social environment in which the interaction of the conflicting parties takes place, since each social environment, depending on traditions and values, has its own, historically developed methods of conflict resolution;

The development of conflicts takes place in a complex system, in which, in addition to conflicts, there are counter processes of cooperation.

The structural parameters of the conflict, according to Kriesberg, are the characteristics of the participants in the conflict, the state of relations between them, the nature of the contradiction and the social environment (its influence). The scientist distinguishes five stages of conflict dynamics:

The basis of the conflict (objective contradictions);

The emergence of a conflict situation (awareness of the incompatibility of goals);

Choosing a method for achieving goals by the parties to the conflict;

The end of the conflict, its consequences.

Thus, based on the interconnection of typical stages of conflict and the measurement of its structural and dynamic characteristics, the “Universal Theory of Conflict” allows you to describe, analyze and predict the development of the conflict and its resolution.[26] Krisberg devotes considerable attention to the study of the process of transformation, which is expressed in the transition from a destructive dispute to a constructive one. Transformation often occurs with an emphasis on ending widespread violence and is formed as a long-term peaceful relationship, including recovery from destructive conflict and the elimination of its causes.[27]

The concept of transformation of modern social conflicts, developed by Kriesberg, is one of the most developed at the present time. The scientist focuses on conflict behavior and the creation of new social institutions that can minimize the destructive factors of conflicts. “Now the time has come for new thinking and the advancement of a fundamental sociological theory corresponding to the understanding of the essence of social conflicts and ways to resolve them”: “… The essence of the conflict itself and the stages of its development should be taken into account. In short, the methods of the conflict-resolution approach cannot serve as a kind of panacea, a means applicable to any conflict.”[28]

One of the key points of L. Krisberg’s theory is also the fact of the inevitability of conflict, but at the same time, it can be a source of positive change and preservation of society. Thus, the transformation of the conflict is achievable through a constructively constructed struggle based on thinking and methods that create constructive transformations. In addition, the transformation of conflicts involves fundamental and lasting changes in the relationship between the parties, accompanied by a transition from a protracted destructive confrontation to

search for constructive compromises.[29]

Thus, the rejection of the concept of conflict only as a negative phenomenon and the study of the transformation of the destructive energy of conflict into constructive actions is the summarizing idea of Louis Krisberg’s theory. As a result, the practical application of his theory lies in the importance of non-violent and non-coercive methods of conflict, which provide a wide range of strategies for promoting constructive methods of struggle. This approach is very promising due to the conceptualization and systematization of concepts, which in turn leads to the formation of a new way of thinking about conflict resolution, which can be introduced and applied by modern institutions.[30]

2.6 Peacemaking by Johan Galtung and his

“The Concept of Structural Violence”

Johan Vincent Galtung (born 24.10.1930), an outstanding scientist – sociologist, mathematician, political scientist, founder of the discipline “Peace and Conflict Studies” and the greatest practitioner-developer of innovative technology for conflict resolution, who personally took part in the processes of resolving many conflicts of various orders and levels. It would take a few pages to list all his titles, awards, and works that were published during his tenure (about a hundred books and more than a thousand articles). At the moment, Galtung is a leading consultant on conflict resolution issues of such significant institutions of conflict resolution as the UN, OSCE and the Council of Europe, the creator of the international organization for the peaceful transformation of conflicts and development TRANSEND, etc.

Johan was born into a family of doctors, in the capital of Norway, a Kingdom with strong monarchical traditions. It was expected that Johan would maintain the continuity of his parents’ profession, and it can be said that to some extent this expectation was justified. Only Galtung did not limit himself to the treatment of individual patients, he became a more large-scale healer – a healer of the world community. All members of Johan’s family were people with an active civic position, so during the Second World War they were members of the anti-fascist underground, moreover, Galtung’s father ended up in the dungeons of a Nazi concentration camp. This event has a significant impact on the choice of the life path of the future world-conflict researcher, whose contribution he has already been able to change, and to this day has a powerful impact on institutional relations. In addition, the scientist successfully worked in the field of sociology of international relations.

As mentioned earlier, Galtung belongs to the neo-Marxist trend of modern conflictological currents and proceeds from inequalities of an economic and social nature, the so-called “asymmetrical interdependence” of the global capitalist system. Johan experimented with concepts such as attitudes, behaviors, and contradictions, and classified peaceful peacemaking strategies and the causes of conflict.

The scientist believes that the main cause of social conflicts is violence manifested by social systems, namely cultural, structural and personal, while the first creates conditions for the second, and the second for the third. Thus, cultural violence uses aspects of ideology, symbolism, and science that can serve to justify structural and personal violence, presenting them as just retaliatory actions and regarding these actions as normal phenomena, despite the aggression they carry. In a number of his works, such as “The Structural Theory of Aggression” (1964), “Conflict as a Way of Life” (1968), and others, Galtung draws attention to the fact that social structures can exert a violent influence on groups and individuals, creating prerequisites for the development of conflict of the structural type. The scientist shows the cause-and-effect relationship between the type of conflict and the corresponding social system.[31]

Johan Galtung pays special attention to the “life cycle of the conflict”, which in his model consists of three phases: “before violence”, “during violence”, “after violence”, which corresponds to the attitude, behavior and contradiction (problem), the conflict itself reaches its culmination after passing the stage of discussion, the emergence of the conflict itself, the escalation of segregation, the outbreak of violence and destruction, and then from the culmination the conflict is reborn into peace.

I. Galtung wrote: “To resolve a conflict means: 1) to decide who is the winner and who is the loser, what will be the future distribution of values; 2) to carry out this distribution of values; 3) to come to the conclusion that the conflict is completely over.”[32]

Galtung is the founder of the TRANSCEND network, which unites more than 500 members in 70 countries around the world and is the author of the theory of peace, conflict and mediation, as well as the three-stage TRANSCEND method (theory and practice of conflict, theory and practice of violence, peaceful transformation, dialogue and negotiation). This method makes it possible to transform the conflict in practice with the help of peaceful means and implies a mutual win that respects their basic needs (well-being, identity, freedom, etc.) instead of the obligatory loss of one of the opposing parties. This is the so-called “5th way” or “win-win” strategy. Three stages of the method:

  • Building trust (can be characterized);
  • Relations of reciprocity;
  • Gap identification.

This method can be applied at the level of all institutions, and its undoubted advantage is the absence of culprits and the creation of a new reality acceptable to the conflicting parties. In this reality, each of them is a winner. To date (for 60 years) Galtung has acted as a mediator in more than 100 international conflicts, sometimes succeeding in their peaceful transformation (it is possible to list a few). This is a real method that has saved many lives and prevented the continuation of some military confrontations. As we can see, the main way to achieve peace in the theory and practice of Johan Galtung is the transformation of conflicts with their complete eradication by eliminating contradictory goals. At the same time, peaceful achievements of empathy, creativity and non-violence are restored. acting in the context of constructive conflict resolution. According to Galtung, it is the human factor that is the creator or destroyer of the world. Understanding the culture of the world, a person becomes the creator and guardian of society. One of Galtung’s famous expressions is: “Tell me how you behave in a conflict, and I will tell you how much you have a culture of peace.”[33]

Galtung’s peaceful experiments are a scientific innovation that clearly demonstrates how social harmony is maintained by law and order. The results of these experiments are now being applied at all levels of human society, from the intra- and interpersonal to the institutional level of the global scale.

Galtung is the recipient of more than a dozen honorary doctorates and many awards for his tireless and dedicated efforts. Despite his significant achievements, Galtung is very constructive about criticism, saying that it comes “from the level of understanding, culture of society, attitudes, behaviors and situational factors.”[34] In the opinion of many, Galtung’s theory of the peaceful transformation of conflict is one of the most significant achievements of peacekeeping, its pinnacle.

CONCLUSION

Summing up the results of the study, I would like to emphasize once again that the existence of a society without conflicts is impossible. Therefore, it is necessary to avoid categorical assessment of the concept of “conflict”, not to consider it only as a dysfunction or deviation in behavior. Conflict, with a greater degree of probability, is a necessary form of interaction that generates new methods of conflict resolution and peace.

In the course of this work, the tasks were solved: the main concepts of the theory of conflict resolution were determined, the evolution of these concepts was traced, the study and analysis of modern foreign theories of conflict resolution was carried out.

As a result of the research, the following conclusions can be drawn: the object of the history and theory of conflict resolution institutions is the variety of really existing social institutions, their dynamics and development, the subject is the study of stable, repetitive connections and processes within which conflict resolution is carried out. The main functions of conflict resolution institutions are the settlement and termination of conflict, as well as the prevention or resolution of conflict.

The role of conflict resolution institutions for modern fragile society is enormous, peaceful settlement of conflicts is carried out in the form of consultations, negotiations, and dialogues. There is no doubt that the absence of conflict resolution mechanisms would be fraught with an increase in conflicts. Among other things, the institution of conflict resolution serves as a factor in the legitimization of conflict as an integral part of social life.

In the second chapter, modern theories of foreign researchers were analyzed, the factors influencing the emergence of new theoretical and practical knowledge were assessed, the patterns of origin of historical evolution, modern functioning and development of the entire system of institutions of conflict resolution in society were traced. It can be noted that the evolution of conflicts in the twentieth century is singled out as a separate type. There are several reasons for this, such as the changing nature of social conflicts and the realization of the importance of understanding the trends in the development of conflicts due to the threatening scale of social conflicts, accompanied by huge human casualties.

In addition, we should not forget about the latest methods of warfare, information wars and the rapid development of the technical potential of previously and newly invented weapons. Turning to new publications, it can be noted that more and more attention is being paid to the economic and information aspects of security. In addition, the line between the internal and external environment of a modern state is becoming more and more blurred, and the internal aspect largely depends on the international one.

Having analyzed modern foreign theories of conflict resolution institutions in foreign science, it can be concluded that they are multiparadigmal and have a significant scientific potential that allows describing conflict interactions, have various regulation technologies, established negotiation procedures, etc.

It should be noted that representatives of opposite approaches to the role of conflicts show unity in their opinion regarding the general property of the presence of conflict in all social groups, stating that conflict is a product of the integration of these groups due to various characteristics of social relations. At the same time, it is impossible not to pay attention to the shortcomings of modern theories – The nature of the study of conflict resolution still remains imperfect and fragmented, but the resolution of conflicts of the world community is the key to the stable and long existence of the world. Traditional peacekeeping requires urgent revolutionary reforms, because despite all the struggles, over the past century there have been more than a hundred military conflicts in the world, which have claimed about 200 million lives. The international security system is at an early stage of formation, and its most important prospect is to anticipate and implement the necessary changes in advance.

A decade and a half before the outbreak of the First World War, Durkheim wrote: “Just as private conflicts can be restrained only by the regulating action of one society containing individuals, so intersocial conflicts can only be restrained by the regulating action of one society containing all the others. The only force that can moderate individual egoism is the force of the group; the only force capable of moderating the egoism of groups is the force of another that encompasses their groups.”[35] Surprisingly relevant words. Perhaps subsequent generations of public figures just needed to accept his theory and put it into practice, but irrationality took its toll and the words of the great scientist remained unheard. Therefore, the analysis of the works of the great thinkers of our time (and their predecessors) in our time is so extremely important for the birth of new and better practices that ensure the preservation and prosperity of our fragile human world.

REFERENCES

1. Antsupov, A.Y. Konfliktologiya [Text]: Textbook for Higher Educational Institutions – 2nd ed. revised and supplemented. – Moscow: UNITI-DANA, 2002. – 591 p.

2. Antsupov, A.Y. Conflictology in Schemes and Comments [Text]: Textbook – 4th Edition / A.Y. Antsupov, S.V. Baklanovsky. Moscow: Prospekt Publ., 2015. 303 p. (in Russian).

3. Veber, M. Izbrannye proizvedeniia [Selected works]. [Text] / M. Weber. Moscow, 1990. – 650 p.

4. Gostev, A. A. Evolution of Consciousness in the Resolution of Global Conflicts (Essays on Conflictology) [Text]/ A. A. Guest. Moscow , 1993.

5. Grishina, N.V. Psychology of Conflict. 2nd edition [Text] / N.V. Grishina. St . Petersburg, Piter Publ., 2008, 544 p.

6. Dahrendorf, R. Elements of the theory of social conflict.Sociological research [Text]/ R.Dahrendorf, – 1994.-No5.

7. Durkheim, E. O razdelenii obshchestvennogo truda [Text] / E. Durkheim. Moscow , 1900.

8. Zdravomyslov, A.G. Sociology of Conflict: Russia on the Ways of Overcoming the Crisis [Text]: Textbook for Students of Higher Educational Institutions. — 2nd ed. dop./ A.G. Zdravomyslov, – Moscow: Aspect Press, 1995. – 317 p.

9. Kashapov M. M. Teoriya i praktika resheniya konfliktnykh situatsii [Theory and practice of solving conflict situations]: a brief dictionary. – Yaroslavl: Remder, 2003. – 253 p.

10. Kibanov A.Y. Konfliktologiya [Text]: textbook – 2nd ed., revised and supplemented / A.Y. Kibanov et al. – M.: INFRA-M, 2004. – 240 p.

11. Kozer, L. Fundamentals of Conflictology [Text]/ L.Kozer. – St. Petersburg, 1999.

12. Merton, R. Yavnye i latentnye funktsii [Text] / R. Merton // American sociological thought. Moscow: International University of Business and Management, 1996.

13. Parsons T. Sistema sovremennykh obshchestva [Text]. Moscow, 1997

14. Piskunova, L.P. Ekonomicheskaya konfliktologiya [Economic conflictology]: textbook/ L.P. Piskunova, – Yekaterinburg 2007. – 149 p.

15. Ryzhov, O. Political Conflicts [Text]. – Moscow: VU, 2004. – 64 p.

16. Serebryakova, A. A.Conflictology [Text]: Textbook / A. A.Serebryakova, E. A. Ovsyannikova . – Moscow: Flint, 2015. – 73 p.

17. Scott, Dzh. G. Conflicts, ways of overcoming them [Text]. G. Scott. – Kiev: Vneshtorgizdat, 2004. – 191 p.

18 Spencer, G. Osnovaniya sotsiologii [Foundations of sociology] / G. Spencer, St. Petersburg, 1998. –T.1.

19. Trushnikov D.Y. Konfliktologiya [Text] : textbook. – Tyumen: Tyumen State Oil and Gas University, 2009. – 448 p.

20. Shevtsov V.M. Mezhnatsional’nye konflikty: mekhanizmy ikh resheniya [Interethnic conflicts: mechanisms of their resolution]. Moscow, GAVS Publ., 2003. – 44 p.

21. Shavel. S. Consumption and stability of society [Text]/ V. Shukhatovich, G. Korshunov, National Academy of Sciences of Belarus, Institute of Sociology. – Minsk: Belarus. Navuka, 2010. – 314 p.

22. Free electronic library. Books, editions, publications [Elektronnyi resurs] / – Rezhim dostupa: URL: http://www.nauka.x-pdf.ru/17kulturologiya/185032-9-nauka-globalnogo-mira-ili-mirolyubologiya-pervoe-obschee-blago-pravo-cheloveka-revolyuciya-socialnih-nauk-sozidanie.php , svobodnyy

23. Bishnu Pathak. Johan Galtung: Theory of Peaceful Transformation of Military Conflicts – Peak and Ceiling of Traditional Peacemaking [Elektronnyi resurs] /- Rezhim dostupa: URL: http://www.peacefromharmony.org/?cat=ru_c&key=616, svobodnyy.

24. Gvishiani, D.M. Kratkiy obzor dokladov Rimskomu klubu [A brief review of reports to the Roman Club ] /- Mode of access: URL: http://www.ihst.ru/~biosphere/Mag_3/gvishiani.htm, free.

25. Hegel, G.V.F. Raboty raznykh let [Works of different years]. In two volumes. T.2. [Electronic resource] / G.V.F. Gegel – Electronic Text Data. Moscow: Thought, 1971. – Available at: http://publ.lib.ru/ARCHIVES/F/”Filosofskoe_nasledie”/_”Filosofskoe_nasledie”.html#040.

26. Gilmutdinova, D. New trends and technologies in the peacekeeping activities of the United Nations in the XXI century [Elektronnyi resurs] [New trends and technologies in the peacekeeping activities of the United Nations in the XXI century ] /- Rezhim dostupa: URL: https://interaffairs.ru/news/show/14852

27. Durkheim, E. O razdelenii obshchestvennogo truda, stat’ya.doc [Elektronnyi resurs] [On the division of social labor], article [Elektronnyi resurs] / E.Durkgeim, – Elektronnye tekstovye danny. Mode of access: URL: https://studfiles.net/preview/594207/page:3/, free.

28. Zapadnaya sotsiologiya: sovremennye paradigmy [Western sociology: modern paradigms]. Anthology of peacemaking [Elektronnyi resurs] /- Rezhim dostupa: URL: URL:

https://books.google.ru/books?id=t2UkDQAAQBAJ&pg=PT214&lpg=PT214&dq=%D0%BB%D1%83%D0%B8%D1%81+%D0%BA%D1%80%D0%B8%D1%81%D0%B1%D0%B5%D1%80%D0%B3&source=bl&ots=yDlmA-7uLG&sig=tBeJ0H7v8mkISCTOZnW_A08QzM8&hl=ru&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiKkNeym_jaAhVIbrwKHeR_DlMQ6AEITjAG#v=onepage&q=%D0%BB%D1%83%D0%B8%D1%81%20%D0%BA%D1%80%D0%B8%D1%81%D0%B1%D0%B5%D1%80%D0%B3&f=false, free.

29. Krisberg, L. Peace-creation, peace-preservation and conflict resolution [Electronic resource] / L. Kriesberg, – Electronic Text Data. Mode of access: URL: http://ecsocman.hse.ru/data/624/927/1216/4_krisberg.pdf

30. Lysenko A. V. Aktual’nost’ Gegelya k voprosu o konets iskusstva [The actuality of Gegel to the question of the end of art http://cyberleninka.ru/article/n/aktualnost-gegelya-k-voprosu-o-kontse-iskusstva].

31. Nagaytsev V. V. Problemy stanovleniya sotsial’nykh institut konfliktoresolution v rossiyskom obshchestve [Problems of formation of social institutes of conflict resolution in Russian society].

https://cyberleninka.ru/article/n/problemy-stanovleniya-sotsialnyh-institutov-konfliktorazresheniya-v-rossiyskom-obschestve, free.

32. Nobel Laureates in Economics: Bibliographic Dictionary 1969-1992 [Nobel Laureates in Economics: Bibliographic Dictionary 1969-1992]. Moscow, 1994. – Mode of access: URL: http://gallery.economicus.ru/cgi-bin/frame_rightn.pl?type=in&links=./in/tinbergen/biogr/tinbergen_b2.txt&img=brief.gif&name=tinbergen, free.

33. General Theory of Conflicts by L. Krisberg [Elektronnyi resurs] /- Rezhim dostupa: URL: https://students-library.com/library/read/34638-obsaa-teoria-konfliktov-lkrisberga

34. Psikhologos [Elektronnyi resurs] [Encyclopedia of Practical Psychology]. – Mode of access: URL: http://www.psychologos.ru/, free.

35. Osnovnye teoreticheskie kontseptsii konfliktologii v sotsial’nykh sistem [Basic theoretical concepts of conflictology in social systems ] /- Mode of access: URL:

http://www.sociologybest.ru/solots-103-1.html, free.

36. Solomatina E. N., Ignatchuk Y. D. The Concept of Transformation of Modern Social Conflicts by Lewis Krisberg [Elektronnyi resurs] / Rezhim dostupa: URL:

https://cyberleninka.ru/article/n/kontseptsiya-transformatsii-sovremennyh-sotsialnyh-konfliktov-lyuisa-krisberga, free.

37. Tinbergen, Y. Revision of the International Order . Moscow, 1980. /- Mode of access: URL:

https://studopedia.ru/10_141866_yan-tinbergen—nobelevskiy-laureat-i-avtor-doklada-rimskomu-klubu.html, free.

38. Filosofiya Avgustina Aurelii (Blazhennogo) [Elektronnyi resurs]

http://www.mudriyfilosof.ru/2014/07/filosofiya-avgustina-avreliya.html, free.

39. Fursov, A. How World Power Works. Putin and Obama. What Does the Future Hold?[Electronic resource] /A. Fursov. russnov.ru. – Electronic text dan. – Mode of access: URL: http://russnov.ru/andrej-fursov-kak-ustroena-mirovaya-vlast-putin-i-obama-chto-nas-zhdet-v-budushhem/, free. – Title from the screen.

40. Fursov, A. Andriy Fursov about the insidiousness of the British and the “Banderization” of Ukraine No 13(606) from 05.04.18. [Electronic resource] / A. Fursov. // “Arguments of the Week” – Electronic text data. – Mode of access: http://argumenti.ru/society/2018/04/568551, free. – Header from the screen.

41. Yarychev N. U. Theoretical and Methodological Approaches to the Study of the Essence and Nature of the Conflict: Features of Modern Interpretation [Elektronnyi resurs] / Rezhim dostupa: URL: URL:

https://cyberleninka.ru/article/n/teoretiko-metodologicheskie-podhody-k-izucheniyu-suschnosti-i-prirody-konflikta-osobennosti-sovremennoy-interpretatsii

42. Boulding K. Stable Peace. Univ. of Texas Press, 1978.

43. Coser L. Conflict: Social Aspects // International Encyclopedia of the Social Sciences. Ed. by D. Sills. 1968. Vol. 3. USA. P. 232–236.

44. Dahrendorf R. 1969. Society and Democracy in Germany.Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday.

45. GaltungJ. Institutionalised Conflict Resolution // Journal of Peace Research, 1964, No. 4.

46. Kriesberg L. Conflict Transformation // Encyclopedia of Violence, Peace and Conflict / ed. by L.R. Kurtz. San Diego, 2008.

47. Kriesberg L. The State of Art in Conflict Transformation // Berghof Handbook for Conflict Transformation / ed. by M. Fisher, H.J. Giessmann, B. Schmelzle. Berlin, 2011.

48. Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy [Elektronnyi resurs] / Rezhim dostupa: URL: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/social-institutions/

  1. Gilmutdinova, D. New trends and technologies in the peacekeeping activities of the United Nations in the XXI century [Elektronnyi resurs] /- Rezhim dostupa: URL: https://interaffairs.ru/news/show/14852

    ↑

  2. Einstein A. “The New Quotable Einstein.” Princeton Univ. Press, 2005, p. 164 (GOST: Einstein A. New Collection of Quotations / ed. by A. Callan. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2005. p. 164. ↑

  3. Nagaitsev V. V. Problems of Formation of Social Institutions of Conflict Resolution in Russian Society [Elektronnyi resurs] /- Rezhim dostupa: URL:

    https://cyberleninka.ru/article/n/problemy-stanovleniya-sotsialnyh-institutov-konfliktorazresheniya-v-rossiyskom-obschestve, free.

    ↑

  4. Grishina, N.V. Psychology of Conflict. 2nd edition [Text] / N.V. Grishina. St . Petersburg, Piter Publ., 2008. ↑
  5. Ibidem ↑

  6. Nagaitsev V. V. Problems of Formation of Social Institutions of Conflict Resolution in Russian Society [Elektronnyi resurs] /- Rezhim dostupa: URL:

    https://cyberleninka.ru/article/n/problemy-stanovleniya-sotsialnyh-institutov-konfliktorazresheniya-v-rossiyskom-obschestve, free.

    ↑

  7. Philosophy of Augustine Aurelius (Blessed) [Elektronnyi resurs] / Rezhim dostupa: URL:

    http://www.mudriyfilosof.ru/2014/07/filosofiya-avgustina-avreliya.html, free. ↑

  8. Nagaitsev V. V. Problems of Formation of Social Institutions of Conflict Resolution in Russian Society [Elektronnyi resurs] /- Rezhim dostupa: URL:

    https://cyberleninka.ru/article/n/problemy-stanovleniya-sotsialnyh-institutov-konfliktorazresheniya-v-rossiyskom-obschestve, free.

    ↑

  9. Spencer, G. Foundations of Sociology [Text]/ G. Spencer.- St. Petersburg, 1998. – T.1., p.82. ↑
  10. Veber, M. Izbrannye proizvedeniia [Selected works]. [Text] / M.Weber. Moscow, 1990. ↑

  11. Durkheim, E. O razdelenii obshchestvennogo truda, stat’ya.doc [Elektronnyi resurs] / E.Durkheim, – Elektronnye tekstovye danny. Mode of access: URL: https://studfiles.net/preview/594207/page:3/, free.

    ↑

  12. Antsupov, A.Ya. Conflictology in Schemes and Comments [Text]: Textbook – 4th Edition / A.Y. Antsupov, S.V. Baklanovsky. Moscow: Prospekt LLC, 2015, p. 16. ↑

  13. Osnovnye teoreticheskie kontseptsii konfliktologii v sotsial’nykh sistem [Basic theoretical concepts of conflictology in social systems ] /- Mode of access: URL:

    http://www.sociologybest.ru/solots-103-1.html, free.

    ↑

  14. Merton, R. Yavnye i latentnye funktsii [Text] / R. Merton // American sociological thought. Moscow: International University of Business and Management, 1996, pp. 379-447 ↑
  15. Koser, L. Fundamentals of Conflictology [Text]/ L.Kozer. – St. Petersburg, 1999. ↑
  16. Dahrendorf R. 1969. Society and Democracy in Germany.Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday, p.140. ↑

  17. Shavel. S. Consumption and stability of society [Text]/ V. Shukhatovich, G. Korshunov, National Academy of Sciences of Belarus, Institute of Sociology. – Minsk: Belarus. Navuka, 2010, p.138.

    ↑

  18. Parsons, T. Sistema sovremennykh obshchestva [Text] / T. Parsons. – Moscow, 1997, pp. 46-48.

    ↑

  19. Dahrendorf, R. Elements of the Theory of Social Conflict.Sociological Studies [Text]/ R.Dahrendorf, – 1994.-No5, pp. 21-43. ↑
  20. Zdravomyslov, A.G. Sociology of Conflict: Russia on the Ways of Overcoming the Crisis [Text]: Textbook for Students of Higher Educational Institutions. — 2nd ed. dop./ A.G. Zdravomyslov, – Moscow: Aspect Press, 1995. ↑
  21. Grishina, N.V. Psychology of Conflict. 2nd edition [Text] / N.V. Grishina. St . Petersburg, Piter Publ., 2008. ↑

  22. Nobel Laureates in Economics: Bibliographic Dictionary 1969-1992 [Elektronnyi resurs] / Elektronnye tekstovye danny. Moscow, 1994. – Mode of access: URL: http://gallery.economicus.ru/cgi-bin/frame_rightn.pl?type=in&links=./in/tinbergen/biogr/tinbergen_b2.txt&img=brief.gif&name=tinbergen, free.

    ↑

  23. Kriesberg L. Conflict Transformation // Encyclopedia of Violence, Peace and Conflict / ed. by L.R. Kurtz. San Diego, 2008.

    ↑

  24. Tinbergen, Ya. Revision of the International Order . Moscow, 1980. /- Mode of access: URL:

    https://studopedia.ru/10_141866_yan-tinbergen—nobelevskiy-laureat-i-avtor-doklada-rimskomu-klubu.html, free. ↑

  25. Gvishiani, D.M. Kratkiy obzor dokladov Rimskomu klubu [A brief review of reports to the Roman Club ] /- Mode of access: URL: http://www.ihst.ru/~biosphere/Mag_3/gvishiani.htm, free.

    ↑

  26. General Theory of Conflicts by L. Krisberg [Elektronnyi resurs] /- Rezhim dostupa: URL: https://students-library.com/library/read/34638-obsaa-teoria-konfliktov-lkrisberga ↑

  27. Kriesberg L. The State of Art in Conflict Transformation // Berghof Handbook for Conflict Transformation / ed. by M. Fisher, H.J. Giessmann, B. Schmelzle. Berlin, 2011, p.50-51.

    ↑

  28. Krisberg, L. Peace-creation, peace-preservation and conflict resolution [Electronic resource] / L. Kriesberg, – Electronic Text Data. Mode of access: URL: http://ecsocman.hse.ru/data/624/927/1216/4_krisberg.pdf ↑

  29. Kriesberg L. Conflict Transformation // Encyclopedia of Violence, Peace and Conflict / ed. by L.R. Kurtz. San Diego, 2008.

    ↑

  30. Solomatina E. N., Ignatchuk Y. D. The Concept of Transformation of Modern Social Conflicts by Lewis Krisberg [Elektronnyi resurs] / Rezhim dostupa: URL:

    https://cyberleninka.ru/article/n/kontseptsiya-transformatsii-sovremennyh-sotsialnyh-konfliktov-lyuisa-krisberga, free. ↑

  31. Western Sociology: Modern Paradigms. Anthology of Peacemaking [Elektronnyi resurs] /- Rezhim dostupa: URL: URL:

    https://books.google.ru/books?id=t2UkDQAAQBAJ&pg=PT214&lpg=PT214&dq=%D0%BB%D1%83%D0%B8%D1%81+%D0%BA%D1%80%D0%B8%D1%81%D0%B1%D0%B5%D1%80%D0%B3&source=bl&ots=yDlmA-7uLG&sig=tBeJ0H7v8mkISCTOZnW_A08QzM8&hl=ru&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiKkNeym_jaAhVIbrwKHeR_DlMQ6AEITjAG#v=onepage&q=%D0%BB%D1%83%D0%B8%D1%81%20%D0%BA%D1%80%D0%B8%D1%81%D0%B1%D0%B5%D1%80%D0%B3&f=false, free. ↑

  32. Grishina, N.V. Psychology of Conflict. 2nd edition [Text] / N.V. Grishina. St . Petersburg, Piter Publ., 2008. ↑
  33. Free Electronic Library. Books, Editions, Publications [Elektronnyi resurs] / – Rezhim dostupa: URL: http://www.nauka.x-pdf.ru/17kulturologiya/185032-9-nauka-globalnogo-mira-ili-mirolyubologiya-pervoe-obschee-blago-pravo-cheloveka-revolyuciya-socialnih-nauk-sozidanie.php , svobodnyy ↑

  34. Bishnu Pathak. Johan Galtung: Theory of Peaceful Transformation of Military Conflicts – Peak and Ceiling of Traditional Peacemaking [Elektronnyi resurs] /- Rezhim dostupa: URL: http://www.peacefromharmony.org/?cat=ru_c&key=616, svobodnyy.

    ↑

  35. Durkheim, E. O razdelenii obshchestvennogo truda, stat’ya.doc [Elektronnyi resurs] / E.Durkheim, – Elektronnye tekstovye danny. Mode of access: URL: https://studfiles.net/preview/594207/page:3/, free.

    ↑