After a short period of optimism concerning a peace dividend after the end of the Cold War, an increasing number of violent intrastate conflicts and new threats, such as transnational terrorism, were recognized. This led to an urgent search for options in order to respond adequately to the so-called “new wars” and the new threats to security. Non-military ways of dealing with conflicts and the importance of nongovernmental actors in this field have been stressed by peace researchers and politicians since that time. The term “ zivile Konfliktbearbeitung” (civil conflict management) refers to these issues by distinguishing civil means from military strategies, on the one hand, and paying more attention to the role of civil society in intrastate conflicts, on the other. There is a consensus that civil conflict management does not aim at the elimination of conflicts as such but at their non-violent expression. However, civil conflict management cannot be considered as a homogenous concept. It rather refers to various approaches with different objectives, strategies and functions. This heterogeneity is reflected in three principal debates: (1) Peace research debates are largely devoted to analyzing the general conditions under which societies are able to work on conflicts without using violence. While peace researchers pay particular high attention to strategies of civil conflict management and to the avoidance of physical violence, there is a tendency to underestimate the causes and the structural conditions of violent conflicts. (2) Security debates: The rise of new types of conflicts and “global threats” has initiated a process of reconceptualizing security. Nevertheless, the acknowledgement of non-military security threats does not automatically lead to the strengthening of non-military efforts to resolve them. Traditional security policies which rely on the ability to use military force are not simply being replaced. Instead, there is a tendency towards civil-military-cooperation in order to gain peace and guarantee stability. (3) In development debates, negative conflict experiences led to a focus on the way in which processes and actors of development contribute either negatively or positively to civil conflict management. This gave rise to the principle of “do no harm” and led to a growing emphasis on development efforts contributing more directly to conflict prevention and civil conflict management. Although security issues are intimately connected with development issues, they are based on different time frames, means and objectives.

While the above presented debates mostly refer to external non-military interventions, civil conflict management must also be regarded as a social process leading to a culture of constructive conflict management. Therefore, it is necessary for members of society to gain positive experience with civil conflict management and to internalize the corresponding norms. Although there is growing emphasis put on local and participatory approaches, such as the strengthening of peace constituencies, external interventions hinder the development of a culture of constructive conflict management. The combination of civil and military strategies can also be particularly counterproductive for the development of a constructive conflict management. Furthermore, each organization involved in conflict management has its own objectives that go beyond its work on the conflict in question. Due to the increasing number of actors involved, there is strong competition and a certain pressure to produce “visible” outcomes. Nevertheless, the international community has a responsibility to support civil conflict management in those countries that lack the necessary capacities and means. Reflecting the contradictions between different approaches and carefully weighing up their possible effects may help to minimize negative impacts and could contribute to positive developments, and not only in countries facing violent conflicts.