External forces cannot by themselves compel a State to end a civil strife: at some point, domestic actors need to be able to work together to find a way out of the conflict.

There are many reasons why people choose to escalate a conflict, but most often it is a tactic to achieve a certain objective. For example, to ensure a victory or avoid losing, to force a settlement or remain a relevant force, to gain support from patrons or expand one’s status, to seize a strategic advantage or just to punish the adversary and take revenge... [1].

The decision to use violence can be attributed to a combination of external and internal factors. Cognitive factors are internal to each person and serve to control a behavioral response to an external stimuli like stress. High intensity emotional reactions can arise from a perceived threat to one’s identity (language, culture, land….) or core needs (control, recognition, belonging, purpose, power). As these buttons are pushed and emotions intensify, a person's ability to process information changes giving way to perception biases and poor judgment. This may lead to an over-commitment of one's manpower or resources, irrational competition, a rationalization of otherwise unacceptable behaviors, and/or the dehumanization of the "other."

Given the altered state of mind experienced by combatants in times of conflict, to prompt a willingness to enter into negotiations takes real craft.

Once you have walked yourself up the diplomatic ladder and are face-to-face with the person that can influence the conflict and that needs to be at the table for the conflict to be resolved, how do you manage cognitive factors and convince him/her to attend?

• Build a relationship: whether someone says “yes” or “no” to you, always maintain a relationship of respect, making yourself available for further discussion as the context changes. Build trust and position yourself as an impartial third-party whose only interest is peace.
• Deescalate emotions: acknowledge the harm done, reflect the emotions you hear and empathize authentically.
• Discover their story: find out about their perceptions of the facts and what led them to use violence. Uncover their interests (i.e. goals). Balance inquiry with advocacy. Advocate only with a genuine desire to make things better for everyone involved. Respond to rejection with open-ended questions about the problem and its causes.
• Explore alternatives: help your interlocutor envision alternatives to violence that would meet their interests. Work through possible scenarios that would help resolve the conflict without them losing face. Assure parties that they remain in control of the outcome of the negotiations and that if not completely satisfied they can always walk-away.

Shifting parties to a conflict from violence to a willingness to negotiate takes skill. The timing of your intervention is critical and international pressure is useful. But a peace-maker can also gain buy-in by seeking to understand the “why” behind the actions, discussing the legitimacy of the parties' decision-making standards, exploring options, and positioning him or herself as a non-judgmental third-party concerned only with peace, always leaving the door open for further conversations.

-------------

[1] I. William Zartman & Guy Olivier Faure. “Escalation and Negotiation in International Conflicts” Cambridge University Press (2005)