What is the best way to resolve a conflict where one side refuses to negotiate?

Question

I am thinking of a disagreement where one side is probably more powerful and is unreasonable in its stance. War has not yet started, but famine or persecution will result before civil war breaks out!

Answer 1

War should always be the last resort because innocent people are always the victims. The weaker side has to try all the available avenues it can, maybe hoping it can find a more powerful friend to argue its cause and to defend it.

If the more powerful side refuses to negotiate and is dead set on war it can't be avoided. This is when the members of the weaker side have to decide if they are going to fight for a cause worth dying for?

Ultimately those with great strength should use it for the benefit of those weaker than themselves, otherwise they become bullies or selfish.

Answer 2

Subterfuge. The legal way is to use trickery and distortion of the facts to get public support on your side. Then there is direct action protest, public inquiries, finances to reverse the power vacuum so you can be more powerful.

Sometimes, your analysis can be better than the obdurates, but this is recourse at a Public Inquiry, legal standpoint, you have to get the public support for your case first, and the public may not understand the finer points of law, so you have to resort to slogan, prejudices.

It happens all the time. Quangos in England are notorious for this as they are not answerable to the electorate. Rich private individuals think they are immune. Public companies are answerable to their shareholders.

Answer 3

It is impossible to resolve a conflict if one side refuses to negotiate, other than taking them out of the picture.

If that means destroying those that won't negotiate then so be it.

Answer 4

Is the word comprimise still in existance ? No matter how powerfull an opponent, there will always be a weakness. Work it out, Talk. You can't just blow people up because they don't live the way you want them too. Too many people are Daffy Duck on Planet X.

Answer 5

easily, i think of the international is largely incorrect approximately this, alongside with the U. S.. everyone claims that the only answer to the Palestinian question is a '2-state' answer, which demands concessions Israel is at present unwilling to make. even though it form of feels to me that the 2d for a 2-state answer has exceeded. it ought to have worked in 1993, or perhaps in 2000, although that is too overdue now. the only actual answer is the dissolution of the State of Israel and the introduction of a binational state for Jews and Palestinians togther.

Answer 6

First of all there should be little reference about the question. Anyway, you asked a good question.

1. Go for Gandhi style of persuasion i.e. Satyagrah. Ask for negotional calmly and respectfully and no violence should be involved.
2. Find out more powerful to help
3. Agree to disagree.

Answer 7

If there is already a conflict then the only resolution is to dismantle one of the warring party's military hardware, or did you mean dispute rather than conflict?

Answer 8

The side with "less power" (which ultimately equates to money) must find allies with more funds. It requires finding a circle of strong leaders who will keep the vision of the people for the people, while they work dilligently to seek others to help them in their plight. If suffering is bad enough, the weaker side will be willing to gather resources.

Answer 9

Invasion followed by occupation when allowed under the rules of International Law.

Answer 10

Dialogue is the only way. If one side will not negotiate I have little hope for a solution.