Conflict resolution programs

Report: Terrorist Lists Impede Peace Process

in
Date: 
December 12, 2011

A November 2011 report from Berghof Conflict Research finds “terror blacklists” often interfere or conflict with efforts to find a peaceful solution to armed conflict. The inconsistent application of terrorist designations by the government blur the distinction between legal and unlawful political activism and encourages state repression of unarmed dissidents. Anti-terrorist policies also shrink the space for international peace facilitation by criminalizing civil society mediation and negotiation efforts.

Anti-Terror Legislation: Impediments to Conflict Transformation offers a range of recommendations to reform the terrorist listing process, including the development of more transparent listing regimes and carving out protected space for peacebuilders to do their craft without fear of prosecution.

Why Talking Peace is Essential and Why it is Threatened

in
Date: 
October 28, 2011
Author: 
Bill Richardson, Melanie Greenberg and Derek Brown

Mediating between warring parties has never been an easy task. History shows that the odds are stacked against such efforts. Academics who study the field of conflict resolution argue about whether more conflicts are ended by military victory or non-violent negotiation (the record is mixed), but the prevalence of prolonged violent conflict across our globe demonstrates that successful peace efforts are still too few in number.  Read more....

Examples: Impacts of the Material Support Prohibition on Peacebuilding

in
Date: 
June 13, 2011

For many years, U.S. organizations have paved the way for peace by helping to bring fighting factions together and providing alternatives to violence as a means of redressing grievances.   Unfortunately, the 2010 Supreme Court decision in Holder v. Humanitarian Law Project (HLP) upheld the law defining prohibited “material support” of terrorism to include conflict prevention and resolution activities aimed at getting terrorist groups to lay down their arms. Without a correction, opportunities to end violence will be lost.

Report: EU Counterterrism Measures Impede Peacebuilding

in
Date: 
May 3, 2011

A 2011 report from Berghof Peace Support and Conciliation Resources about the impact of EU counter-terrorism legislation on EU supported peace processes finds the effects of EU proscription (designation) have been harmful. It has reduced European mediators’ credibility and perceived neutrality with some conflict parties and has had counter-productive impacts on armed groups’ willingness to abandon the use of violence.  Read more....

Peacbuilding Fact Sheet

in
Date: 
October 1, 2010

“It is no longer enough to just provide peacekeepers; that must be accompanied by effective mediation, peacemaking and peacebuilding.”    -U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton before the United Nations on Sept. 23, 2010.

Report: Building Better Relationships for Peacebuilding Between Government and Civil Society

in
Date: 
September 28, 2010

Identifying strengths and places for improvements, an August 2010 report from the 3D Security Initiative provides broad recommendations for improving cooperation between the U.S. government (USG) and civil society organizations (CSOs) in conducting conflict prevention and peacebuilding efforts around the world. “USG and CSO relationships can be mutually beneficial…. CSOs offer policy recommendations and conflict assessment data for USG strategic level decision-making as well as operational level advice,” the report says.

Supreme Court’s Humanitarian Law Project Ruling Fails the Common Sense Test

in
Date: 
June 29, 2010
Author: 
Kay Guinane & Suraj K. Sazawal

Imagine a school where the principal’s rules prevent a teacher from telling a bully to stop picking on another child. That is essentially what the Supreme Court told U.S. peacebuilding groups in its June 21, 2010 decision in Holder v. Humanitarian Law Project (HLP).

Nonprofit and Legal Experts Respond to Supreme Court Ruling in Humanitarian Law Project Case

in
Date: 
June 21, 2010

On June 21, 2010, a divided U.S. Supreme Court upheld a federal statute that bans support to designated terrorist organizations, even when defined to include conflict mediation, human rights training and peace-building efforts aimed at turning terrorist groups away from violence. That same day the Charity and Security Network (CSN) and the Constitution Project (CP) held a press conference to comment on the ruling. An audio file of the entire teleconference, including reactions to the decision and a question and answer period from national media, is available here.  

Supreme Court Upholds Ban on Peaceful Conflict Resolution Support To Terrorist Groups

in
Date: 
June 21, 2010

On June 21, 2010, a divided U.S. Supreme Court upheld a federal statute that bans support to designated terrorist organizations, even when that support involves using international law to resolve disputes through nonviolent means. In Holder v. Humanitarian Law Project (HLP), the court ruled 6-3 that U.S. organizations and citizens teaching nonviolent methods of conflict resolution toward sanctioned terrorist groups could face criminal charges.