2
Introduction:
Conflicts between states and peoples asserting the right to self-determination have been a major
source of violence and instability around the world.
1
The great power asymmetries that often
characterize these conflicts make achieving negotiated settlements difficult.
2
Confronted with
an intransigent state prepared to use military force to control the territory, the groups seeking
self-determination often turn to political violence in the form of assassinations, terrorism, or
guerilla warfare. Using violent tactics to impose costs on a militarily superior opponent,
particularly one with advanced counter-insurgency capabilities and/or a strong ideological
attachment to the contested territory, is not always effective or wise strategy. The tactical and
strategic use of political violence often provokes state-sponsored counter-attacks, including
collective punishment, that seriously weaken the resistance without exacting commensurate
concessions from the state. It encourages the opponent and the international community to
focus on the violence rather than the underlying grievances of the resisting population.
Another option exists for prosecuting conflict forcefully and effectively that involves neither
killing nor capitulation. This alternative option is nonviolent struggle, or what Dr. Gene Sharp
defines as “a technique of socio-political action for applying power in a conflict without the use
of violence.”
3
In every decade of the past century, on five continents ordinary people wielding
“weapons” ranging from protests, to strikes and boycotts, to civil disobedience and non-
cooperation have fought against powerful opponents to achieve a wide range of political, social,
and economic objectives. The Gandhi-led movement for Indian independence, the Danes’
resistance to the Nazis in World War Two, the U.S. civil rights movement, the civilian
insurrections against Soviet rule, “people power” revolutions in the Philippines, the campaign
against General Pinochet in Chile, the anti-apartheid struggle in South Africa, and the most
recent regime changes in Serbia, Georgia, and Ukraine are cases where nonviolent conflict was
1
Self-determination is a group-defined claim to the right of self-government within the boundaries of a given
territory. (Nicholas Sambanis and Annalisa Zinn, "The Escalation of Self-Determination Movements: From Protest
to Violence, 2003," unpublished article.) See also Ted Robert Gurr, People Versus States (Washington, DC: United
States Institute of Peace, 2000).
2
On the problem of power asymmetry in negotiations see: I. William Zartman and Jeffrey Z. Rubin, ed., Power and
Negotiation (Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 2000). ; Nadim Rouhana and S.H. Korper, "Dealing with
Dilemmas Posed by Power Asymmetry in Intergroup Conflict," Negotiation Journal 12, no. 4 (1996).; J.W.
Salacuse, "How Should the Lamb Negotiate with the Lion," in Negotiation Eclectics, ed. Deborah Kolb (1999).;
J.W. Salacuse and Jeffrey Rubin, “Power in International Negotiations”, International Affairs, April 1990.
3
Gene Sharp, The Politics of Nonviolent Action: Parts One - Three, Boston, Porter Sargent, 1973.
Convention