Ethnic conflicts are a special type of social conflicts, characterized by a high degree of complexity and multilayering. These conflicts rarely manifest themselves in their «pure form», as they usually intersect with other types of social, political, economic and cultural contradictions. In reality, ethnic confrontations often serve as a trigger or background for broader conflict processes. In this context, ethnic conflicts can be viewed as an interdisciplinary phenomenon involving both identity aspects and the struggle for resources, power, and influence.

The historical experience of various regions of the world shows that ethnic conflicts can become extremely destructive and significant. Moreover, almost every ethnic conflict has a pronounced political component, which allows us to speak of them as ethno-political conflicts. This is due to the fact that ethnicity in conflict conditions becomes a mobilization resource, a means of consolidating the group and a form of articulating political demands.

In this regard, the question remains relevant: what is the actual «ethnic» in ethnic (ethno-political) conflicts? German social anthropologist Gunther Schlee raises this issue and identifies six key points that allow us to understand how ethnicity becomes a factor in the disintegration of society^[176]:

- ethnic differences are seen as the root cause of ethnic conflicts, as they define the boundaries between «friends» and «strangers»;

- cultural and behavioral differences between peoples are perceived as a reflection of historically formed, deeply rooted antagonisms passed down from generation to generation;

- ethnicity is universal: each person belongs to a certain ethnic community, is aware of their belonging and is guided to a certain extent by it in social interaction;

- ethnicity is a scriptive in nature, that is, it is attributed to the individual from birth and, as a rule, is not subject to change at will;

- an ethnic group is perceived as a community united by its origin, historical memory, and collective identity.

- ethnic groups have a territorial dimension: They are associated with specific geographical regions, and often seek national self-determination, autonomy, or even the creation of their own State.

Thus, ethnic conflicts cannot be considered in isolation from the political, historical and cultural context. They arise at the intersection of collective identity, the distribution of power and resources, and the perception of historical justice. This is what makes them one of the most acute and intractable forms of social contradictions.

Interethnic conflicts are a complex and multifaceted social phenomenon, the causes of which are studied from the standpoint of various scientific approaches. Despite differences in scale, duration, degree of tension, and historical context, all interethnic conflicts have a common nature, involving violations of the rights of ethnic groups, lack of justice and equality, and limited opportunities for full participation in public and political life. As a rule, the focus of ethnic mobilization is the desire of an ethnic group to recognize its identity and protect its interests.

Modern research identifies several interrelated groups of causes that contribute to the emergence and escalation of interethnic conflicts.

Territorial reasons.

One of the most common and intractable causes of interethnic conflicts is territorial disputes. These conflicts occur against the backdrop of historical border changes resulting from migrations, wars, colonial policies, and administrative divisions. Each side of the conflict seeks to justify its historical right to a particular territory, relying on different time and cultural frames, which makes the problem extremely subjective and confusing. Such disputes are often accompanied by demands for recognition of independence, autonomy, or border changes. For example, the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict between Armenians and Azerbaijanis, where both sides claimed the same territory, citing historical affiliation. Or the conflict in modern-day Kosovo, where the Albanian majority and the Serbian minority are fighting for control of territory important to the national identity of both sides.

Political reasons.

The political factor of interethnic conflicts includes:

- the desire of ethnic groups for self-determination and the creation of their own national states, especially in cases where the ethnic group previously had statehood, but lost it;

- discrimination and restriction of political rights on the basis of ethnicity, including the prohibition of participation in elections, holding public office and access to political institutions;

- political and legal inequality caused by the division of the population into «titular» and «non-titular» nations, «indigenous» and «newcomers», which forms an asymmetry in access to power, resources and cultural self-realization.

Examples include the Uyghur issue in China, where, according to some sources^[177], religious, cultural and political freedom of Uyghurs is restricted, persecution and «re-education» camps. Or the Catalan crisis in Spain, i.e. the desire of Catalans to create an independent state with broad autonomy.

Economic reasons.

Economic inequality is an important source of tension in a multiethnic society. Basic forms of expression:

- struggle for control over resources (land, minerals, jobs);

- uneven socio-economic development of regions, especially when ethnic minorities live in depressed or peripheral areas;

- a sense of collective exclusion and injustice that arises in the context of social contrast between ethnic groups.

Economic contradictions are amplified when they are perceived through the prism of ethnicity and turn into a factor of collective mobilization. A striking example is the conflict in Rwanda in 1994, the genocide of the Tutsi tribe by another Hutu tribe, when economic and social contradictions fixed by colonial policies became the ground for ethnic slaughter.

Social reasons.

Social tension, especially in times of crises and transformations, contributes to the aggravation of ethnic contradictions. Social factors include:

- unemployment, low standard of living, migration flows;

- competition for prestigious areas of employment, which in conditions of social instability can acquire an ethnic coloring;

- social stratification associated with ethnicity, which leads to an increase in distrust and aggression between groups.

Sometimes interethnic conflict becomes a form of «redirection» of social discontent – a way to «let off steam» in the absence of other channels of protest. For example, the ethnic conflict between Uzbeks and Meskhetian Turks in the Ferghana Valley in Uzbekistan in 1989, which took place against the backdrop of social and demographic changes.

Cultural and linguistic reasons.

Ethno-cultural conflicts are most often associated with:

- restriction of the rights of ethnic minorities to preserve and develop their native language, traditions, and customs;

- refusal to recognize cultural diversity;

- language inequality, when only the language of the titular ethnic group receives state status, and other languages are marginalized.

Such measures are perceived as a threat to cultural identity and can become a catalyst for mass protests and clashes. For example, in Quebec, Canada, the French-speaking population struggles to preserve the language and culture in an English-speaking state.

Socio-psychological reasons.

The psychological aspect of interethnic conflicts includes:

- historical grievances, traumas, and collective memories of injustices, humiliations, and deportations;

- formation of the image of the «enemy», emotional opposition of «friends» and «strangers»;

- emotional contagion, rumors, manipulations that increase fear, anxiety, and aggression.

- mass neuroticism, accompanied by an increase in anxiety, irritability, loss of trust in other ethnic groups and state institutions.

Situations where psychological tension is fueled by propaganda, myths, and provocations are particularly dangerous. This was clearly shown during the Yugoslav Wars in the 1990s, when mutual accusations between Serbs, Croats and Bosnians were based on historical grievances and ethnic cleansing.

Religious factor.

Although religion is rarely the sole cause of conflict, its influence on ethnic confrontation is often significant, especially when religious and ethnic identities coincide. The religious factor performs the function of ideological justification and mobilization, increasing the polarization and radicalization of positions. For example, the Sunni-Shiite conflict in Iraq and Syria, when religious differences escalate into ethnic violence between Arab and Kurdish groups.

Thus, interethnic conflicts are complex and require interdisciplinary analysis. Their effective prevention and resolution is possible only under the condition of a comprehensive State policy aimed at ensuring the rights of all ethnic groups, equal opportunities, respect for cultural identity and the formation of a tolerant public consciousness.

Some researchers consider it more appropriate to speak not about the settlement of ethnopolitical conflicts, but about their management. This concept implies not a one-time forceful suppression of the conflict, but a systematic work aimed at controlling it, reducing tension, transforming it into a nonviolent form and then resolving it. Conflict management begins with a thorough analysis of its origins, including historical, social, economic, and political causes.

Conflicts are divided into two main types: rational and destructive. Within the framework of a rational conflict, the parties recognize the legitimacy and validity of each other's demands, seek to find compromises and mutually beneficial solutions. Examples of successful resolution of such conflicts include the peaceful «divorce» of the Czech Republic and Slovakia in 1993, as well as Norway's secession from Sweden in 1905.

However, the vast majority of ethnic and political clashes are destructive in nature. In these cases, the parties consciously or unconsciously refuse to recognize the legitimacy of their opponents ' demands, increasing the confrontation, which often leads to outbreaks of violence and the involvement of new participants. A striking example of a destructive conflict is the confrontation between Serbs and Croats in the former Yugoslavia in the 1990 s.

An effective conflict management strategy involves influencing its dynamics in order to direct it in a constructive direction. Depending on the specific situation, different approaches are used.

A normative approach.

It involves resolving the conflict based on legal and moral norms. The key condition is that all parties agree to accept these standards. If consensus cannot be reached, they may need to be legitimately imposed using the authority of the State. For example, post-war reconciliation in Rwanda, where the State and traditional judicial mechanism «gachacha» was used.

A forced negotiation approach.

It proceeds from the understanding of conflict as a struggle for dominance. The dominant party imposes its own conditions, which rarely ensures a sustainable peace. An example is the Kashmir conflict between India and Pakistan, where the parties regularly resort to force pressure in the absence of a sustainable dialogue.

Emotional-psychological (idealistic) approach.

It is based on the recognition by all participants that the conflict is unprofitable for each side. This approach is particularly effective in post-conflict societies where violence fatigue exists. An example is the post-war reconciliation in Northern Ireland achieved through the 1998 Belfast Agreement.

An indifferent approach.

It is used, as a rule, in authoritarian regimes, where the state ignores the conflict and does not respond to the demands of the groups involved. This can only delay the escalation. For example, the policy of «non-intervention» against ethnic minorities in China, especially in the Xinjiang Uygur Autonomous Region, where repression has replaced inaction.

Power approach.

It is used when one side has a clear advantage and imposes its own conditions. This rarely solves the root problems. For example, the harsh crackdown on uprisings in Darfur in Sudan has not eliminated the causes of the conflict and has only worsened the humanitarian situation.

Despite the variety of approaches, most experts agree that the most promising strategy is compromise. However, it requires you to meet several mandatory conditions:

- institutionalization of the conflict, i.e. establishing rules of conduct and procedures for interaction between the parties. This may include formal agreements, laws, memoranda, or even informal arrangements. For example, the creation of the Basque Autonomous Region in Spain and the corresponding legal framework;

- determining the subjects of the conflict, when each party should delegate authority to official representatives who are able to conduct a dialogue and conclude agreements. Ethnic organizations, parties, and movements that serve as intermediaries between the State and communities play an important role here.

Disorganized, disjointed groups are much less predictable and prone to radicalization than structured communities. That is why it is important to encourage the creation of platforms for expressing interests – from parliamentary representations to ethno-cultural public associations.

Thus, effective management of an ethno-political conflict involves the consistent implementation of the following steps: identification of the conflict and its parties, institutionalization of interaction, selection of an appropriate strategy, and application of flexible settlement technologies. At the heart of this work is not the desire for suppression, but the search for sustainable peace based on mutual understanding, justice and equality.

Summarizing the international experience of ethnic conflict resolution, American conflict analyst William Urey developed a universal strategy that includes ten key steps aimed at conflict prevention and constructive management^[178].

In his concept, Yuri compares ethnic conflict with a fire, emphasizing that the main thing is to prevent its outbreak.

The first step in conflict management is prevention, the active use of all available mechanisms to prevent escalation. As long as conflict can be prevented, efforts should be focused on that.

The second step is to organize discussions between stakeholders. Constructive discussion of problems reduces the level of tension. At the same time, Yuri emphasizes the need for participation of all parties, including representatives of radical positions. However, the discussion should take place within the framework of certain pre – agreed rules-without mutual accusations and getting personal.

The third step of the strategy is to create a space for safe expression of grievances and emotions. This allows the parties to feel heard, reduce the level of distrust, and move on to a more rational discussion. It is important not only to talk about the future, but also to carefully analyze past injuries and injustices.

The fourth step is to encourage collaboration on solving current problems. This includes moving from rigid positions to finding common interests and deep motivations of the parties. This approach helps to overcome barriers and find ways to compromise.

The fifth step is to identify a common positive goal that goes beyond the current conflict. A common goal can unite the participants, change the focus from hostility to cooperation, and channel the energy of the parties in a creative direction.

The sixth step of the strategy is to support the mutual expression of good will, which contributes to the formation of an atmosphere of trust and contributes to the strengthening of positive dynamics in relations.

The seventh step is to develop specific draft agreements that will formalize the agreements reached. Such agreements serve as a legal and moral basis for further steps.

The eighth step is to institutionalize the negotiation process and conflict resolution mechanisms. Since conflicts do not disappear once and for all, it is necessary to create sustainable institutions – permanent commissions, dialogue platforms, ethnic councils, ombudsmen, etc. – that can work on a permanent basis.

The ninth step of the strategy is to attract external resources that can encourage the parties to cooperate. This includes not only financial support, but also the participation of non-governmental organizations, international foundations, universities, and experts with experience in dealing with ethnic or intergroup conflicts. An example is the role of international organizations in the post-war reconstruction of Bosnia and Herzegovina.

The tenth and final step is to disseminate the knowledge and experience of the settlement process. Yuuri emphasizes the importance of sharing strategies, practices, and lessons learned, both positive and negative. This is especially true in cases where third parties intervene in the conflict – such actions can often both contribute to the resolution and, conversely, aggravate the situation.

Thus, the proposed U. URI Technology is a multi-level and flexible conflict management system that aims not only to address the immediate causes of conflict, but also to build a solid platform for future peaceful coexistence.

The practice of ethnopolitical conflicts allows us to distinguish three main scenarios for their resolution, each of which has its own consequences and limitations.

Resolution of the conflict through the victory of one of the parties.

This scenario involves the unilateral imposition of the will of one group on another from a position of strength. In this case, the conflict is formally ended, but the losing side often retains a sense of national humiliation, social injustice and historical resentment. Such feelings are easily passed on to new generations, as a result of which the conflict persists in a latent form. Under favorable conditions, it can again worsen, moving into the active phase. Examples include frozen conflicts in the former Soviet Union or in a number of African countries.

Conflict resolution through mutual exhaustion and compromise.

In the second case, the conflicting parties come to an agreement after both have exhausted their resources and are unable to continue the confrontation. As a rule, neither side achieves a decisive victory, and the conflict is resolved through the mediation of a third party. The parties are forced to compromise, but such a decision is often perceived as temporary and insufficient. The conflict goes back into a latent state, and there is still a high probability of its subsequent escalation. This pattern is typical, for example, for many protracted interethnic conflicts, where a truce is achieved not because of mutual trust, but because of the military or economic fatigue of the parties.

Conflict resolution through reaching a mutually acceptable agreement.

The most constructive option is to resolve the conflict on the basis of mutual satisfaction of the parties ' interests. It is possible if there is political will and willingness to engage in dialogue. The main goal is to find common understanding and establish sustainable forms of cooperation. In the process of such a settlement, the parties move from confrontation to working together to solve common problems. In some cases, mediators and international organizations play an important role as guarantors of the implementation of the agreements reached. This option can move the conflict into a long-term latent phase with a low risk of re-escalation.

Along with options for direct resolution, prevention of ethnic conflicts plays a special role. The ability to identify the causes of conflict situations in a timely manner and eliminate them at an early stage significantly increases the chances of their non-violent resolution. Effective prevention involves monitoring social and political attitudes, engaging vulnerable groups, engaging civil society, and implementing inclusive governance practices.

However, it should be recognized that full resolution of ethno-political conflicts in the classical sense is extremely rare. This is due to the fact that such conflicts affect a wide range of interests – from non-material (identity, recognition, cultural rights) to material (territories, resources, power, access to institutions). Therefore, more often it is not so much about resolving the conflict as about settling it or temporarily «freezing» it.

American sociologist R. Brubaker writes about this: «In my opinion, national conflicts are rarely resolved or resolved. It's much more likely that they are... over time, they become obscured and lose their central position and brightness when ordinary people and politicians turn to other concerns, or when a new generation grows up who, by and large, does not care about old quarrels. We should pay more attention to how and why this happens – not only how and why politics can be comprehensively and relatively unexpectedly nationalized, but also how and why it can also be unexpectedly and equally comprehensively denationalized^[179]».

---

^[176] Günther Schlee. Conflict Management: Theory and Practice. Translated from English and German by S. V. Sokolovsky. – Moscow, 2004.

^[177] UN Report: The PRC Is Responsible for «Serious Human Rights Violations» in Xinjiang Province https://news.un.org/ru/story/2022/08/1430722. Date of access 20.04.2025

^[178] Uri U. Ethnic Conflicts: What Can Be Done? // National Policy in the Russian Federation. – Moscow, 1993.

^[179] Brubaker R. Myths and Misconceptions in the Study of Nationalism. – 2000. – P. 75.