Both conflict dynamic approach and basic needs approach try to identify the position of the parties and seek for solution but rational calculation approach tries to identify interests of the conflicting parties and seeks for solution. The major assumption of rational calculation approach is that actors are rational and they can rationally judge, make decisions, pursue strategies and thus initiate a chain of events and ultimately lead to war. The same phenomena of rationality of actors ends the war. There is a need for actors to make calculations that can terminate a conflict and such need arises due to various conditions and demands during the conflict.
Three prominent scholars have contributed in this idea.
William Zartman: Ripe moment and Triple M approach
Roger Fisher and William Ury: Best Alternative To a Negotiated Agreement (BATNA)
John Stedman: How to sustain peace process, the role of spoilers
Zartment argues that all parties in a conflict start a war with an assumption that they will win the war. This leads other parties to defend their position and after a certain period of time in conflict the conflicting parties tend to reach to a position that the cost of continuing conflict is much higher than the cost of peace and settlements. This is the point where both parties have already invested all their resources which makes them difficult to continue any more. Zartman terms this stage the ripe moment for intervention for conflict resolution. This moment is also known as the stage of Mutually hurting stalemate. Parties attain this position either due to the changing dynamics of war or natural calamities. This is the point where parties easily agree on ceasefire so as to re-strengthen, regrouping and buying arms and weapons. On the other hand this stage can be a point from where parties seek for solution to the problem and start to resolve the conflict known as mutually enticing opportunities. This stage is a point of cooperation between the parties to settle their disputes and differences and if the condition is settled then they ought to get mutually obtained rewards which can be peace, legitimacy, etc.
Roger Fisher and William Ury in their book “Getting to yes: Negotiating agreements without giving in” (1981) rests on explicit calculations but still applies rationalist perspectives. Though their work is all about negotiations it is applicable in armed conflicts and war. According to them settlements based on negotiations can fairly be judged on the basis of three criteria.
It should produce wise agreement.
It should improve the relationship between parties.
The process should be efficient.
Reconciling in interests rather than position and meeting the legitimate interests of each side as much as possible will lead to a more sustainable peace. Fisher and Ury also argue that the basic human needs of both sides has to be addressed which are safety, economic wellbeing, sense of belongingness, recognition and self control over one’s life. Such agreements are termed as Best Alternatives to a Negotiated Agreement (BATNA). Later Ury in his book The Third Side(1996) stressed that there is a need of a third and impartial side to find a solution to the problem. He argues that it takes two to fight and a third to resolve. The presence of third side within the parties and outside the party can pressure the conflicting parties to settle their differences.
John Stedman talks about the role of spoilers in the peace process. He argues that to attain a sustainable peace or make peace agreements work the spoilers should always be taken in account. Spoilers in this process can be both external spoilers and spoilers inside the party. The presents the dilemma that if spoilers are included in the process than they may ruin and spoil all the process but if they are excluded then they may manipulate the population and start another conflict. So, spoilers should be carefully handled during this process and to minimize the risks of the spoilers the process should be very swift and efficient so that the spoilers do no get time and space to intervene.
Rational calculation approach is highly used in conflict management schools and conflict resolution schools. The ripe moment can be created through the diplomatic efforts in a conflict. Yet it is very complicated process because the ripe moment can both be used as preparation of war and preparation of peace. The swift nature of this approach makes it more sensitive and it is a quick fix theory for any conflicts.
Although it is said to be more successful than conflict dynamic approach and basic need approach, most of the negotiated agreements in different conflicts in the world has failed to sustain and conflict has reemerged in those areas. So, it can be challenged if it really works and is a good approach for resolving conflicts. It may be due to its top-down model of implementation. The ripe moment is very hard to point out.
