Contemporary Conflict Analysis in Penpe~iive 47134 Kriesberg, op cit, p 8.
135 Large power differences, for instance, can be in themselves a source of grievance
to the less powerful. At the same time, they can deter oven expression of the
grievance. Yet, if power differences are small suggesting that perhaps the distri-
bution of valued resources is fair, one of the parties may misjudge its power and
think a marginal advantage can be obtained with only a little effort.
136 Kriesberg, op cit, p 105.
137 in this respect see H Mia11 with 0 Ramsbotham&T Woodhouse, op cit, p 70. Also
the original development of this in E E Am. The management ofprotrmed social
conflict. Theory and cases, Darmouth Publishing Company, 1990, pp 7-12.
138 Miall with Ramsbotham & Woodhouse, op cit, p 73.
139 As Edward Azar points out, "deprivation or satisfaction of human needs for phys-
ical security, access to political and social institutions, and acceptance of com-
munal identity (i.e. political pluralism) is largely a result of social, political and
economic interactions. In the modern world, the regulation of such interactions,
and thus the satisfaction of these basic needs, is undertaken by the political
authority called the state: Azar, op cit, p 10. Miall el a1 add that "at whatever
level the main sources of contemporary conflict may be seen to reside, it is at the
level of the state that the critical struggle is, in the end, played out". Miall et al,
op cit, p 84.
140 See for example, Brown, Introduction, op cit, pp 1-33. As well as Brown. The
causes and regional dimensions of internal conflict, op cit, pp 571-603.
141 Goodhand with Vaux & Walker, op cit, p 11. For these authors, structural analy-
sis entails looking at the long-term factors underlying violent conflict.
142 See King. op cit, p 29.
143 Adapted from Brown. Introduction, op cit, p 14.
144 In this respect see interalia I W ZaRman.Collapsed states: The disintegration and
restoration of legitimate authority, Lynne Rienner, Boulder. Colo.. 1995.
145 In fact, as Joel Migdal points out, 'it is impossible to understand states - whether
we want to look at international or domestic relations - without placing them in
the contexts of the societies within which they interact with other social organisa-
lions, for it is from these interactions that states draw their strength and find their
limitations. The myth of sovereignty assumes the freedom of states to pursue their
own interests in the international arena, and the myth of state autonomy takes the
coherence of states for granted, as it does the distance from other societal forces.
In fact, whether states are sovereign or autonomous is a historical question that
cannot be decided a priori. A more fruitful approach is to examine the state in the
context of those forces impinging upon its ability to act unfettered". J S. hligdal,
Integration and disintegration: An approach to society formation, Between devel-
opment and destruction.An enquiry into the causes of conflicr in posr-colonial
states, op cit, p 92. Using the definition of state making proposed by Cohen, Brown
and Organski (as 'primitive central power accumulation'),Mohammed Ayoob
posits that "state-making must include the following: (1) the expansion and con-
solidation of the territorial and demographic domain under a political authority
including the imposition of order on contested territorial and demographic space
(war); (2) the maintenance of order in the territory where, and over the population