ABSTRACT

Diplomacy in conflict region’s failure is not measured in policy terms, but in human lives. In volatile zones such as Gaza, Sudan, or Eastern Ukraine, diplomacy transcends quiet negotiations; it becomes an urgent, high-risk pursuit of stability amid violence and fractured authority. One of the central challenges is the absence of a neutral ground. In asymmetric conflicts—where governments, insurgents, and foreign proxies simultaneously claim legitimacy—diplomats confront an ethical dilemma: to engage may risk legitimising violence, yet to disengage may prolong suffering. Sovereignty and humanitarian duty often collide. The 2011 Libya intervention, which began as a humanitarian effort and swiftly turned into regime change, underscores the tension between moral responsibility and political consequence. Impartiality is also fragile. In arenas where great powers support opposing sides—such as Syria or Yemen—diplomatic credibility is compromised, and multilateral institutions like the UN or African Union struggle to mediate with authority. Realpolitik casts a long shadow. Strategic interests—alliances with authoritarian regimes, energy corridors, or migration control—often overshadow human rights, transforming diplomacy into a quiet enabler of instability. Yet history also offers lessons in resilience. Peace-building efforts in Colombia or post-genocide Rwanda highlight the potential of diplomacy when it is inclusive, sustained, and locally grounded. In these fragile contexts, diplomacy must be more than negotiation. It requires moral clarity, cultural fluency, and principled resolve. Diplomats must engage not only with governments but also with the voices of the displaced, the silenced, and the scarred. Ultimately, diplomacy in conflict zones must evolve beyond crisis management. It must become a force for structural transformation—dismantling the systems that sustain violence and rebuilding futures rooted in justice, dignity, and peace.

KEYWORDS:

Conflict Diplomacy, Asymmetric Warfare, Humanitarian Intervention, Sovereignty vs Human Rights, Ethical Dilemmas in Diplomacy, and Structural Transformation.

INTRODUCTION

In conflict zones, diplomacy is no longer a quiet, behind-the-scenes craft—it becomes a high-stakes mission where words can save lives or deepen wounds. As the world grapples with protracted crises in Gaza, Sudan, Eastern Ukraine, Syria, and beyond, the traditional frameworks of diplomatic engagement are being tested like never before. The boundaries between state and non-state actors blur. Legitimacy is contested. Neutral ground is elusive. In such volatile terrains, diplomacy becomes not just a matter of negotiation, but of survival, ethics, and strategy. This article explores the complex dimensions of diplomacy in conflict regions, where each decision carries profound humanitarian, political, and moral consequences. It examines how diplomats navigate contested sovereignty, asymmetrical warfare, and fractured authority structures—often under pressure from competing global interests. Through real-world cases, it analyses the ethical dilemmas of engagement: when speaking to violent actors risks legitimising them, but silence may mean abandoning the vulnerable.

Furthermore, the article interrogates the role of multilateral institutions such as the United Nations and African Union, whose efforts are often constrained by limited authority and geopolitical influence. It explores how realpolitik—strategic alliances, energy dependencies, and migration controls—can distort diplomatic priorities, sometimes at the cost of long-term peace. Yet amid these challenges, the article also highlights pathways forward. Drawing on examples of transformative peace building efforts, it argues that diplomacy in conflict zones must evolve beyond reactive crisis management. It must become a proactive force for structural change—one that listens to the displaced, centre’s justice, and rebuilds war-torn societies with dignity. By tracing the tensions between principle and pragmatism, this article aims to provoke fresh thinking about diplomacy’s role in the world’s most fragile regions—and to imagine a future where diplomacy becomes a genuine instrument of peace.

TYPES OF CONFLICT AREAS AND THEIR UNIQUE CHALLENGES

Typologies of conflict zones and their distinct challenges. In a world increasingly shaped by geopolitical tensions and internal fractures, understanding the types of conflict zones is essential for developing sustainable peace frameworks. While conflicts often overlap in causes and outcomes, they are commonly categorised as ethnic, ideological, resource-based, territorial, and political. Each presents a distinct set of challenges for policymakers, peace builders, and affected communities.

Ethnic Conflicts

Ethnic conflicts stem from historical grievances, cultural exclusion, or contested national identities. Since 1946, nearly 40% of armed conflicts have had ethnic dimensions.¹ South Sudan and the Balkans exemplify how deeply rooted ethnic divisions disrupt state-building and require long-term reconciliation efforts that go beyond ceasefires.

Ideological Conflicts

Ideologically driven conflicts are marked by clashes in political, religious, or philosophical beliefs. The Taliban in Afghanistan or ISIS in the Levant illustrate how such rigid ideologies threaten pluralism.² These conflicts resist resolution through military means alone and demand counter-radicalisation, education, and ideological reintegration.

Resource-Based Conflicts

Over 45% of civil wars since 1990 have been linked to disputes over natural resources.³ In places like the Niger Delta and the DRC, the struggle over oil or minerals is intensified by environmental degradation, corruption, and foreign exploitation. These dynamics turn local grievances into protracted violence.

Territorial Conflicts

Disputes involving borders—such as Kashmir, the South China Sea, or Israel-Palestine—are rooted in sovereignty claims, national identity, and legal ambiguity.⁴ These conflicts often become internationalised, with negotiation complicated by competing historical narratives and strategic interests.

Political Conflicts

Political instability frequently emerges in fragile democracies or autocracies. Myanmar’s 2021 coup and Venezuela’s constitutional crisis show how governance failures and power struggles trigger civil unrest and legitimatise institutions.⁵ Restoring trust and accountability in such contexts is a long, delicate process.

Therefore, each conflict zone carries unique historical, political, and socioeconomic complexities. Lasting peace cannot emerge from generic solutions; it requires tailored, inclusive strategies that address root causes, not just symptoms. By appreciating the distinctions between conflict types, global actors can better foster durable and just peace.

DIPLOMATIC METHODS USED IN CONFLICTS

Diplomacy continues to be one of the pillars of conflict resolution and transformation across the world. Diplomacy involves a range of formal and informal dialogue and negotiations, and efforts to mitigate hostility, promote cooperation and sustain peace in the long-term. Particularly when applied in conflict-ridden areas, like the middle east, sub-saharan Africa and certain areas of South Asia, diplomacy encompasses both formal and informal methods of statecraft and peace-building. The most recognised and protracted form of diplomacy is Track I diplomacy, which is exclusively confined to formal negotiations between the official representatives of states and international organisations. The 1995 Dayton Accords that ended the Bosnian War, is an example of successful Track I diplomacy. While in contrast, Track II diplomacy is more informal and involves dialogue though non-state actors including scholars, religious leaders, and non-profits, and has been a very important mechanism for changing public opinions and complementing formal negotiations. As Joseph Montville explained in 1991, Track II diplomacy is critical because it provides a manner of psychological healing and trust at the people-to-people level.

The UN endorsement of preventive diplomacy endeavours to respond to grievances prior to the eruption of violence or hostilities. Boutros Boutros-Ghali’s Agenda for Peace (1992) prescribes early warning mechanisms, fact-finding missions and confidence-building

measures as forms of preventive diplomacy. Mediation, facilitated by neutral third parties, remains another critical method. The Oslo Accords (1993), mediated by Norway between Israel and the Palestine Liberation Organisation, demonstrate how third-party mediation can help bridge seemingly intractable differences. Lastly, multilateral diplomacy, involving international coalitions and organisations such as the UN or African Union, helps legitimise peace efforts and ensures shared responsibility. As Bercovitch and Jackson (2009) note in Conflict Resolution in the Twenty-first Century, multilateralism enhances inclusivity and sustainability in peace processes. In sum, while each conflict requires a tailored approach, the effectiveness of diplomacy hinges on timing, neutrality, cultural sensitivity, and the commitment of actors to sustained engagement.

MAIN PLAYERS IN CONFLICT DIPLOMACY

Conflict diplomacy is the process where various actors engage in concerted efforts to avert, contain, and resolve conflicts peacefully. Among the key players in this sector are the United Nations (UN), sovereign states, and non-governmental organisations (NGOs). Each of them has different strengths and obligations that help to promote world peace. The United Nations is the focal point in conflict diplomacy by providing a platform for negotiation, dialogue, and collective decision-making. Formed in 1945, the fundamental purpose of the UN is to ensure international peace and security. It engages through diplomatic activity with peacekeeping forces, mediation, and humanitarian interventions. The UN Security Council specifically plays a major role in the authorisation of intervention and sanctions imposition. Furthermore, the UN Secretary-General regularly steps in as a neutral arbiter in times of crisis, capitalising on the organisation’s world legitimacy in fostering peaceful resolution. By channels such as UNHCR and UNDP, the UN also works towards alleviating the sources of conflict through support for development, human rights, and post-conflict reconciliation.

Sovereign states play a central role in conflict diplomacy as both participants and facilitators. They enter into direct bilateral or multilateral negotiations to solve conflicts and preserve regional stability. States frequently involve themselves in peace negotiations, introduce diplomatic resolutions, and even function as impartial third-party mediators in foreign conflicts. Strong nations with international power, like the United States, China, or the European Union members, are able to influence diplomatic results by providing incentives, using pressure, or brokering negotiations. Small or neutral nations, like Norway or Switzerland, tend to shelter peace negotiations and play a role in the establishment of trust because they are seen as impartial. NGOs have gained prominence in contemporary conflict diplomacy. NGOs such as the International Crisis Group, Médecins Sans Frontières, and grassroots groups work in zones of conflict, delivering humanitarian assistance, promoting human rights, and supporting peacebuilding at the community level. Being close to the affected population provides them with insights that official parties might not possess. NGOs practice Track II diplomacy— unofficial discussions that support formal negotiations—and bridge communities and policymakers. Their adaptability, grassroots presence, and advocacy work make them essential allies in conflict prevention and resolution.

In conclusion, the UN, states, and NGOs all have important roles to play in conflict diplomacy. By integrating international power, national interests, and grassroots mobilisation, these actors create a multi-layered system of diplomacy that increases the likelihood of

achieving sustainable peace and stability in conflict zones.

BIG CHALLENGES AND MORAL ISSUES IN DIPLOMACY

Diplomacy, often viewed as the art of negotiation, becomes deeply complex in conflict zones. Here, it’s not just about dialogue—it’s about navigating a minefield of moral dilemmas, political tension, and human tragedy. Every decision carries weight: Should justice be sacrificed for peace? Can engaging with violent actors ever be justified? Whose pain is acknowledged—and whose is silenced? One of the greatest challenges is maintaining neutrality without becoming morally blind. In places like Syria, diplomats have had to sit across the table from individuals accused of war crimes—not to validate them, but to halt the bloodshed. This raises difficult questions: Is peace worth negotiating with perpetrators? Can trust be built without accountability?

Another ethical struggle lies in balancing national interest with global responsibility. While countries often negotiate to protect their own agendas, diplomacy in conflict zones demands a broader, more human-centred perspective. Ignoring local voices or the plight of vulnerable communities in pursuit of political gains corrodes the essence of true diplomacy. Technology also intensifies the challenge. Real-time media, leaked talks, and performative politics create an environment where quick reactions are demanded—but diplomacy thrives on patience, quiet understanding, and careful timing.

Ultimately, diplomacy in conflict zones is a moral test. It requires not just skill, but empathy, integrity, and courage. It’s about doing the right thing, even when the options aren’t clear. Because diplomacy is not only about ending war—it’s about protecting human dignity in the hardest of times. And in choosing dialogue over destruction, diplomacy becomes more than a strategy—it becomes a moral compass, guiding humanity toward a future rooted in justice, peace, and shared hope.

ROLE OF TECHNOLOGY IN MODERN DIPLOMACY

 The convergence of technology and Diplomacy has proved to be perhaps the most defining characteristic of modern international relations in the 21st century. It has become accepted that technological advances will revolutionise the practice of diplomacy, fundamentally changing how states communicate, negotiate, and deal with each other. From the printed word in the epoch of the printing press to digital communication today, each evolution has changed the face of world interaction. And now that deepening into the digital age, the ever-changing relationship between technological innovation and diplomatic evolution needs understanding to help navigate through already complicated geopolitical realities.

Different forms of adaptation to the effects of technology on diplomacy have existed. The postal systems of ancient empires, such as that of the Persians, facilitated the most efficient overall communication over the polity. The telegraph, which was introduced in the 19th century, changed the entire concept of diplomatic correspondence, allowing messages to fly quickly over continents. Subsequent links in this chain are the telephone and the fax machine. But with Internet and email access almost ubiquitous by the late 20th century, diplomacy started to spice up its types and changed through real-time dialogues and storing incredible databases of digital information-dramatically striking the speed and efficiency of diplomatic operations.

The practice of diplomacy in modern times has made technology one of its inalienable features. On the other hand, foreign ministries and even diplomats use social media platforms such as Twitter and Facebook to share news about themselves, shape stories, and address the world beyond their borders. AI, on the other hand, has introduced capabilities such as translation in real-time, sentiment analysis, and predictive analytical modelling, which all add an edge to decision-making in diplomacy. Blockchain, on the other hand, provides secure frameworks for the verification of a treaty and the enforcement of international treaties. Finally, but not limited to, the role of virtual or augmented reality (VR/AR) is now taking place in the areas of cultural diplomacy and virtual summits, providing immersive engagement between people across borders. An uprising phenomenon contending for the advanced geopolitics must now be called tech diplomacy. This strategy shares the government and technology companies, particularly the ones involved in the development and control of digital infrastructure and AI systems, in common with classical diplomacy.

Tech diplomacy lies between digital, science, and economic diplomacy. Whereas science diplomacy deals with scientific collaboration for foreign policy ends and economic diplomacy deals with trade and investment, tech diplomacy is a process of strategic interplay between states and technology firms to address such issues as data governance, content moderation, AI ethics, and cybersecurity. In addition, tech diplomacy also deals with geopolitical issues such as securing submarine cables, satellite infrastructure, which are increasingly important in global communication and security.

“Digital diplomacy” encompasses three broad sections in which digitalisation has affected diplomacy: transformation of geopolitical dynamics, emergence of new topics on the diplomatic agenda, and diffusion of technological tools to carry out diplomacy. Tech diplomacy refers to, more narrowly, negotiations and interactions between states and technology firms concerning policy issues. Cyber diplomacy relates principally to international matters of slight issues of cybersecurity and protocols.

The understanding of the varying interests of major tech firms would further provide insight into their engagement with tech diplomacy. Data-driven companies, such as Meta and Google, primarily concerned with advertising revenue, would understandably favour the enactment of policies relating to data privacy. On the other hand, Apple, Microsoft, and Amazon could devote more attention to supply chain integrity, trade regulations, and protection of infrastructure, as their profit-making activities are primarily in hardware, software, and e-commerce. Such divergences in their corporate structure and strategy would guide how such companies interact with governments and shape digital policy agendas.

Predictively, emerging technologies will increasingly condition the operations and practitioners of diplomatic practice. AI will be invoked to advise diplomats about likely conflict scenarios, blockchain more easily makes possible codification of international agreements, quantum encryption technologies promise high-level communication security, and they may also throw up further challenges through social media’s facilitation of civil society actors in holding governments to account. But such legitimacy, representation, and governance questions arise as some of the most powerful tech companies, many not democratically accountable, become involved in objects of international policy-making.

Technology-diplomacy, therefore plays a role in the wider transformation that affects global governance in the digital age. Not only would classical skills in negotiation and strategy be required by diplomats of the next generation, but also something like technological literacy and anticipatory insight. Building effective, inclusive, secure digital diplomatic frameworks will involve states, international institutions, and the private sector. Only thus could the global community unlock the promise of technology innovation without compromising democratic principles of transparency, accountability, and world peace

REAL LIFE EXAMPLES FROM CONFLICT ZONES

 Diplomacy plays a very pivotal role in mitigating conflicts and fostering peace, the following examples illustrate how diplomacy have been used in conflict ridden zones: – 

1.India’s Role as a Diplomatic Mediator: Sri Lankan Civil War

India has often seen itself as a peace-builder in South Asia, and its involvement in the Sri Lankan Civil War is a key example of that role. During the 1980s and early 1990s, India tried to help calm tensions between the Sri Lankan government and Tamil rebel groups who were fighting for independence.

In 1987, India stepped in to help both sides reach an agreement known as the Indo-Sri Lanka Peace Accord. The aim was to provide greater self-governance to Tamil-majority regions while maintaining the unity of Sri Lanka. As part of the agreement, India sent the Indian Peace Keeping Force (IPKF) to help disarm the rebels and support the peace process.

But things didn’t go as planned. The mission ran into serious challenges—many in Sri Lanka saw the Indian presence as interference, and some Tamil groups turned against the Indian troops. Eventually, the IPKF withdrew in 1990.

Despite the setbacks, India’s efforts showed a genuine attempt to bring peace to a troubled neighbour. It also opened the door for future humanitarian support and engagement. While the outcome was mixed, the episode remains a reminder of both the promise and complexity of diplomacy in conflict zones.

2. Qatar’s Role as a Mediator in Middle Eastern Conflicts

In recent years, Qatar has positioned itself as a crucial diplomatic player in the Middle East, using its neutral standing and significant economic clout to mediate some of the region’s most complex and volatile conflicts.

• Afghanistan (2020):
Qatar played a central role in hosting the peace talks between the United States and the Taliban, which led to a landmark agreement paving the way for the withdrawal of U.S. and NATO forces after nearly two decades of conflict. Although the deal faced significant hurdle, especially after the Taliban’s eventual return to power, it marked a rare moment of direct dialogue between opposing sides and offered a brief window of hope to a population long weary of war.

• Israel–Hamas Conflict (2023):
As violence in Gaza reached a saturation point, Qatar stepped in alongside the United States and Egypt to help calm the situation, even if only for a short time. Together, they managed to negotiate a brief pause in the fighting. During this window, 50 Israeli hostages were released in exchange for Palestinian prisoners. More importantly, the pause allowed much-needed humanitarian aid to enter Gaza, offering some relief to people caught in the middle. Qatar’s role showed its rare ability to talk to both sides in one of the most deeply divided conflicts in the world.

• Ukraine–Russia Conflict (2023):

Even though Ukraine is far from Qatar, the country still stepped in to help during the ongoing crisis. Qatar played a role in helping some Ukrainian children return home after they were taken to Russia—an issue that was very emotional and sensitive for many families. While this effort was small, it showed how neutral countries like Qatar can still make a big difference by helping reduce the suffering caused by war.

3. Disaster Diplomacy in Myanmar (2025)

The 7.7 magnitude earthquake that struck Myanmar in 2025 brought about an unforeseen moment of change amid ongoing conflict. Armed groups and the military junta—usually at war with each other—agreed to temporary ceasefires so that aid could reach people in need.

For a short time, the fighting stopped. Humanitarian workers were able to help affected communities, and there was a small sense of relief amid the chaos. But the peace didn’t last. Trust between the sides was weak, and soon, the conflict picked up again.

Still, this moment showed that even in the middle of deep conflict, shared suffering can bring enemies to the table—at least for a while.

4. U.S. Diplomatic Efforts in the Israel–Hezbollah Conflict (2024)

In 2024, fighting between Israel and Hezbollah along the Israel–Lebanon border became more intense. To stop the situation from turning into a full-scale war, the United States stepped in and tried to help through diplomacy. U.S. officials worked hard at the United Nations and suggested a 21-day ceasefire to give both sides a break from fighting.

Although the ceasefire didn’t officially happen, the U.S. efforts helped slow things down and gave the world time to pay attention to the danger of the conflict spreading to other areas. This example shows that even when diplomacy doesn’t lead to a clear success, it can still play an important role in preventing things from getting worse and in creating opportunities for peace later on

PEACE-BUILDING AFTER THE CONFLICT ENDS

Peace building doesn’t start when peace is declared—it begins when the guns go silent, and the long process of healing and rebuilding begins. In post-conflict zones, it’s not enough to simply end the fighting; what matters most is whether the conditions that led to war are genuinely addressed. That’s what makes peace building such a crucial, yet complex, part of diplomacy in conflict-affected areas.

One of the most urgent priorities in post-conflict settings is rebuilding public institutions. War often leaves essential systems—like the judiciary, police, and civil administration—damaged, discredited, or entirely dysfunctional. These institutions are crucial for restoring the rule of law, ensuring public safety, and delivering basic services. However, they are often viewed with suspicion by communities who experienced corruption, abuse, or neglect during the conflict. Rebuilding them isn’t just about infrastructure—it’s about restoring trust, promoting transparency, and ensuring that these institutions serve all citizens fairly. In Liberia, reforming the national police and judicial training programs helped lay the foundation for peace. In Bosnia and Herzegovina, international actors worked to rebuild governance structures to prevent the resurgence of ethnic violence. Without legitimate, functional institutions, peace agreements alone cannot guarantee stability. A peaceful society requires institutions that are trusted, inclusive, and capable of supporting long-term development and justice.

Another vital part of post-conflict peace building is transitional justice, which deals with war crimes, human rights abuses, and other serious violations committed during the conflict. It aims to acknowledge suffering, promote accountability, and prevent future violence. Common approaches include truth commissions, special tribunals, reparations, and community reconciliation efforts. These tools help societies confront their past rather than bury it. South Africa’s Truth and Reconciliation Commission is a powerful example, where public testimonies encouraged both justice and healing. By addressing past wrongs openly, transitional justice can lay the foundation for trust, forgiveness, and lasting peace.

Disarmament, Demobilisation, and Reintegration (DDR) is a crucial step in securing peace after conflict. If former fighters are left without support, education, or employment, the risk of their returning to violence remains high. DDR programs aim to disarm combatants, disband armed groups, and support their transition into civilian life. This often includes vocational training, psychological counselling, and assistance with housing or employment. Reintegration is not just about economics—it’s also about helping individuals find a place in society again. Without this support, peace remains fragile, and armed violence may reemerge.

Economic recovery is another fundamental pillar of lasting peace. War often destroys livelihoods, weakens infrastructure, and drives people into poverty. To move forward, post-conflict societies must rebuild markets, invest in agriculture and industry, and create sustainable jobs. Access to clean water, healthcare, and education is also vital to rebuilding hope and stability. When people have a stake in peace and the means to support their families, they are less likely to resort to violence. Economic recovery empowers communities and contributes to long-term resilience.

Local involvement plays a key role in making peace efforts meaningful and lasting. While international actors often initiate peace processes, real success depends on grassroots participation. Engaging local leaders, community organisations, women, youth, and even ex-combatants ensures that peace building strategies reflect the needs and realities of affected populations. Inclusive approaches foster trust and a sense of ownership over the peace process. When people feel heard and involved, they are more likely to protect and support the outcomes. Lasting peace must grow from within communities.

The international community, including the United Nations and numerous NGOs, often serves as a vital partner in peace building. Their roles include facilitating dialogue, monitoring peace agreements, supporting elections, and funding reconstruction efforts. In Sierra Leone, for example, the UN was instrumental in launching disarmament programs, helping rebuild state institutions, and overseeing the country’s first democratic elections after civil war. These international contributions can provide stability and technical expertise. However, long-term peace requires a balance between external support and local leadership to ensure sustainability. In sum, peace building is not a one-size-fits-all process. It’s a multi-layered, long-term effort that goes far beyond peace agreements. Without serious commitment to justice, development, inclusion, and reform, fragile peace can quickly unravel.

CONCLUSION

As this article unfolds the many layers of diplomacy in conflict zones, one truth becomes clear—diplomacy is not just a political tool; it is a deeply human act. It is the quiet force standing between destruction and dialogue, between silence and survival. In a world exploding with territorial disputes, cultural fault lines, and humanitarian crises, diplomacy remains one of our last, and most powerful, chances to protect peace. This article has explored how diplomatic efforts stretch far beyond formal negotiations. From high-level summits to grassroots peace building by NGOs, diplomacy is alive in every effort that keeps communication open. It’s found in the courage of those who choose words over weapons, compromise over conquest. And even in the darkest hours, when mistrust runs deep and war seems inevitable, diplomacy dares to hope. Technological evolution has only expanded its reach. Today, digital diplomacy connects global stakeholders in real time, enabling faster responses and wider inclusion. But this speed also brings new dilemmas—how do we remain ethical in a world of instant decisions? How do we balance political interests with humanitarian urgency?

Despite all this complexity, the essence of diplomacy is simple: it is about people. Real lives. Real futures. And real possibilities. Yes, the path is tangled with political interests and historical wounds. But this article has shown that when diplomacy is guided by sincerity, moral clarity, and the will to listen—it works. It doesn’t just end wars. It rebuilds trust. It rewrites futures. Because in the end, diplomacy is not just about conflict resolution. It’s about crafting a world where peace, fraternity, and well-being are not distant dreams, but shared realities. And that is the kind of world worth negotiating for.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

1. Introduction- Ravinandan Bajpai

2. Types of Conflict Areas and their Unique Challenges- Rudrakshi Bisht

3. Diplomatic Methods used in Conflicts- Tanu Nagar

4. Main players in Conflict Diplomacy- Mahek Agarwal

5. Big Challenges and Moral Issues in Diplomacy- Rudrakshi Bisht

6. Role of Technology in Modern Issues in Diplomacy- Devika K

7. Real life examples from Conflict Zones- Ravinandan Bajpai

8. Peace building After the Conflict Ends- Farhat Habibi

9. Conclusion- Rudrakshi Bisht

REFERENCES

Frey, C. (2024). Digital Diplomacy: The impact of technology on modern diplomacy and foreign policy. Current realities and future prospects. SSRN Electronic Journal.

 Editor. (2024, December 5). Terms and conditions – Diplo. Diplo. https://www.diplomacy.edu/terms/

United Nations Peace building. (n.d.). Sierra Leone. Retrieved from:       https://www.un.org/peacebuilding/content/sierra-leone.

United Nations Peacekeeping. (n.d.). Disarmament, Demobilization and Reintegration (DDR). Retrieved from: https://peacekeeping.un.org/en/disarmament-demobilization-and-reintegration.

International Center for Transitional Justice (ICTJ). (n.d.). South Africa: Truth and Reconciliation Commission. Retrieved from: https://www.ictj.org/location/south-africa.

UNDP. (2008).

Post-Conflict Economic Recovery: Enabling Local Ingenuity. Retrieved from: https://www.undp.org/publications/crisis-prevention-and-recovery-report-2008-post-conflict-economic-recovery-enabling-local-ingenuity.

Beyond Intractability. (n.d.). A Case Study of Post-Civil War Peace Building Efforts in Liberia. Retrieved from: https://www.beyondintractability.org/casestudy/koziol-liberia.

FOOTNOTES:

1. Uppsala Conflict Data Program. UCDP Conflict Encyclopedia. Department of Peace and Conflict Research, Uppsala University, 2023.

2. United Nations Office of Counter-Terrorism. Global Counter-Terrorism Strategy Review, 2022.

3. World Bank. Natural Resources and Violent Conflict: Options and Actions. 2020.

4. International Crisis Group. Resolving Territorial Disputes: Lessons and Trends. 2023.

5. Freedom House. Nations in Transit: The Authoritarian Slide, 2021.