Recognition that societies will not be able to build a future as long as they do not face the ‘demons of the past’ has become a kind of universal truth over the last decades of the 20th Century (Gibney et al., 2008, p. 1). This view, though challenging and ambiguous, is reflected in the globally present attempts to improve or rebuild relations within and between different communities at the domestic and international level. The question concerning, on the one hand, the essence and most essential elements and, on the other hand, the instruments and the limitations of rebuilding relations, as well as the political implications of those processes have become the broad area of interest and the discourse leading to significantly different ideas and solutions. The article aims at presenting different approaches referring to dealing with the conflicted and traumatized past both at the domestic and international level. Some selected instruments and methods which enable movement from a divided past towards a common future are discussed namely the strategy of engagement with the past versus the strategy of avoidance of the past. The special attention is paid to the notion of reconciliation understood as a process of rebuilding of relations through the multi-dimensional transformation of former adversaries after the period of violence and repression.
Importance of building and rebuilding relations between different actors of international politics, from the level of individuals and the smallest social groups to those biggest ones organized in the form of states, has recently become the object of more extended research in the area of both diplomacy and conflict resolution. Along with the well-known and thoroughly analyzed notions such as power, interests, freedoms, norms and many other some new concepts resulting from the evolving nature of international politics are included into political discourse. One of them is reconciliation meaning the rebuilding of relations both at internal and international level. Another interesting example is the relational approach to conflict resolution which can be perceived as the proposal situating itself between two most traditional approaches in the area of international relations namely the realist and the liberal schools. While the realist approach is criticized for not paying enough attention to non-state actors and their role in conflct resolution, the liberal one is perceived as too much oriented into the issues of individual freedoms and institutions and lack of relational „community thinking”. Relational approach which is discussed by increasing number of experts in the area of con{ ict resolution points out the necessity of focusing on the interactions between di erent actors of international relations or more precisely transformation of these relations in such a way that the con{ ict between them is not only settled but truly resolved. Such a transformation is also connected with deeper change in the approach to politics itself meaning fuller inclusion of citizens and their initiatives which are necessary in the process of moving from signing peace agreement to building lasting peace. The article discusses the scope and contents of relational approach and reconciliation stating that reconciliation is both a fundamental aim and instrument of conflict resolution.
JavaScript is turned off in your web browser. Turn it on to take full advantage of this site, then refresh the page.