Save

Sudan: In a Procrustean Bed with Crisis

In: International Negotiation
View More View Less
  • 1 101 Windhover Drive, Chapel Hill, NC 27514 USA ; stephen.smith93@gmail.com, Email: ssmith9@duke.edu; stephen.smith93@gmail.com
Download Citation Get Permissions

Access options

Get access to the full article by using one of the access options below.

Institutional Login

Log in with Open Athens, Shibboleth, or your institutional credentials

Login via Institution

Purchase

Buy instant access (PDF download and unlimited online access):

€29.95$34.95

Abstract

Civil war in Sudan ‐ first between the North and the South, then in Darfur ‐ extends over half a century, interrupted only by a spell of uneasy peace between 1972 and 1983. Over time, a number of analytical templates have been propounded to account for the quasi-permanent crisis. The causes for conflict in Sudan have thus been pegged to the legacy of colonialism, ethno-religious divide, Islamist terrorism, a resource war, state failure, regional conflict concatenation, genocide, and a “turbulent state paradigm” (Alex de Waal). This article takes stock of the various frameworks offered for explanation both in academic writing and the broader media discourse on Sudan. The critical assessment provides for a rehearsal of available scholarship and leads to three interlocking conclusions: (1) the translation of local/national conflict into relevant international language is a form of reciprocal resource mobilization; (2) conflict analysis, and with all the more reason conflict management, are always part of the unfolding crisis they strive to come to terms with; and (3) conflict analysis ought to be predicated on an “uncertainty principle” akin to the one postulated by Werner Heisenberg for quantum physics, because the momentum of a conflict and its analytical fixation inexorably escape each other.

Content Metrics

All Time Past Year Past 30 Days
Abstract Views 496 202 21
Full Text Views 117 21 1
PDF Views & Downloads 76 41 2