This question touches a fundamental rupture in the understanding of conflict management. When violence or even war already prevails, the term “management” has a hollow ring.

For how does one manage what has already eluded the control of rationality?

This answer – the discourse of strategic conflict resolution – presupposes a certain degree of predictability and capacity for dialogue. It is about prevention, about diplomatic mechanisms, before escalation develops its own dynamic. But once violence takes primacy, conflict management transforms into something entirely different: no longer precaution, but damage limitation; no longer mediation, but containment.

One might ask: is conflict management in the phase of war not a euphemism for warfare beneath a civilisational mask? Those who manage conflicts while bombs fall are often not practising mediation, but orchestrating interests under conditions of violence. The humanitarian language is preserved, but the reality is military.

Historically – and here a look back at classical diplomatic history is instructive – conflict management in war was always a question of the laws of war, of back-channels, of minimal communication to limit total collapse.

In that sense: yes, there is conflict management in war, but it is no longer a rational process aimed at mutual understanding – it is more a struggle against complete derailment.

In this sense one must clearly distinguish:

Perhaps one must also ask whether modern conflict research has not overstretched the term “management” – in the hope of still injecting rationality where only chaos reigns.

In highly escalated, identity-laden conflicts – Ukraine-Russia, Israel-Palestine, Taiwan-China – abstract systems, technical procedures and bureaucratic processes quickly reach their limits. Here a fundamental misunderstanding of modern conflict research reveals itself: that conflicts can be managed through procedures, without taking seriously the human, the personal, the political-historical.

A reference to strong personalities as credible mediators is decisive – and indeed historically attested. Metternich, Talleyrand, Kissinger – or quite differently: Dag Hammarskjöld – each represented a political personality whose authority derived not from the systematics of an apparatus, but from experience, trust and strategic judgment.

The term conflict management is problematic here – indeed, outright misleading. For “management” suggests: calculability, controllability and a certain normativity. Yet in the conflicts named, the opposite is true: there are no longer objectively mediable interests, but identity claims, historical traumas, symbolic orders, and ultimately naked power calculation.

In such contexts, management is not an appropriate term – statecraft, strategy, perhaps also intuitive diplomacy would be more accurate.

That is why a service provider wishing to position itself here should not advertise with systemic promises, but with person-related authority, historical understanding, discretion and the capacity for asymmetric communication – that is, mediation even when the parties do not want the same thing, do not mean the same thing, and do not share the same goal.

In other words: mediation at this level is not a method, but an art. And no art works without a credible artist.

Operative conflict management and strategic conflict resolution

Conflicts unfold in phases. Some require rapid intervention, others strategic thinking. That is why we offer both – operative conflict management and strategic conflict resolution.

Conflict Management: When conflicts have already escalated, the concern is often no longer mutual understanding, but damage limitation, structure and crisis intervention. We create orientation, establish minimal communication formats and help contain escalations.

Typical cases: deadlocked negotiations – internal power conflicts – political or organisational crisis situations

Conflict Resolution: Strategic conflict resolution begins earlier – or later. It presupposes that dialogue is (again) possible. Here the focus is on causal analysis, trust-building and long-term understanding. Not procedures, but personality, experience and political judgment stand at the centre.

Typical cases: political or cultural identity conflicts – international tensions – processes following violence or collapse

Conflicts are complex – solutions require more than methods. We work with a deep understanding of political, historical and human dynamics. Where management ends, diplomacy begins. Where systems fail, personality counts.

Conflicts cannot always be managed – but they can be met with stance and foresight.