In the context of the transition from a unipolar world order to a multipolar system of international relations, the cases of Germany and Korea in conflict resolution help to understand how the shifting balance of power affects the effectiveness of peace initiatives in contemporary global crises.

How can the destructive consequences of this proliferation be minimized in a world transitioning from a unipolar order to multipolarity? To what extent can historical models of conflict resolution be applied to contemporary crises? This analysis examines two contrasting approaches to post-conflict crisis management: the Korean model of freezing conflicts and the German model of integration.

The German and Korean Models of Conflict Resolution in the System of Geopolitical Coordinates

Historical conflict resolution models must be analyzed within their geopolitical context. Wars do not emerge in a vacuum; they result from complex interactions between various factors such as the level of involvement of the parties, territorial scope, historical background, and technological escalation. These factors determine key conflict parameters, including intensity, cyclicality, and—most importantly—the effectiveness of peace models.

Conflicts evolve alongside shifts in the global geopolitical landscape. The Afghan crisis is a prime example: during the 1980s, it was a proxy war between the USSR and the U.S. under a bipolar world order. However, after the Soviet collapse, it became a testing ground for American power projection in a unipolar world.

The Korean and German crises were also products of bipolarity, but their resolutions occurred at different stages of this system’s evolution. If the Korean conflict was frozen at........

© New Eastern Outlook