At a time when some informed Muslims believe Islam to be “set on a collision course with the West” and some Christians warn of a “perhaps irrational but surely historical reaction of an ancient rival against our Judeo-Christian heritage,” it may be helpful to ask what both traditions teach about current issues of joint concern. One of the most urgent of these issues is the question of forcible humanitarian intervention. Setting aside broader questions of interpretation, such as the extent to which Islam can be identified with political radicalism and Christianity with Western political interests, this essay compares Muslim and Christian teachings on this issue. Both traditions have had to confront questions of political violence, suffering, and war since at least the time of the conversion of Constantine in one case (1,600 years ago) and the founding of the first Islamic state at Medina in the other (1,300 years ago). The central argument in this essay is that there is a surprising measure of agreement between the two traditions on the question of forcible humanitarian intervention, enough to provide the basis for a shared doctrine.

The aim of this article is to draw attention to the work of a conflict analyst whose theory of ‘protracted social conflict’ – developed in a sustained series of publications over a twenty-year period from the early-1970s – has been neglected in mainstream international relations, strategic studies and security studies circles. The first section offers a conceptual context for assessing the originality and significance of Azar's approach. The second section outlines his theory of protracted social conflict. The third section evaluates his theory in the light of developments in conflict analysis in the 13 years since his death. The conclusion is that Azar's work does not merit such neglect and that it still offers useful pointers for an understanding of the sources of major armed conflict in the turbulent and contested arena of post-Cold War politics.

In the past, the key question about humanitarian intervention has been: if governments violate the basic human rights of their citizens, should other governments intervene forcibly to remedy the situation? Since the end of the Cold War the key question has been: if internal conflicts cause unacceptable human suffering, should the international community develop collective mechanisms for preventing or alleviating it?