Top-down solutions or conflict resolution attempts led by external experts are often short-lived: after a limited period, the suppressed conflict starts to resurface or even explode once again. People become accustomed to living in a conflict-ridden environment. They adapt mentally and economically to the presence of conflict. When peace is suddenly “imposed” from the outside, people feel lost and disempowered in the new, unfamiliar, conflict-free environment. The challenge lies in transforming the sociopsychological environment into one that promotes peace. The complex systems approach has appeared useful in interrupting and preventing protracted conflicts (e.g., those in Mozambique and South Sudan). A specific approach driven by a particular mindset is required to establish the psychological context needed for peacemaking, called here a Peace-Oriented Mindset (POM). The process of constructing and validating the proposed POM questionnaire is delineated. The three basic dimensions (cognitive, performative, and doability) were confirm by factor analysis. Cross-segment analysis revealed that women achieved significantly higher POM scores than men.

This chapter provides an overview of the global humanitarian system. This overview shows that the changing nature of world affairs has contributed to the ICRC moving in certain policy directions. Such factors as competition with many other humanitarian actors, plus the desires of donors and beneficiaries and partners, has helped push the ICRC into a broader range of activities. Such factors as the end of the Cold War, the rise of many protracted conflicts or forever wars, a more active United Nations, and other changes have indeed affected ICRC policy choices. The critics of the ICRC are thus placed in broad context. The spread ICRC activity is thus noted, while leaving a full evaluation of what is desirable and what should be reviewed to later chapters.

This chapter begins to examine one of the important arguments by some critics, namely that ICRC activities have become so broad and sprawling that it has lost its status as an expert actor on the laws of war (both legal development and implementation), along with protection of political prisoners. The chapter first reminds the reader that there is no binding authority above the ICRC; hence, the ICRC governing board decides how to interpret its mandate or basic role – which essentially dates from 1930. In deciding what humanitarian subjects should be addressed by the ICRC, one of the most important is taking humanitarian assistance beyond immediate relief to include a type of development or early recovery. The author finds the direction of this policy commendable but without clear limits. The dividing line between humanitarian recovery and political development remains uncertain. That line seems to lie more in the realm of subjective labelling than objective and definable facts. The distinction is often controversial as in contemporary Afghanistan and Syria, among other places.