The paper demonstrates that ideas shape conflict by functioning as ‘stakes’ (values that parties to conflicts seek either to gain or to avoid losing) and by constituting and governing social practices for the conduct of conflict. It develops a typology distinguishing that differentiates conflicts according to the extent and kind of their ideational content, and shows that the unitary conception of conflict implicit in much of the existing literature in international relations and international security imposes limits on understanding and on the effectiveness of conflict management and resolution efforts. The paper also shows that greater understanding of conflict properties and dynamics can be obtained via further research on the role of ideas in constituting social practices for conducting conflict. In particular, attention should be paid to the way social rules provide actors with instruction manuals for when to engage in violent conflict, and the repertoire of practices to employ when doing so. Increased understanding of the mechanisms for altering such rules offers at least modest potential for restriction of the circumstances in which violent conflict is employed, as well as reduction in the lethality (particularly for civilians) of the means employed when conflict does become violent.
