The principle of self-determination enshrined in Woodrow Wilson's 14 Points after World War I, generated controversy and resulted in the break-up of empires and states in the Europe. An attempt is made to analyze the legal and human rights dimension of the Palestinian-Israeli conflict and the various processes to resolve the conflicts and dynamics of the Palestinian society characterized by factionalism and gang violence as a result of the emergence of Islamic fundamentalism. The basic question is how to reconcile the seeming demands for access to power, government and territory. This requires compromises on the issues of equality, sovereignty, territorial integrity and recession. These issues are discussed in the context of the Palestinians' demand for the right of self-determination as most of the territories of Palestine are under Israeli occupation. In 1947, Palestine was partitioned into the Jewish state of Israel and the Arab state of Palestine which resulted in several wars between the Jewish state of Israel and Palestine. So far the Palestinian-Israeli conflict has not been resolved. There are many hurdles and obstacles in the way of resolving the conflict through negotiations for peace and stability in the Middle East. The US foreign policy under various Presidents and their diplomatic initiative for dialogue for peaceful negotiation has been examined.

The end of the Cold War did not result in the end of conflicts. The outcome of the breakup of the Soviet Union was the emergence of ethno-nationalism. The last century was a century of conflicts—a period that saw terrible wars between and within nations. Some of the regions like the Middle East, South Asia, Central Asia and Africa are facing the risks and opportunities for peace and stability.

Political scientists have provided models for resolving the ethnic conflicts which provide a useful framework for the analysis. There are two distinct models of how to tailor democratic institutions to cope with ethnic divisions and in particular to protect the human rights of ethnic minorities and to prevent human rights abuses. These models comprise a `consociational' model of democracy, and an 'integrative' or pluralist model of democracy. Authoritarianism or partition is rejected by political scientists and international lawyers as there are relatively few where either of these approaches have led to the successful management or resolution of the ethnic conflict.

The consociational model focuses on the cooperation between political elites as a mechanism of managing ethnic conflict. In contrast to the consociational model, there is a more integrative approach to conflict management. While there are common elements such as an advocacy of federalism, proportionality, and ethnic balance, the crucial difference of the integrative model is that it focuses on creating incentives for political leaders to appeal beyond their own ethnic group for support. While consociational model relies on constraints against immoderate politics, integrative approach focuses on designing political institutions which encourage or induce integration across the communal or ethnic divisions through five central mechanisms—(i) dispersion of power, often territorial (ii) devolution of power (iii) inducements of inter-ethnic cooperation (iv) policies to encourage alternative social alignments and (v) reducing disparities between groups through managed distribution of resources.

International Relations Journal, Human Rights Dimension, Islamic Fundamentalism, Cold War, Conflict Management, Social Alignments, Jewish Sovereignty, Israeli Government, Palestinian Economy, Islamic Resistance Movement, Institutional Development, Israeli Palestine Liberation Organization, International Criminal Tribunals, Human Rights Organizations.