TO DESCRIBE methods of handling conflict as 'non-military' is obviously to say what they are not rather than what they are. However, this admittedly negative description is important. It is a signal of the growing recognition that military methods of handling conflict are, at least in some situations, either inadequate or inappropriate and therefore require to be either supplemented or replaced by other methods.

The use of such non-military methods is now not only an agreed aspiration, but also an established practice. This practice may be limited, but it is accepted as valuable and worthy of considerable expansion. It is part of the official functioning of the United Nations (UN), the Organisation for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) and the Council of Europe (CE); it is beginning to affect the practice of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation [NATO) and it is being seriously considered for the practice of the Western European Union [WEU).

Although these methods of handling conflicts are in their infancy as contrasted with the very ancient and very modern and highly developed military methods, considerable work both theoretical and practical has already been done to specify, elaborate and test these alternative methods. Three main sources of knowledge and experience of them are: the international organisations, notably the UN and the OSCE, a variety of voluntary organisations commonly referred to collectively as the 'peace movement' and academic research institutions devoted to the analysis of conflicts, their causes, prevention and resolution.

The UK White Paper on the European Union (published in March 1996) refers to the desirable development in the Western European Union of 'peacekeeping, humanitarian or other crisis management operations'. This is a useful if short-hand designation of the kind of activities which are in mind. To prevent conflict, preventive diplomacy is appropriate; during conflict, there may be need for mediation, conciliation, negotiation or arbitration, and also for humanitarian aid; after conflict, there is need for reconstruction, rehabilitation and often repatriation; and at many points there may be need for the dissemination of information, for human rights protection and promotion, and for the promotion of political participation and assistance with elections.

The forms, methods and agencies of these operations have developed and are developing particularly within the works of the UN and the OSCE. One major unmet need has now become evident: namely, the need in this work for adequate staffing by appropriate personnel in a short service. If military conflict handling requires a substantial service in the sense of a trained and skilled body of personnel, so also does non-military conflict handling.

The need for such a service has been discussed in a number of circles particularly in the past year or two. Those which certain interested people in Scotland have so far identified are in three contexts:

• in Berlin and Brandenburg, where a joint church-government pilot project is under consideration;

• in the Nordic Council, where the government of the archipelago of Aland has offered facilities for training; · in the European Parliament's Intergroup for Peace and Disarmament, whose secretary coordinates a growing Europe-wide network of discussion of such a service involving several nongovernmental organisations, research institutes, Members of the European Parliament and other interested individuals.

While the thinking is as yet inchoate and part of a process of 'brainstorming' in which many diverse and at times conflicting concepts and proposals are likely to emerge, an initial consensus seems already to be taking shape.

Beyond this basic agreement, several clear proposals have been made and several important issues posed. While the proposals are not agreements and the process of consensus-building will probably take considerable time, the proposals are presented strongly and coherently. Six stand out.

The first is on the type of conflict in which the service would be most needed or most apt. The emphasis here is on intranational rather than international conflicts. Such conflicts within states have been particularly frequent in recent years.

A second proposal concerns the phase or phases of a conflict in which the service would be most appropriate or feasible. Here there is particular emphasis on the possibility and value of intervention, so to say, before and after rather than during armed conflict, i.e. in preventive measures and restorative work. There is recognition of the difficulties of both mediatory and humanitarian work by such a service during armed conflict, and clearly there are many issues of division of function and collaboration between military and non-military services, including questions whether and if so how they may be deployed simultaneously.

A third clear proposal, which may well command consensus, is that the role of the non-military service should be supportive and facilitatory of what might be called rather abstractly the 'local peace-creating capacities'. In other words, the local people in any conflict are the prime resolvers of the conflict and the task of any international service is to assist them in their task. How this is done raises large problems, but the principle seems clear.

The remaining three strong proposals concern the personnel of the service more directly, in particular how they are recruited, how they are trained and how they are deployed.

Two fundamental issues require to be addressed as soon as possible. They are what should be the nature of the relationship of the service to the international organisation or organisations involved? and which international organisation or organisations should be involved? It is assumed that the service should be independent of national governments and be of service to its international community and therefore that its vis-a-vis should be an international organisation or organisations.

Finally, what should be the force's name? What's in a name? Not a little. The main debate here is between the terms 'Civil' and 'Civilian'. Those who stress the non-military nature of the service and those who come to it in the context of national conscription where there is the option of a non-military alternative tend to use the term 'Civilian'. Those who stress independence of government and those who favour the development of civil society favour the term 'Civil'. The balance of numbers and argument seems to be with the term 'Civil.'

The question of the name in English is obviously only part of a wider consideration covering several languages. However the discussion at present suggests the provisional name of 'Civil Peace Service'.