Example collocations logo

Conflict in sentence

4458 examples of Conflict in a sentence

Humanitarian aid workers know the risk they are taking in conflict areas or in post-conflict environments, yet our life, our job, is becoming increasingly life-threatening, and the sanctity of our life is fading.
Or imagine mothers on opposite sides of a conflict somewhere in the world sitting down not to talk about that conflict but to find out who they are as people, and in doing so, begin to build bonds of trust; or that someday it becomes a tradition all over the world that people are honored with a StoryCorps interview on their 75th birthday; or that people in your community go into retirement homes or hospitals or homeless shelters or even prisons armed with this app to honor the people least heard in our society and ask them who they are, what they've learned in life, and how they want to be remembered.
Be realistic about the things that we disagree on, and a management approach that doesn't enable any one of those differences to break into war or conflict until we've acquired the diplomatic skills to solve them.
But they find themselves in a conflict between their values and their behavior.
Conversely, if we think about communities all over the world affected by war and conflict, it is insecurity and violence that stops them from achieving their full freedom and development.
If civilians are killed, if communities are targeted, this will feed a vicious circle of war, conflict, trauma and radicalization, and that vicious circle is at the center of so many of the security challenges we face today.
We have many threats to peace and conflict.
And so finding ways to shift the conflict to a place of conversation is the work of my life.
And I was like, "Peacebuilder?" (Laughter) Every day, I work to amplify the voices of women and to highlight their experiences and their participation in peace processes and conflict resolution, and because of my work, I recognize that the only way to ensure the full participation of women globally is by reclaiming religion.
As a planet, we've set a target, the Sustainable Development Goals, yet we're spending less than half the amount on tackling the global goals than we are on conflict resolution, which mostly arises from the very inequalities we're not serving.
Understanding non-state armed groups is key to solving most ongoing conflict, because war has changed.
It is now a conflict between states and non-state actors.
So we need to understand these groups; we need to either engage them or defeat them in any conflict resolution process that has to be successful.
On the security side, we've come out of a Cold War in which it was too costly to fight a nuclear war, and so we didn't, to a period that I call Cool War, cyber war, where the costs of conflict are actually so low, that we may never stop.
All of a sudden, there are going to be massive regulatory changes and massive issues associated with conflict and massive issues associated with security and privacy.
But, make no mistake about it, religion is a kind of fault line, and when a conflict gets ingrained in a region, religion can get sucked in and become part of the problem.
Between 1914 and 1945, 70 million people died in Europe alone as a result of armed conflict.
But if you complicate your question just a little bit and ask something like, "Why is there an Israeli-Palestine conflict?"
Since the establishment of the United Nations, wars of aggression have been outlawed and multilateral conventions refer to armed conflict instead of war.
Commandeering civilian planes and using them as weapons, dropping atomic bombs, the use of gas chambers or poisonous gas in conflict, all of these actions, if committed, constitute acts of war and war crimes under customary international law and the Hague conventions.
In 2005, we had about 38 million people displaced by conflict in the world.
With the Internet and other technologies, they've changed our everyday lives, but they've also changed recruitment, radicalization and the front lines of conflict today.
Today, conflict is essentially borderless.
If there are bounds to conflict today, they're bound by digital, not physical geography.
And this is because, in the digital age of conflict, there exists a feedback loop where new technologies, platforms like the ones I mentioned, and more disruptive ones, can be adapted, learned, and deployed by individuals and organizations faster than governments can react.
What things like that show us is that there is a fundamental inability today on the part of governments to adapt and learn in digital conflict, where conflict can be immaterial, borderless, often wholly untraceable.
And conflict isn't just online to offline, as we see with terrorist radicalization, but it goes the other way as well.
And escalating that conflict, Los Zetas said, "We will kill 10 people for every bit of information you release."
And so we live in an era that lacks the clarity of the past in conflict, in who we're fighting, in the motivations behind attacks, in the tools and techniques used, and how quickly they evolve.
But we see where that's gotten us so far, where there's an inability to adapt and learn in digital conflict, where at the highest levels of leadership, the Director of the CIA, Secretary of Defense, they say, "Cyber Pearl Harbor will happen."
BackNext