Conflict resolution is conceptualized as the methods and processes involved in facilitating the peaceful ending of conflict and retribution. Committed group members attempt to resolve group conflicts by actively communicating information about their conflicting motives or ideologies to the rest of group (e.g., intentions; reasons for holding certain beliefs) and by engaging in collective negotiation. Dimensions of resolution typically parallel the dimensions of conflict in the way the conflict is processed. Cognitive resolution is the way disputants understand and view the conflict, with beliefs, perspectives, understandings and attitudes. Emotional resolution is in the way disputants feel about a conflict, the emotional energy. Behavioral resolution is reflective of how the disputants act, their behavior. Ultimately a wide range of methods and procedures for addressing conflict exist, including negotiation, mediation, mediation-arbitration, diplomacy, and creative peacebuilding. The term conflict resolution may also be used interchangeably with dispute resolution, where arbitration and litigation processes are critically involved. The concept of conflict resolution can be thought to encompass the use of nonviolent resistance measures by conflicted parties in an attempt to promote effective resolution. The dual concern model of conflict resolution is a conceptual perspective that assumes individuals’ preferred method of dealing with conflict is based on two underlying themes or dimensions: concern for self (assertiveness) and concern for others (empathy). According to the model, group members balance their concern for satisfying personal needs and interests with their concern for satisfying the needs and interests of others in different ways. The intersection of these two dimensions ultimately leads individuals towards exhibiting different styles of conflict resolution. The dual model identifies five with number four being the target to complete the cycle & illuminate the issue at hand. Conflict resolution styles or strategies that individuals may use depend on their dispositions toward pro-self or pro-social goals. There are many examples of conflict resolution in history, and there has been a debate about the ways to conflict resolution: whether it should be forced or peaceful. Conflict resolution by peaceful means is always a better option. The conflict resolution curve derived from an analytical model offers a peaceful solution by motivating conflicting entities. Forced resolution of conflict might invoke another conflict in future. Conflict resolution curve (CRC) separates conflict styles into two separate domains: domain of competing entities and domain of accommodating entities(Image of CRC ). There is a sort of agreement between targets and aggressors on this curve. Their judgements of badness compared to goodness of each other are analogous on CRC. So, arrival of all conflicting entities to some negotiable points on CRC is important before peace building. CRC does not exist (i.e., singular) in reality if the chance of aggression of the aggressor is certain. Under such circumstances it might lead to apocalypse with mutual destruction. The curve explains why nonviolent struggles ultimately toppled repressive regimes from power and sometimes forced leaders to change the nature of governance. Also, this methodology has been applied to capture the conflict styles in Korean Peninsula and dynamics of negotiation process. Wars may occur between parties who contest an incompatibility. The nature of an incompatibility can be territorial or governmental, but a warring party must be a 'government of a state or any opposition organization or alliance of organizations that uses armed force to promote its position in the incompatibility in an intrastate or an interstate armed conflict'. Wars can conclude with a peace agreement, which is a 'formal agreement... which addresses the disputed incompatibility, either by settling all or part of it, or by clearly outlining a process for how... to regulate the incompatibility.' A ceasefire is another form of agreement made by warring parties; unlike a peace agreement, it only 'regulates the conflict behaviour of warring parties', and does not resolve the issue that brought the parties to war in the first place.