COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS: CONFLICT RESOLUTION IN NIGERIA, UGANDA AND FRANCE

Abstract

Conflict remains a recurring challenge to governance, development, and justice across both developing and developed societies. This study undertakes a comparative legal and institutional analysis of conflict resolution in Nigeria, Uganda, and France, examining how different political systems, legal traditions, and socio-economic contexts influence their approaches to peacebuilding. The article adopts a qualitative comparative methodology, drawing from statutory provisions, case law, policy documents, and scholarly literature to assess the effectiveness of each country’s conflict resolution framework. In Nigeria and Uganda, the persistence of communal, political, and resource-based conflicts is linked to weak institutional enforcement, corruption, and limited access to justice. Both countries rely heavily on constitutional and statutory mechanisms supported by Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR), though implementation remains inconsistent. In contrast, France demonstrates a more coherent and preventive conflict resolution architecture rooted in strong judicial independence, administrative mediation, and social dialogue structures. The study finds that while Nigeria and Uganda’s frameworks are largely reactive, France’s mechanisms emphasize legal predictability, civic inclusion, and preventive diplomacy. It concludes that sustainable peace requires institutional strengthening, judicial reform, and inclusive governance that bridges the gap between constitutional guarantees and practical enforcement. The comparative findings reveal that lessons from France’s legal coherence and civic engagement can inform reforms in African jurisdictions seeking to build durable peace.