Before answering how diplomacy heps conflict resolution and peace building, it must be stressed that diplomacy is comprised of several components such as "traditional diplomacy" (through the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of each state), military diplomacy, economic diplomacy, etc.

The main way diplomacy affects conflict resolution is by bringing the conflicting parts together through a negotiation process in order to come to an agreement (traditional diplomacy). As far as peace building is concerned, diplomacy helps the procedure through providing advice regarding public governance, rule of law, human rights, etc.

Another way that military diplomacy affects conflict resolution is by achieving deterrence through the maintenance of operational armed forces and show of force (military training exercises, military parades, etc.) which results the escalation of tension between the conflicting parts. As far as peace building is concerned, military diplomacy asures the implementation of the measures taken in the context of the peace agreement by establishing military presence in the conflict region.

Finally, economic diplomacy achieves both deterrence through the implementation of sanctions to (usually) one of the conflicting parts, and peacebuilding through economic support in order for the reconstruction/development of the conflicting region to be achieved.

As far as the research question are concerned, the following are some of the ones that can be used:

1. What are the components of diplomacy?

2. How does each component of diplomacy affects conflict resolution?

3. How does each component of diplomacy affects peace building?

4. What is the relation between diplomacy and deterrence?

5. Can diplomacy have a negative impact on conflict resolution and peace building?

Diplomacy plays a crucial role in conflict resolution and peacebuilding by fostering dialogue, promoting mutual understanding, and facilitating the peaceful settlement of disputes. Its impact can be observed through various mechanisms and strategies that help transform conflicts and lay the groundwork for lasting peace.

I would begin by suggesting reading the question by Pa Ousman Nije about diplomacy and invasion of a sovereign state, as well as the answers. Diplomacy plays a role in conflict resolution and peacebuilding depending on the political will behind it, as I see it.

However, even in the less prone setting for a negotiated resolution of a conflict, I think diplomacy is an analitical tool to understand the situation. For instance, diplomacy can be used to determine which are the parties to the conflict, the local, the regional and the global. Diplomacy is useful in analyzing the interests at a stake. Lastly, diplomacy is useful in designing a "grand strategy" of conflict resolution after these previous analysis, considering the political will and aims set by the parties.

Following Georgios Koukakis , I would propose as a sample the role of diplomacy in Afghanistan after the ousting of the Taliban regime in 2001 / 2002 by the Americans. Diplomacy set the stage for peacebuilding in the country, at the Bonn conference, involving different countries and organizations with a specific role, as well as addressing Afghan political elements to proceed with the international community. But at the time, the Taliban were neglected and neither was heeded the support they enjoyed in a portion of the Afghan population. Therefore, the scene was set for the Taliban to come back as an alien force to the peacebuilding effort, turning them into a force contrary to the process that was developing. This in turn led to a growing role of the military in the peacebuilding process, that evolved into a counterinsurgency campaign over time. Was that a failure of diplomacy or a failure of the politicians making decisions?

We all kow how it ended. I wish this comment woudl be useful.

It's impact is obvious because the mere sitting down to discuss opens up new avenues for conflict resolution. I might say it is it's essence.