This Master s Thesis develops the concept of identity conflict on the basis of needs- and identity-based approaches to conflict resolution. These various theoretical perspectives share the assumption that identity conflicts make up a particularly intractable type of conflict that is not amendable to conventional methods of conflict management. The concept of identity conflict incorporates several key assumptions from the needs- and identity-based approaches to conflict resolution. First it assumes that identity conflicts are more intense and last longer than non-identity conflicts. Secondly, it expects that conflict management is less successful and accord violation more likely in identity conflicts. These assumptions have been transformed into four hypotheses on the relationship between social identity and conflict management. The hypotheses are in turn tested on quantitative data from 106 intra-state armed conflicts in the time period 1989 2002. My empirical analysis finds support for the notion that identity conflicts last longer than non-identity conflicts. However, it does not corroborate the assumptions that identity conflicts are more intense or that they lead to negotiation failure. Contrary to prior quantitative research, I find no evidence that identity conflicts are associated with higher probabilities for violated agreements. The main contributions of this thesis has been the transparent discussion and explanation for operationalizing the concept of identity conflict, as well as its conclusion that acknowledged concepts and models from the field of conflict resolution may not be directly applicable to the study of armed conflict.