The phenomenon of “international intra-state armed conflicts” poses serious challenges to the theory and practice of conflict resolution. The distinction between intra-state armed conflicts and international wars has created a strong perception that, while international wars were dominant in the past, most contemporary armed conflicts are intra-state. The disciplinary demarcation between Conflict Resolution and International Relations has resulted in biases that overlook “international intra-state armed conflicts.” Given the growing number of such conflicts, the theory and practice of conflict resolution need to transcend the bias stemming from the artificial distinction between international wars and “international intra-state armed conflicts.” Integrating deterrence into conflict resolution strategies is essential, as is the combination of international and domestic monitoring mechanisms with the mediation of conflicting parties. Furthermore, peacebuilding assistance should be globally reinforced by incorporating lessons learned from the end of the Cold War and the Global War on Terror. Adopting flexible perspectives, such as those promoted by the Free and Open Indo-Pacific (FOIP) framework, can enhance international partnerships. For instance, Ukraine has the potential to emerge as a maritime power in the Black Sea, connecting the Indo-Pacific region through the Red Sea and the Mediterranean Sea.