In the field of quantitative studies of the causal relations between ethnic constellations, cultural value patterns, and internal (i.e. intra-state) conflicts several lacunae exist. One particularly important concerns the methodical linking of empirical conflict data with modern conflict theories. On the one hand, empirical analysis is often not guided by theory. If theories play a part, they represent rather inductive ad hoc explanations or solutions to empirical puzzles. A research approach which has been deductively deduced from and systematically integrated into a sociological macro theory would therefore be desirable.On the other hand, theories of internal conflicts are frequently adherent to the rational choice paradigm. In order to complement the dominant, actor-centered approach, it therefore seems appropriate to search for a radically systemic theory of conflict. Existing approaches in this respect, however, either assume conflicts to be a sign of dysfunctionality - as Talcott Parsons did - or they are not useful for empirical analysis - like Niklas Luhmann's notion of conflict. The proposed paper will try to resolve some of the extant deficits by developing a theoretical model of conflict in societal systems, followed by an exemplary application of this model to the empirical situation in Asia and Oceania.On the basis of the concept of autopoietic, self-referential social systems according to Luhmann, it is possible to tie in other system-theoretical approaches into our considerations. First to be mentioned (1) is a combination of the classical principle of holarchic structures, involving suprasystems and subsystems, with the principle of holonomic structures according to David Bohm and Karl Pribram, dealing with implicate order. In addition to establishing political and socioeconomic subsystems, this procedure also allows for an entirely new approach regarding the conception of culture as the whole of the societal system being implicitly present in its parts, and thus for a well-defined localization of ethnic, religio-linguistic factors, as well.Furthermore (2), transferring the notion of dissipative systems into the context of social systems has turned out to be of considerable value for the model, which we developed to ascertain the causal links between a country's strain due to conflict and structural context factors. Dissipative systems are those which maintain their self-organized structures by emitting into their environments their inner entropy - i.e. the "mess of disorder" that has been accumulated due to the increase of their self-complexity. We assume that in societal systems this self-complexity increases because of the occurrence of conflicts. What we understand by the term of conflict is a potential state of the societal system, involving a divergence from political, socioeconomic or cultural norms inherent in the societal system. The entropy being produced by this can be exported from the emergent societal system to the underlying systems of interpersonal communication. In these social systems, then, is the approaching "low-grade" energy being autopoietically constituted in the form of physical violence as a mode of communication.Finally (3), the term of "attractor" deriving from the natural sciences, is very central for the model advanced here. An attractor is an "attractive" state for a system. Applied to conflict as a system's state this means that a conflict attractor is a location in the state space where the occurrence of conflict is probable. The dimensions of the societal state space are shaped by ethnic, political, and socioeconomic factors.The model outlined here is intended to be a frame of analysis for empirical explorations. For this purpose, the quantitative data on political conflicts from the Heidelberg database of the Conflict Information System (CONIS) have been available... ..PAT.-Unpublished Manuscript [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]