This thesis expounds the theoretical underpinnings of problem-solving approach to conflict resolution. It also criticizes the traditional state-centric approach to conflict resolution being followed by the Inter Governmental Authority on Development (IGAD) in the Sudanese civil war. IGAD was initially known as Inter Governmental Authority on Drought and Desertification (IGADD), but was renamed IGAD in 1996. Its objectives were reformulated to give priority to conflict prevention, resolution, and management, and humanitarian affairs. It is stipulated in the thesis that IGAD faces problems that need attention if the Sudanese civil war is to be resolved. A key problem is that while IGAD's objectives were reformulated to give priority to conflict resolution, IGAD's management structure has remained the same. The management structure is state-centric and lacks neutrality, which is a very important ingredient in deep-rooted social conflict resolution. The management structure, which was initially based on combating drought and desertification, was not restructured to conform to the realities of a problem solving approach to conflict resolution. The committee that was formed to look into the Sudanese conflict is composed of states in dispute with Sudan. The other structural problem cited in the thesis is that the IGAD peace process is cumbersome and does not include all aggrieved parties. The meetings involve heads of state, ministers, ambassadors and other government representatives. The peace process is not inclusive of other important players such as other rebel movements. This thesis concludes that: 1. there is a need for peace keeping forces from neutral African Union (AU) member states; 2. conflict resolution specialists are deployed in the region whose main task would be to assist the belligerent groups to reach a common understanding of their problems; 3. the United Nations (UN) acts proactively to create international awareness to the Sudanese problem.