This chapter analyses the structural, relational, institutional, and psychological characteristics that produce and sustain conflict, focusing on the Tibetan refugee–Indian host relationship. It argues that conflicts are not spontaneous eruptions but emerge from layered causal conditions—ranging from social inequalities and identity threats to the instrumentalisation of ethnicity by political elites. Drawing on theories of social learning, social identity, relative deprivation, institutionalism, and instrumentalism, the chapter develops a typology of conflict causes and applies it to the Tibetan case. It demonstrates that the Tibetan refugee–Indian tensions cannot be explained through primordial or historical animosity but through evolving power asymmetries, unmet expectations, and failures of dialogue. While the host population exhibits social dominance rooted in symbolic hierarchies, the Tibetan community’s fear of reprisal and dependence on host approval foster passivity and silence. Through this dynamic, refugees’ agency is curtailed both in potential and in action—constrained by institutional exclusion, cultural expectations of gratitude, and the politics of dependency. The chapter further shows how conflicts infringe on human rights not only through overt violence but also through latent injustices—discrimination, stereotyping, and restricted participation—that erode refugees’ autonomy. Adapting Adam Curle’s conflict model, it concludes that awareness, confrontation, and negotiation are essential to transforming latent inequalities into constructive dialogue. Human rights, therefore, serve both as a moral framework and a practical tool for recognising and redressing the structural roots of refugee–host conflicts. Understanding these causal and ethical dimensions is crucial for developing inclusive, justice-oriented refugee governance.