Conflict is typically portrayed as a struggle for resources, power, or institutions, reducing complex arguments to transactional terms and neglecting underlying moral and social ruptures. This study investigates how traditional and international mediation approaches might be integrated to address both relationship and structural aspects of conflict. Using a comparative case study of South Sudan, Rwanda, and Northern Ireland, the author demonstrates that traditional mechanisms such as elders councils, Gacaca courts, and community restorative initiatives are effective at repairing moral harm, rebuilding trust, and fostering social cohesion. In contrast, international mediation provides enforceable agreements, institutional stability, and political power-sharing. When used alone, each approach has limitations: Formal frameworks risk cosmetic compliance, whereas relational methods lack enforceability. To address these deficiencies, the study proposes the Hybrid Peace Architecture (HPA). This layered framework blends relational repair with structural authority via pre negotiation engagement, formal negotiation, post-agreement reconciliation, co-mediation teams, and iterative feedback loops. The findings suggest that synchronising relational and structural interventions boosts legitimacy, heals social and moral ruptures, and creates long-lasting, context-sensitive peace. This study bridges the epistemic gap between restorative an revolutionary logics, providing policymakers, mediators, and practitioners with a realistic model for long -term conflict resolution across diverse cultural and political contexts.