Building on the Strengths of Different Approaches

Just as completely different work teams at Boeing can collaborate on the design of a new type of aircraft which will have the speed of military fighter jets and the stability of passenger jets, so too can research and practice in the field of conflict resolution work together to enhance and increase our knowledge. To do so, conflict resolution researchers and practitioners should go beyond traditional collaborative efforts. The author suggests four areas that would help accomplish this goal: improving the ways we ask questions; creating better designs for dialogs; recognizing unexplored areas of practice; and codifying emergent areas for future use.     

Getting Down to Basics: A Situated Model of Conflict in Social Relations

The field of conflict resolution is fractured. Despite many decades of fine research, we still lack a basic unifying framework that integrates the many theories of conflict dynamics. Thus, the findings from research on conflict are often piecemeal, decontextualized, contradictory, or focused on negative outcomes, which contributes to a persistent research‐practice gap. In this article, we describe a situated model for the study of conflict that combines separate strands of scholarship into a coherent framework for conceptualizing conflict in dyadic social relations. The model considers conflict interactions in the context of social relations and employs prior research on the fundamental dimensions of social relations to create a basic framework for investigating conflict dynamics. The resulting model is heuristic and generative. We discuss the theoretical context and main propositions of this model as well as its implications for conflict resolution practitioners.     

The Role of the Scholar-Practitioner in International Conflict Resolution

Can unofficial, academically based, third-party approaches contribute to the prevention and resolution of international and intercommunal conflicts? The article focuses on one such approach, interactive problem solving, which the author has applied primarily in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. After describing the central tool of the approach, the problem-solving workshop, the article goes on to address the role of interactive problem solving and related approaches to the larger process of conflict resolution. In this context, it discusses the relationship of the microprocess of problem-solving workshops to the macroprocess of international conflict resolution; the relationship between official and unofficial diplomacy; the relationship between practice and scholarship in conflict resolution; the role of the university in the process; and the possibilities for institutionalizing this model of conflict resolution.     

The roles of conflict resolution scholars in Georgian–Abkhaz and Georgian–South-Ossetian conflict and conflict resolution

The evolving close relationship between the scholarly study of conflict resolution and the practice of waging and resolving conflicts can be seen in Georgian–Abkhaz and Georgian–South-Ossetian relations from 1992 to 2008. This article focuses on two related case studies of the many roles played by international conflict resolution scholars in Georgian–Abkhaz and in Georgian–South-Ossetian relations from 1992 to 2008. Drawing on interviews with insider-partial conflict resolution scholars, relevant international scholar-practitioners of conflict resolution, and the leadership of all parties of the conflicts, conducted between 1996 and 2008, the article presents a comprehensive analysis of the variety of roles conflict resolution scholar-practitioners have played in these conflicts during the wars and the recovery from war. The analysis suggests the need for clear ethical guidelines that cover traditional scholarly roles as well as scholar-practitioner roles including advising conflict parties, facilitating conflict resolution processes and analysing the conflicts. In particular, dilemmas emerge as scholar-practitioners move back and forth between these modes of engaged scholarship.     

Institutional Models for Track Two Interventions

Conflict resolution as an academic field was built by pioneers like John Burton on the idea that conflict resolution academics must accomplish three basic interlocking tasks: conduct cutting‐edge research, educate students, and make a positive contribution to the real‐world work of practitioners engaged in resolving actual conflicts. Over time and as the field has grown, so have the demands to produce research deemed rigorous enough according to increasingly competitive and rigid traditional standards and so too have the demands of teaching growing numbers of students. Research and teaching commitments thus diminish the time and support available to engage in practice. In this article, I consider those pressures within universities and also consider the options available to conflict resolution scholar–practitioners outside the traditional university     

Realizing the Potential of International Conflict Work: Connections Between Practice and Theory

The author reviews the insights of four expert practitioners of international conflict resolution, pointing out a common theme that signals a major shift in the way we conduct and conceive of international conflict intervention. In addition to traditional top-down interventions, leading conflict resolution practitioners are advocating a bottom-up approach, a complementary effort that includes development of conflict resolution potential among the parties themselves, without external imposition. This increased emphasis on the kinds of structures, understanding, and relationships that help to transform international conflict situations reflects the impact the developing field of conflict studies has had on practice.     

Changing the Debate About “Success” in Conflict Resolution Efforts

This essay outlines a conceptual framework for discussing success in interactive conflict resolution and in conflict resolution efforts more generally. It first proposes reasons why evaluation is crucial for improving practice. An overview of the new framework and its development are then presented. This gives the reader a window into its construction and some of the challenges of evaluation in conflict intervention processes. Next, the uses of the framework are explained as well as how its use helps to change the debate about successful processes. Finally, this article discusses how the theoretician, practitioner, and researcher-evaluator can use this framework for their own purposes, and how evaluating processes based upon their goals helps to improve the theory, practice, and research of the field.     

The Culture of Interest: A Proposed Addition and Revision of the Three‐Culture Model

Negotiation and conflict resolution theorists have classified world cultures according to three types for the purpose of describing and predicting some of the ways in which individuals and groups within broad, geographically based cultural groups behave in conflict and negotiation‐related situations. These three broad categories, called “cultural syndromes,” have described these cultures according to the relative value they place on these three concerns: honor, face, and dignity. Based on our examination of the literature on the cultural dimensions of negotiation and conflict management, our own practice, and an analysis of literature and practice pertaining to the place and utility of the honor, face, interest, and dignity attributes within and between cultural groups , we propose a reformulation of this typology. Our reformulation would replace the broad “dignity” category with a new category that we call “interest,” which we believe better characterizes Northern European and North American cultures. We also argue that a cultural orientation toward dignity is universal and not geographically unique and is thus shared by all three cultures. This new formulation, we believe, more accurately characterizes the global range of orientations toward negotiation and conflict resolution and would, if adopted, help scholars and practitioners better understand culturally divergent conflict orientations and behaviors as well as the ramifications of such differences for negotiation and conflict resolution practice.     

Cultivating Dialogue: From Fragmentation to Relationality in Conflict Interaction

This article builds on the tendency in recent decades in the field of alternative dispute resolution (ADR) to analyze conflict and its transformation from a relational perspective. It surveys developments in twentieth‐century philosophy that support the ongoing quest to explore the self in ADR from a relational perspective. It then shows how the concept of dialogue provides a framework for understanding conflict transformation from a relational perspective, by exploring the relational foundations of dialogue. It also draws a connection between the growing use of mindfulness practices in conflict settings and the practice of dialogue, suggesting that Buddhist philosophy and practices can help cultivate relational awareness and dialogue. The article therefore suggests that incorporating dialogue and exploring its relational characteristics can assist ADR scholars and practitioners to develop further practices that can promote collaboration by shifting disputants from adversarial and fragmented orientations to more relational mindsets.     

Institutionalized Conflict Resolution: Have We Come to Expect Too Little?

Two very different contexts of the conflict resolution field — hostage negotiation and court-connected mediation—do share many similarities, particularly with regard to roles, responsibilities, and techniques. In both contexts, the emphasis is on the short-term "fix," or solution, rather than attention to the underlying reasons for a conflict and long-term societal change. This emphasis, though perhaps changing in the international relations area, permeates much of the institutionalized conflict resolution field and bears further examination by practitioners and researchers.     

Correspondences and Comparisons in International and Domestic Conflict Resolution

The eclectic field of conflict resolution is characterized by a constant interplay between practice and theory (to say nothing about varying interpretations of what practice and theory actually are or should be). The author raises a number of questions about how to develop and test theory; the significant role of context in theory generation; and a variety of themes or issues that can be explored to provide scholarly synthesis as well as guidance for the practitioner, in both domestic and international conflict situations.     

Unofficial third-party intervention in international conflict: Between legitimacy and disarray

Conclusions The proliferation of unofficial third-party interventions in ethnic conflict is not, to date, based on the demonstrated and enduring value of their achievements. The growing interest in unofficial intervention is not based on clear goals and well-formulated underlying philosophies of the various methods, but more on general assumptions sometimes guided by goodwill and activism. It is quite likely that unofficial intervention in international conflict contributes in various ways toward the resolution of conflict, but, thus far, there is noempirical evidence that the field has contributed or can contribute to the resolution of ethnic conflict.Scholars of unofficial third-party intervention in international conflict should consider a number of basic questions relating to its goals, the appropriateness of the various methodologies, the connection between methods and goals, characteristics and requirements of third parties, and the interplay between official and unofficial interventions. A major effort should be placed on evaluation, notably the development of frameworks that could be used to evaluate the effects of these efforts, whether positive or negative. Special attention should be directed at ethical considerations for intervention by practitioners of unofficial approaches in ongoing conflicts worldwide.In addition, I suggest that practitioners of unofficial intervention focus and elaborate on the theoretical foundations of their methods and thereby explain how the designed intervention is supposed to contribute to conflict resolution. This is particularly important in light of the increasing use of psychiatric methods that focus on intrapersonal and interpersonallevels of analysis and ignore the underlying structural asymmetries, inequities, and inequalities in ethnic and international conflicts.He is also a founding member of the Program on International Conflict Analysis and Resolution (PICAR) based at the Center for International Affairs, Harvard University. He co-chairs the PICAR Seminar on International Conflict Analysis and Resolution.     

Integrating conflict resolution training and consultation: A cyprus example

Conclusion The Cyprus situation is an example of a protracted social conflict now frozen in time with a ceasefire but no long-term resolution. Many current violent conflicts, such as those in the former Yugoslavia, may soon enter such a phase, and intervenors will be looking for appropriate methodologies to help move them toward resolution. In that vein, both projects described here are relevant and useful interventions in their own right. However, the interface between them demonstrates a greater potential for effective collaboration and synergy which can bring added value to the parties in conflict.A collaborative approach to interventions can be part of a powerful model of a systems approach to peace. Thus, collaboration is enhanced among different external intervenors, among official and unofficial actors, and among external and internal change agents. To increase coordination and usefulness, it is incumbent upon external intervenors to build collaboration into their planning and funding proposals. There is much potential for more systematic and sophisticated integration of different methods than exists at present in the field of conflict resolution.     

No Sheriff in Town: Governance for Online Dispute Resolution

Online dispute resolution (ODR), the practice of resolving disputes via the Internet or digital applications, has been developing since the mid‐1990s. As the field has grown and gained traction, it has increasingly received attention from professional associations and industry leaders in the world of alternative dispute resolution (ADR). More recently, it has begun to receive recognition from sources outside of this field — in both the public and private sectors. As the field develops and individual initiatives become widely adopted, the attention it receives from external sources will undoubtedly focus on questions of quality, ethics, practitioner training, service provider qualifications, and monitoring. These questions — already beginning to be heard from within the field — derive, in essence, from one shared overall question, that of appropriate governance for the ODR field. In this article, we will explain what we mean when we discuss a field's governance and suggest that the field itself should investigate issues of its own governance. We explore and explain the current “low‐to‐no” state of governance in ODR — and the developments that are likely, should the field fail to actively address this issue. We discuss the costs of no governance, and the potential costs and disadvantages of employing a higher‐governance model. We ask whether ODR can, indeed, be governed at all, and illustrate why addressing ODR governance is a very complex venture, in terms of the web of factors to be addressed, no matter how beneficial internal governance may be. We do not, in this article, intend to decide any of these questions — but, rather, to pose them to the ODR field and to the wider fields of ADR and conflict management. We point out why the ODR field is at a developmental point that is highly suitable for discussing and deciding these questions — and why these decisions might have far‐reaching implications for a wide range of conflict‐related fields.     

The Evolution of International Conflict Resolution: From Cold War to Peacebuilding

Shaped by the changing nature of international conflict, the field of international conflict resolution evolved significantly throughout the latter years of the twentieth century and continues to be redefined. The end of the Cold War created space for a major transformation of the international conflict resolution field. This transformation was marked by three trends: (1) an expansion from a focus on superpower negotiating strategies to a wider peacebuilding agenda, (2) an increase in the role of nongovernmental actors as both disputants and third parties in international conflicts, and (3) a growing concern about human security in addition to state security, creating both tensions and opportunities for collaboration between governmental and nongovernmental bodies. This article presents a brief overview of each trend, as well as some concluding questions to frame the field's further development at this important juncture.     

Thinking Globally and Acting Locally

The literature of negotiation and conflict resolution continues to build on and move away from traditional emphases on transactions and decision making. Topics such as the impact of culture on negotiation once aroused debate but are no longer even controversial. Enough scholars in our large and multidisciplinary field have benefited from the insights of complementary social sciences so that few serious scholars or practitioners doubt that identity and culture are dynamic factors affecting negotiations. Some have moved beyond the quest for distributional efficiency that characterized so much early research and now advocate nothing less than social transformation and empowerment through conflict resolution methodologies. Several recent contributions to the negotiation literature—Negotiating Globally, and Reaching for Higher Ground in Conflict Resolution—are evidence that literature in the field is pushing new frontiers.Anthony Wanis-St. John: His courses include Cross-Cultural Negotiation and the Palestinian-Israeli Peace Process. He was a PON doctoral fellow 1999-2001. He is a practicing mediator and facilitator.     

Security and development in the Caucasus

This article discusses the linkage between security and development in the Caucasus. In particular, it examines the degree to which developmental dysfunction has been a significant cause of conflict, the extent to which conflict has distorted the region's economic transition, and the role of development assistance in fostering conflict resolution. The article argues that the region's conflicts have had locally significant economic consequences and that they make it difficult for the region's states to cushion the effects of post‐communist economic transition. However, the collapse of command economies and the failure of governance have a stronger causal role in explaining the economic collapse and the halting quality of economic recovery. Turning to the role of development assistance in conflict resolution, aid agencies and donors have been reluctant to use development assistance as an instrument of conflict resolution. However, there has been some success in using micro‐level assistance to foster reconciliation between communities.     

When Settlement and Resolution Are in Conflict: Searching for a Mideast Peace Dividend

Using a contemporary case involving Palestinians and Israelis working on business ventures following the 1993 Oslo Peace Accords, the author focuses on the differences between conflict resolution and conflict settlement. In situations of deep-rooted conflict, settlement and resolution are often the same thing; attitude change among individuals is required to attain either goal. The Petty and Cacioppo Model (1986) specifies that attitude change results from central routes or peripheral routes. The author reflects on the model's predictive elements in the business venture case and its useful implications for other conflicts.     

Chronicling the Complexification of Negotiation Theory and Practice

The essay reviews the content of twenty-five years of Negotiation Journal , identifying themes and issues explored on its pages in the past, the current issues challenging the field's scholars and practitioners, and the issues likely to confront us in the future. It argues that while we in the field hoped for simple, elegant, and universal theories of negotiation and conflict resolution, the last twenty-five years have demonstrated the increasing complexification of negotiation theory and practice, from increased numbers of parties and issues, and dilemmas of intertemporal commitments, ethics, accountability, and relationships of private action to public responsibility.