Conflict resolution perspectives on civil wars in the Horn of Africa

Conclusion In conclusion, in order to find resolutions to the conflicts of the Horn of Africa, one needs to pay as much attention to the process as one does to content and substance.A paradoxical situation exists in civil wars, where there are no courts to declare who is right and wrong or where force cannot be the final arbiter. The paradox is that conflict parties need the cooperation of their adversaries in order to win. This means that refined argumentation to prove the rightness of a position (this is what I mean by content or substance) is not enough to get what one wants. People must be equally concerned about how to present their positions in a way that their adversaries can hear them, and become motivated to act in the manner they want. This is what I call process and this is what determines the success of negotiations, or for that matter, even discussions between various scholars who represent different sides of the conflict in the Horn. And this is where I feel the position versus interest distinction is helpful.Therefore, the challenge that this article poses to all conflict parties, citizens, nationals, and/or concerned participants is to focus on the common interests and overarching mutual goals that bind them, and allow such a focus to guide the route they take to handle the civil wars in the Horn of Africa. Hizkias Assefa, a native of the Horn of Africa, is Associate Professor of Management and International Affairs at La Roche College, Pittsburgh, Penn. 15237. His publications include:Mediation of Civil Wars (Westview, 1987) andExtremist Groups and Conflict Resolution (Praeger, 1988). During his forthcoming sabbatical year (1990–91) he will be working as a consultant on regional peacemaking initiatives in Eastern and Southern Africa.     

Environmental Impact Analysis (EIA) : Origins, Evolution, and Future Directions

The technique of environmental impact analysis (EIA) was developed initially in the United States in response to a requirement of the National 15nvironmental Policy Act of 1969. Now adopted with variations in at least 3 0 countries antf by the European Community, EIA has proved to be a va1ua't)le component of a group of related techniques for discovering and projectirig the probable consequences of proposed action. In pursuit of iriprovenicnt in analytic technique, however, the policy rationale for EIA has too oftcii been obscured. EIA depends for full effectiveness upon in- tcgration into the policy-making process. Separated from commitment to environmental policy objectives, El.4 IS at risk of becoming redundant paperwork.