Interests vs. positions: A critique of the distinction

Getting to YES has popularized the focus on interests rather than positions in negotiation. However, sometimes an emphasis on interests, to the exclusion of the positions of the parties, can be counterproductive. Among other issues, this article highlights difficulties stemming from: ambiguities in the meanings of the two words; the significant role that positions play in negotiation dynamics, particularly in communication and in intergroup bargaining; and negotiations that hinge partly on people's values and perceptions rather than interests.He is co-editor of the recent bookThe New Industrial Relations in Australia (Sydney: Federation Press, 1995).     

When ADR becomes the law: A review of federal practice

Conclusion With the passage of the Administrative Dispute Resolution Act, the stage was set for innovation and change in federal agencies. Now, part way into the five-year life of the Act, a new administration has the potential to encourage even wider use of ADR at the federal level, providing still more examples from which to develop a clearer sense of best practice. Additional funds, both for ACUS and individual agencies, are vital to providing the level of experimentation, innovation, and documentation needed to ensure success.MIT ProfessorLawrence E. Susskind is director of the MIT-Harvard Public Disputes Program, 512 Pound Hall, Harvard Law School, Cambridge, Mass. 02138.Eileen F. Babbitt is associate director of the Public Disputes Program.Phyllis N. Segal is a practicing mediator with Endispute, Incorporated.The authors would like to acknowledge the federal dispute resolution specialists who contributed greatly to our work by providing interviews and materials for this article: Cathy Costantino of FDIC; David Batson of EPA; John Settle and Ron Walczak of HHS; David Drabkin of DLA; Jim Jones of DOL; Sheldon Guttman of FCC; Charles Pou of ACUS; Jeff Domber of GSA; and Diane Liff of DOT.     

Introduction: Appeasement: Rethinking the Policy and the Policy-Makers

The “Roosevelt Corollary to the Monroe Doctrine of 1904/05” constitutes a landmark in United States foreign policy. However, the 1902/03 Venezuela Crisis—in particular, the arbitration process between the South American country and Germany, Great Britain, and Italy that settled the crisis—led to President Theodore Roosevelt's decision to amend the Monroe Doctrine. The arbitrational award was an important impetus for the corollary because its decision appeared to encourage future European interventions in the western hemisphere. The Roosevelt Corollary was needed to prevent a situation similar to the 1902/03 Venezuela Crisis from occurring again. Strategically speaking, Roosevelt felt the corollary was necessary to uphold the Monroe Doctrine under new circumstances.     

A critique of quantitative measures of the degree of democracy in Israel

The question addressed in this study is: ‘How accurate and meaningful are quantitative measures of the degree of democracy in Israel?’ With the increasing use of such measures in studies of democracy, an answer to this question becomes increasingly important. The Freedom House and Polity IV measures of democracy in Israel contend that there is a very high level of democracy, but their characterization is contradicted sharply by the views of many scholars. In seeking to account for this contradiction, we will assess the accuracy and meaningfulness of the two quantitative measures. We find that both empirical and conceptual problems affect the utility of the measures. Empirical inaccuracies are suggested by three findings: the role in Israel's democracy of the largest minority group, the Israeli Arabs, is ignored or substantially discounted; the discrepancies between the two indices suggest that at least one of them is not capturing empirical reality accurately; and neither index seems very sensitive to democracy-related events in the country. The degree to which these empirical findings are indicators of inaccuracies is dependent upon the conceptualization of democracy. Conceptually, the indices differ from each other and from the concepts used by many others who examine Israeli democracy. Two conclusions are reached: the indices measure imperfectly what they call Israeli ‘democracy’. Furthermore, a prima facie look at the scores characterizing democracy in other countries suggests that the ‘democracy’ they measure in Israel is not the same as the ‘democracy’ they measure elsewhere. The implications are several: on the academic side, the accuracy of general knowledge developed using these measures becomes questionable. On the practical side, the indices contribute little to knowledge that may be applied to overcoming the complex problems democracy in Israel is facing or the building of democracy in other countries of the Middle East. Thus, their accuracy and meaningfulness is limited.     

Rethinking Conflict: Perspectives from the Insight Approach

In this article, the authors present the “insight approach” to conflict as an analytical and methodological framework that addresses the dynamic interactions between conflicting parties. According to the insight approach, conflict is relational, dynamic, and adaptive, generated from the responsive interpretive frameworks that parties use to construct meaning. Conflict arises as a result of parties' experience of what insight theorists call “threat‐to‐cares,” which generates defend–attack patterns of interaction between them. The authors suggest that rethinking the nature of conflict so that it is seen as an interaction embedded in meaning making enables conflict interveners to help parties gain insight into, and articulate, the values that are being generated, advanced, threatened, and realigned within the complex interactions that define us as social beings. In doing so, parties develop abilities to generate new patterns and solutions that can limit and even eliminate the experiences of threat that generate conflict between them.     

Realism and the critique of technology

The ‘classical Realist’ thinkers Hans J Morgenthau and John Herz developed a puissant yet typically overlooked critique of technology. Driven by fears of nuclear warfare, they broke with Realism's inappropriately nonchalant view of technological development. Morgenthau focused on the dangers of a naïve faith in technological growth, arguing that it typically generated an apolitical and potentially irresponsible view of international politics. Even more effectively, Herz zeroed in on the problem of what he described as technological acceleration, according to which the rapid pace of recent technological change threatens humanity's future. While Morgenthau's ideas on technology are ultimately tension ridden, Herz still provides a fruitful starting point for any version of international relations theory hoping to take the phenomenon of social speed or acceleration seriously. Many of his reflections anticipated the contemporary debate among social theorists about the high-speed temporality of contemporary society.     

A postmodern critique of public relations theory and practice

ABSTRACT

Public relations is defined as the management of communication. However, the theory and practice of public relations are based on a modernist understanding of organisation. Alternative perspectives on the societal and organisational role of public relations are limited. This article explores the contribution of a postmodern critique of public relations, and the differences between modernism and postmodernism, particularly in organisational context. The current debate between critical theory and postmodern critique is also reviewed. Postmodernism is particularly critical of the public relations focus on strategy and management. It rejects the manager as a rational being who has the ability to determine organisational outcomes through strategies, which are viewed as discursive techniques used to enhance the power of some corporate actors. Modern public relations is a hegemonic practice that interpellates practitioners into the system to legitimise the perspectives and actions of corporate managers as objective knowledge, particularly through discursive practices in organisational media. Finally, the media relations role of public relations is critiqued for its creation of a hyperreality that leads to the creation of a hypercivilisation that has no factual existence. This article concludes with suggestions for a postmodern research agenda and defends the simultaneous use of critical and postmodern theory.     

A policy critique of HIV/AIDS and demobilisation

The objective of this paper is to draw out and encourage debate on the relationship between HIV and the policy challenges that it poses for security. It explores how demobilisation programmes need to incorporate a development perspective, bringing together public health practitioners and security experts, in order to address the pandemic and the future security needs of Sub-Saharan Africa, in particular. It is hoped that integrating two very different disciplines, public policy and public health, will mark the beginning of attempts to establish some practical guidelines for policymakers and field practitioners that focus on prevention. Most important, the paper makes an urgent request for a cross-disciplinary and cross-sectoral approach to tackling such a complex problem as HIV and the military. Development practitioners once shunned any working relationship with armed forces or defence ministries, but it is impossible now to avoid these institutions in countries with high rates of HIV/AIDS in the security sector.     

Adaptation and the foreign policy bureaucracy: The experience of federal states

Members of the Commonwealth do not use the title ‘ambassador’ for the heads of diplomatic missions which they send to one another. Instead, they use the title ‘high commissioner’. This article firstly examines how the office of high commissioner emerged to meet the representational needs of states owing allegiance to a common sovereign. Secondly, it explains why the office survived the transformation of the British empire into the modern Commonwealth of sovereign states. Thirdly, the article considers the factors that continue to make the office appealing to its holders and a diplomatic asset to their states.     

Rethinking the Tunisian miracle: a party politics view

Five years on from the Tunisian revolution, Tunisia stands as the sole success story of the Arab Spring. The country since then has managed to adopt a pluralist and democratic constitution, and held three free and fair elections. Accordingly, in the eyes of several observers, Tunisia is now in the process of consolidating its new democracy. However, the reality on the ground seems much gloomier, as most recent opinion surveys suggest that there is a significant degree of dissatisfaction, not only with political parties and Parliament but also with the very institution of democracy. Nevertheless, what accounts for this change? After the collapse of the long-lasting and oppressive Ben Ali regime, how, just in five years, has Tunisians’ confidence in the democratic process changed? This article accounts for this state of affairs from a party politics view, arguing that political parties, which are the main protagonists of the consolidation process, fail to fulfill their role of acquiring legitimacy for the new regime. While party–state relations seem to be stabilized due to the inclusiveness of the constitution-making process, both inter-party relationships and the relationship between parties and society suffer from numerous flaws which, in turn, hamper the democratic consolidation process.