Upload
srinivas-rao
View
230
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
8/8/2019 Conflict Resolution Theory
1/25
C O N F L I C T R E S O L U T I O N T H E O R Y -
CHA PTER 1
S A T U R D A Y , A P R I L 0 8 , 2 0 0 6
War is the decision to go for victory[rather] than resolution. Peacemaking is an attempt to resolve the sources of the
conflict and restore a situation of balance, thereby eliminating the need for victory and defeat.
Jim Wallis, The Soul of Politics: A Practical and Prophetic Vision of Change, London: Fount, 1994, p. 205.
Chapter 1
Introduction to Conflict Resolution
1.1 The History of Needs-based Conflict Resolution
Needs-based, cooperation-based[1] or interest-based conflict resolution (hereafter
referred to asconflict resolution) developed as a discipline following World War
II.[2] Conflict resolution as a discipline diverged from power-based conflicttheory,
which dominated and still dominates political science, and international relations; and
converged from psychology and sociology, which wasinterested in group dynamics,
motivation and relationships between institutional structures. Normative political
theorysawconflict as a competitive struggle to be won by one side. In contrast, needs-
based conflict resolution theorists developed a cooperative approach to conflict
resolution, focusing on fundamental human needs,[3]to encourage win-win
solutions.[4]Nonviolence,cooperation and the beliefin the essential goodness of
humanity are basic principles ofthis approach to conflict resolution.[5]
The foundations ofthis discipline have their originsin the Judeo-Christian culture that
developed in Europe and North America and were particularlyshaped in the twentieth
century bythe first and second world wars. Principal antecedents ofconflict resolution
included philosopher and sociologist Georg Simmel (1858-1914) and Gestalt (influential
8/8/2019 Conflict Resolution Theory
2/25
on social psychology) psychologist Kurt Lewin (1890-1947). Modern conflict resolution
scholars, often quote Georg Simmel, for hiscontribution to the field for his book
Conflict, published posthumouslyin English in 1955. Conflict was originally a chapter of
Simmels book Soziologie published in German in 1908. Simmel, perceived conflict
(kampf) as designed to resolve divergent dualisms,thatisconflict was designed to
resolve two differentset of principles. He sawconflict as way of achieving some kind of
unity, assuch Simmel took an optimistic view ofconflict. However, despite this
optimism, whatis often not discussed in standard treatments of Simmel is his
perception thatthis unitymay be obtained even ifit be through the annihilation of one
ofthe conflicting parties.[6]
Kurt Lewinsinfluence on modern conflict resolution follows hisinfluence in the
development ofsocial psychologyin the United States. Kurt Lewinscontribution to
conflict resolution and psychology was his emphasis on the role ofsocial contextin an
individuals development of perception, values and beliefs.[7]This wasin contrastto the
normative theory of psychology prior to the 1930s, which still heavily favoured
biological determinism.[8] Lewin sawconflict as a situation of tension which was
caused by a number of factorsincluding the degree to which the needs of a person were
in a state of hunger or satisfaction. Examples ofthose basic needs he identified
included sex and security .[9]
Morton Deutsch following in Lewins footstepsin ideas and teaching institutions (they
both taught at Massachusetts Institute of Technology) continued research on
cooperation-competition systems.[10] Deutschscontribution was highlighting the role
of perception and the existence ofconflict.[11]
The American sociologist Lewis Coser followed Simmel in identifying positive aspects of
conflict as expressed in The Functions of Social Conflict 1956.[12] Coser feltthe need to
correctthe balance of analysis, which tended to focus on the dysfunction ofconflict
rather than the potential positive aspects ofconflict. Coser provisionally defined conflict
as a struggle over claimsto scarce status, power and resourcesin which the aims ofthe
opponents are to neutralise or eliminate their rivals.[13]Later he defined conflict as a
clash of values and interests.[14]
8/8/2019 Conflict Resolution Theory
3/25
Conflict resolution came of age in the United Statesin 1957 with the founding ofthe
Journal of Conflict Resolution by Kenneth Boulding (1910-1995), Anatol Rapoport
(1911- ) and Herb Kelman (1920s- ) among others.[15] Anatol Rapoport (1911- ) a
Russian born American mathematical psychologist and co-founder ofthe Journal of
Conflict Resolution was an importantcontributor to this journal with his game theories,
which given the mathematical approach were a highly abstract (although overly
rational) way of looking atconflict.[16]
On the other side ofthe Atlanticin Norway,Johan Galtung, a sociologist, founded the
Journal of Peace Research in 1964. This journal was less reliant on econometric-like
theory and wasmore readable for the lessmathematicallyinclined.[17] Galtung, for the
purposes ofidentifying stepsto peace,introduced a broader notion of violence which
encompassesthose avoidable insultsto basic human needs.[18] These basic needs
included security and identity. Galtung goes on to categorise violence into two forms:
direct violence and structural violence. The former includesthe everyday notion of
violence, whereby an individual or group suffers physical or emotional pain asthe result
of direct action. Structural violence iscaused bythe institutions and structures ofsociety
which resultin inequality or oppression among individuals.[19] Chapter two will
develop the concept ofstructural reconciliation,the process of overcoming structural
violence.
Similarly, Galtung classified peace into two forms: positive peace and negative peace.
Negative peace, according to Galtung, fits essentiallythe colloquial perception of peace
as an end to war. Positive peace includes not onlythe absence of war, butthe absence of
structural violence. Thatis positive peace isthe absence of violence,in all its forms and
assuch has greater value in the long-term asit removesthe factors which lead to direct
violence. This was Galtungs geniusto merge his dual definition of violence with his dual
concept of peace. However,critics of Galtung,such as Kenneth Boulding complain of his
overly taxonomical approach and his constant use of dichotomies.[20]
John Burton and Human Needs Theory
8/8/2019 Conflict Resolution Theory
4/25
In England John Burton (1915 - ), former Secretaryto the prominent Australian United
Nations representative Herbert Evatt (1894-1965), established the Centre for the
Analysis of Conflict, University of London in 1966. It wasthrough Burton thatconflict
resolution techniques expanded to the international arena, following his problem-
solving workshopsin Cyprus and Sri Lanka.[21] In 1981, Burton moved to the United
States where he collaborated in the founding ofthe Institute for Conflict Analysis and
Resolution at George Mason Universityin 1982.
Burton,synthesized the main theoretical assumptions ofconflict resolution, which are
known as human needstheory. Thistheory operates on the premise that a pre-
condition for the resolution ofconflictisthat fundamental human needs be
met.[22] Burton adopted eight fundamental needs fromthe basis ofthe work bythe
American sociologist Paul Sites and introduced one further need of his own. [23] Those
adopted needsincluded control,security, justice,stimulation, response,meaning,
rationality and esteem/recognition. Burtons additional need was role-defence, the
need to defend ones role. Burton called these ontological needs as he regarded them
as a consequence of human nature, which were universal and would be pursued
regardless ofthe consequence.[24]
Antecedentsto human needstheorycame from a variety of disciplines. In the biological
and sociobiological disciplinesconflictis perceived to result fromcompetition over
scarce resources as a result ofcommon needs.[25] In social psychology Henry Murray,
Erich Fromm (1900-1980), and Abraham Maslow (1908-1970) describe needs (some say
drives) asimportantin understanding factors for human motivation. Further
discussion of human needstheory will be developed in chapter two.
Burton distinguishes ontological needs from values and interests. He defines ontological
needs as non-negotiable; values as offering some limited opportunities for negotiation;
and interests as negotiable issues.[26] Burton distinguishesconflict fromthe related
term of dispute. He defined conflict as an action over these non-negotiable human
needs, whereas a dispute was over negotiable values.[27] Burton distinguishesconflict
resolution, fromthe related terms ofconflictmanagement and conflict
settlement.[28] To Burton conflict resolution solved deep seeminglyintractable issues,
8/8/2019 Conflict Resolution Theory
5/25
whereassettlement only addressed the superficial factors ofconflict.
Burton was not withoutcontroversy. His notion of needs falls under criticism especially
fromthose cultural anthropologists and relativists, who were (and still are) resistantto
universal values, among those were fellowmembers ofthe Institute for Conflict Analysis
and Resolution, Kevin Avruch and Peter Black.[29]
Despite this Burton had manysupporters who applied hismethodsin other
international conflicts. These included people like Herbert Kelman in Palestine-Israel,
Edward Azar in Lebanon and Vamik Volkan in Cyprus.[30]
Roger Fisher and Interest-Based Negotiation
In 1978 Roger Fisher (1922- ) a law professor collaborated in the founding ofthe
Harvard Negotiation Project (HNP), and he was a significant figure in the founding of
the Programme on Negotiation (PON) atthe Harvard Law School in 1983.[31] The
Negotiation Journal founded in 1985 included Jeremy Rubin and Roger Fisher among
others. Roger Fishers approach to conflict resolution (or negotiation) was popularised
in his book Getting to Yes,[32] which introduced the term principled-negotiation.
The principle-based approach aimsto resolve conflict by deferring judgementto a moral
principle. Such an approach advocatesthe need for interest-based negotiationsin
contrastto those based on a position. For example Fisher would suggestthat an
interest would include issues like security, esteem and pleasures, whereas positions
would define how one achieved those interests.
Fisher encouragesthe need for empathy and asksthe question why does one hold one
position, and another hold a different one? Fisher suggeststhat empathy allows parties
to discern the underlying interest which bycreativitymay resultin amicable solutions
(whatthis author would refer to as re-negotiated positions[33]) to each party.[34] Like
Burton, Fisher definesthe most powerful interests as human needs, which he identifies
assecurity, economic-well-being, a sense of belonging, recognition, and control over
ones life.[35]
8/8/2019 Conflict Resolution Theory
6/25
Conflict Transformation
In the 1990sscholars began to refer to conflict resolution with termssuch as conflict
transformation and peace-building. Keeping with the spirit of Georg Simmel,such
terms denote methods of encouraging constructive results fromconflict for all
parties.[36]John Paul Lederach, Robert Baruch-Bush[37],Joseph Folger, R.
Vayrynen[38] and Peter Wallensteen may be described as adherents ofthe conflict
transformation school. In conflicttransformation,conflictis notseen as a final state, but
a dynamic processwherein as one problemissolved a new one emerges. Similarly,
the symbolism ofthe Chinese character for crisis providescross-cultural evidence of an
optimistic notion ofconflict and conflicttransformation, asthe character
simultaneouslymeans opportunity .[39]
In whatmay be a dramaticcreative inputto conflict resolution scholarship are provided
by lessons fromcritical and cosmopolitan theory. Thisis part ofthe post-modern
sociological or philosophical perspective thatconcludesthatmediatorscan be charged
with:
enlarging the boundaries of political community, overcoming sectional and factional
differences, expanding the domain ofmoral responsibilityand promoting relations
which conformto some standards ofinternational order.[40]
This alternative to realistinternational relationstheory (which is developed in section
1.3) is heavilyinfluenced bythe philosophy ofJurgen Habermas and hisinterpretersin
the field ofinternational relationssuch as Andrew Linklater and David Held.[41]
1.2 Methods of Needs-Based Conflict Resolution
The main methods of needs-based conflict resolution are:integrative bargaining (Roger
Fishers principled negotiation);[42]analytic or interactive problem-solving (John
Burton and Herb Kelman);[43]and the human relations workshops (Leonard
Doob).[44] For the purposes ofthisthesis, onlyintegrative bargaining and interactive
8/8/2019 Conflict Resolution Theory
7/25
problem-solving will be discussed.[45]
The integrative bargaining process,sometimescalled principled negotiation,involves
negotiation in which the focusis on merits ofthe issues and the partiestryto enlarge
the available pie rather than stake claimsto certain portions ofit.[46] Thatis
integrative bargaining involves both concession making and searching for mutually
profitable solutions. Integrative bargaining triesto move beyond position-based
bargaining and determine underlying interests.[47]
Interactive or analytic problem-solving is a form ofthird-partyconsultation or informal
mediationitis a needs-based approach to resolving conflict. It begins with an analysis
ofthe political needs and fears.[48] This approach was pioneered byJohn Burton, and
extended by Herbert Kelman. Itis a nontraditional, nongovernmental approach
emphasizing analytical dialogue and problem-solving. This processis known by former
American diplomatJoseph Montville asthe tracktwo, or a grass rootmethod of
conflict resolution,in contrastto governmental diplomacy which is known as track one
diplomacy .[49]
1.3 Alternative Approachesto Needs-based Conflict Resolution
Thissection will introduce the two alternativesto the needs-based approach to conflict
resolution which include the power-based and the rights-based approaches. Both
these approaches are highly adversarial, and generally resultin a win/lose situation.
Power-based
a. Realism
The power-based, force-based or coercive approach to international conflict
resolution is whatiscalled realism and isthe dominant or normative theory of
international relations and securitystudies.[50] Power-based conflict resolution
includes both violent and nonviolent forms ofcoercionwar and diplomacy. Traditional
diplomacyis often described as war by other methods, and assuch a win/lose
situation. Negotiators advance their own position and the processis decided bythe
most powerful party.[51]John Burton arguesthat realism ends with coercive
8/8/2019 Conflict Resolution Theory
8/25
settlement and not resolution.[52]
Realisttheory arguesthatinternational securityis best achieved through the action of
Great Powers which can create regional power balancesin unstable regions acrossthe
globe, by force or by geostrategicmediation (diplomacy).[53] Henry Kissinger,
former US Secretary of State in the early 1970s, was a powerful advocate ofsuch an
approach to conflict resolution.[54] The Sinai I (1974), and Sinai II (September 1975),
ceasefire agreements which laythe foundations for Camp David Accords (September
1978) and then the Egypt-Israel Peace Treaty (1979) were examples ofsettlements based
on power politics.[55]
Presidents ofthe United States of America such asJimmy Carter, Ronald Reagan,
George Bush Snr., Bill Clinton, and George Bush Jnr, and their respective Secretaries of
State have used American muscle[56] or power-based approachesto resolving conflict.
Such mediatory actionsmayinclude nonviolentcoercive approaches like tying action to
aid,such asmilitary aid. For example,the United States action in the spring of 1975 to
freeze an Israeli request for $3,000 million in military aid wasmeantto induce Israel to
accept an interim agreement with Egypt.[57]
Realisttheory,isslowly being questioned byinternational relationsscholars. Deiniol
Jones, arguesthat realism as a moral and political commitment,is flawed due to its
overemphasis on states as an end in themselves and notsociety; [its] narrow
perspective of power[58] and its overly pessimistic view of human nature[59]. As
discussed in chapter two, power and its relationship with the attainment of fundamental
needs,is argued to be self-sustaining within a cooperation-based system. The self-
centred,competitive-blinkered, Hobbesian or Realism approach, grounded in the belief
ofinternational anarchy needsto remember that humans evolved with a desire to
belong, notto compete.[60]
Conflictmanipulation
Included within the realist approach this author would suggestisconflictmanipulation
which is a deceitful method ofsettling a conflict. Conflictmanipulation,is a public
8/8/2019 Conflict Resolution Theory
9/25
relations exercise approach to diplomacy, where there is an appearance of a conflict
resolution process whilstin reality, dialogue is only engaged to buy-time and increase
bargaining power.[61] Thisis a shortterm approach to conflict resolution. Once the
manipulated party discoversthe deceit,theymay retaliate or, atthe very least, re-
activate the dispute,thus undoing any progress achieved.[62]
This author will outline in chapter three,thatthe establishment of Israelisettlements
within the West Bank, Gaza Strip and the Golan Heightsin the 1970s, 1980s, and then
the renewed effortin the 1990sis an example ofconflictmanipulation. Conflict
manipulation givesthe superficial viewthatthere is a peace process whereasin practice
the time taken during negotiations enablesthe more powerful partyto advance their
position.[63]
Past examples ofconflictmanipulation within the context of Israel have included Moshe
Dayans establishment of facts (settlements) on the ground. An approach,this author
would suggest,is analogousto the practical Zionist approach ofthe earlytwentieth
century. This approach contrasted with the diplomaticmethods of political or
diplomatic Zionists such asthe founding father ofmodern Zionism Theodor
Herzl.[64]
b. Marxism
Marxism,considered bysome as a social movement,[65]is another approach which
fallsinto the coercive approach to handling conflict. Marxist and neo-Marxistconflict
theoristssee power asthe control over economic resources and property, and seekits
elimination by a worldwide class revolution.[66] History by Marxistsis regarded asthe
history of exploiters,those in control ofthe modes of production, and those without
control,the exploited, which resultsin a classstruggle. Fromthese premises, Marx drew
the conclusion in the Communist Manifesto thatthe capitalistclass would be
overthrown and thatit would be eliminated by a worldwide working-class revolution
and replaced by a classlesssociety.[67]
Marxist adherents within conflict resolution scholarship include Richard Rubenstein,
8/8/2019 Conflict Resolution Theory
10/25
Professor of Conflict Resolution at George Mason University. He sees Marxism as a way
to occupy a common relationship to the means of production, existing across ethnic,
cultural, religious and national boundaries and destined to become a self-conscious
identity group.[68] However, what has happened in both capitalist and communist
state managed systems Rubenstein argues represents what Marx called false identities,
in the sense of being premature stopping pointsin the development of a more complete
identity .[69] Rubenstein concludesin hissupport ofthe Marxist approach which states
that human needscan only be fully developed when men and women [sic.] become
masters of production ofthe state ofthemselves.[70]
Critics,such asJim Wallis, argue that Marxism as an ideology underestimatesthe
corruptibility ofthe self-appointed elites who would carry outthe utopian task.
Secondly, Wallis arguesthat Marxism over-estimates howmuch humanitycould be
changed bytop-down processes.[71]
Rights-based
a. International Law
The rights-based approach to conflict resolution (settlement) involves resolution based
on a standard or normative principle commonly recognised bythe partiesconcerned.
Often,the legal systemis used as a source ofthose norms. Rights-based approachesto
international conflictsettlementmay be found in the International Court ofJustice
(ICJ/World Court,the Hague), and the newlycreated International Criminal Court
(ICC). The jurisdiction ofthe first deals with state disputes and the latter isthe domain
ofindividual indictments for human rights violations.
In the Palestinian-Israeliconflict, recourse is not possible to the World Court, asthe
Palestinian people do not yet have sovereign rights of a nation-state. As for the ICC it
remainsto be seen what effectit will have in the Palestinian-Israeliconflict. The ICC
may play a critical role, given thatsome countries within the European community have
alreadytaken stepsto indict persons (for example Prime Minister Ariel Sharon) for war
crimes[72], although to date these have proved unsuccessful. Despite this,such a threat
is real enough that Israeli generals have been known to check with lawyers before
8/8/2019 Conflict Resolution Theory
11/25
travelling to Europe.
Methods of rights-based conflict resolution include both: formal (adjudication in courts)
and informal law (arbitration, and alternate dispute resolution).
b. History
Historical narratives are another way of determining a right. Historians, like lawyers,
make a case which maycontribute to the growing body of lore, that becomes accepted
as a body of fact. This pseudo-law (lore) of history becomesthe standard for
establishing right from wrong in a contemporarysituation. Historyis potentiallymore
of a political statement, an ideology,than an objective law.
Historians relevantto the Palestinian-Israeliconflictinclude traditional historians I
(Bernard Lewis, Martin Gilbert and Howard Sachar),traditional historians II (Martin
Kramer, and Daniel Pipes), and new historians (Benny Morris, Avi Shlaim, Illan
Pappe).[73]
The first group oftraditional historians provides a Zionistsympathetic perspective,the
second group provides a sensational version of Islam and the third group presents a
more humanist approach to the conflict,identifying acts ofinhumanity by both the
Zionists and the various Arab neighbours.
Scholarship that has developed fromthe Palestinian side ismuch less developed. The
most prominent Palestinian historical scholar would be Walid Khalidi.[74]
1.4 A Synthesis of Conflict Resolution Methodologies
Conflict resolution scholarship, despite its preference for a needs-based or cooperation
approach to conflict resolution,still acknowledgesthe place power-based and rights-
based methods have in conflict resolution.
Assuch needs-based conflict resolution has a more extensive range ofmethodologies
8/8/2019 Conflict Resolution Theory
12/25
available to itthan power or rights-based paradigms alone. Figure 1 summarisesthe
variousmethods ofconflict resolution including resolution based on power, rights,
principles and cooperation.[75] An overlap isindicated between each ofthese
approaches bythe arrangement ofthe horizontal brackets. Preference is for resolution
ofconflict based on cooperation and mutual interestsalthough other mechanisms exist
which can be used as a tool to help resolve conflict.
Specifictypes ofconflict-handling mechanismsinclude coercion, avoidance, arbitration,
adjudication, negotiation,mediation and reconciliation. The most adversarial approach
and least joint participatory approach iscoercion, and the least adversarial and most
mutual participatory approach is reconciliation.[76]
Coercion includes both the violent and nonviolentmethods of force. The United
Nations Charter Chapter VII resolutionsincludes both nonviolent (for example
economicsanctions) and violent (thatismilitary) forms ofcoercion. Avoidance, like
force,is a short-termsolution. Avoidance would include territorial separation,such as
partition ofstates, and relies on the saying good fencesmake good
neighbours.[77] Adjudication ofconflictinvolves a third party who pronounces a
judgement on a grievance. Thisthird partyismost often connected with the state.
In arbitration, an arbiter such as a judge or lawyer settlesthe dispute. The arbiter may
be selected bythe disputing parties. Examples of arbitration include industrial
arbitration such as employer-trade unions, employer-employee, divorce disputes and
minor mattersin local courts[78]. The distinction between arbitration and adjudication
is arbitration is generally a more informal and less expensive process, which tendsto
leave parties with more amicable results. An early form ofinternational arbitration was
developed following the Hague Peace Conference of 1899.
In thiscontext negotiation impliesthe partiesmaking an agreement,in the absence of a
third party, although one partymaystill have slightlymore power than the other. In
other contexts negotiation mayimply an agreement by partiesin a non-judicial or non-
arbitral setting.[79]
8/8/2019 Conflict Resolution Theory
13/25
In mediation and facilitation a third party helps an agreementto be concluded. The
rapid development ofmediation and alternate dispute resolution is evidentin the
United States given from 1971 to 1986 there was an increase in the number of dispute
resolution centres fromthree to 350 according to the American Bar Association (ABA)
Special Committee.[80]
[ Figure 1. Conflict handing mechanisms Notshown here. The spectrum of power-
based, rights, principle and needs based resolution methodologies].
In reconciliation both partiesseek friendship from each other.[81] Conciliation
implies a closer relationship of partiesthat lead to an agreement (not just
settlement).[82] Conciliation mayinvolve use of Burtons controlled communication,
Kelmans problem-solving, or Jurgen Habermas discourse ethics, which implies
agreementis based on the idealistic notion of an equal sharing of power. Discourse
ethicsis a political theory which offers a theory of justicea theory ofthe right. Jones
considersthat a critical mediation theory,in particular cosmopolitan theory,takes a
broader historical view of an emancipatory political process, rather than limited
micro-dynamics ofthe problem-solving workshop.[83]
Conclusion
Thischapter has firstly outlined gapsin the literature and suggested hypotheses for the
resolution ofconflict,in particular the Palestinian-Israeliconflict. Secondly, an overview
ofthe terminology and history ofconflict resolution has been provided. This has
included the origins ofconflict resolution scholarship fromsociology,social psychology
and political science.
Thirdly,conflict has been identified as a consequence of frustrated human needs. Those
needs have been developed by a variety ofscholars, but especially prominentisthe work
ofsociologist Paul Sites and international relationsscholar John Burton. Those basic
needsidentified by Sitesinclude control,security, justice,stimulation, response,
meaning, rationality and esteem. Lastly,the methods of conflict resolution were
8/8/2019 Conflict Resolution Theory
14/25
established including coercive-based, rights-based, or needs-based approaches.
The nextchapter will expand on the human needstheory developed by Paul Sites and
John Burton and incorporate thisinto a general method for conflict resolution. It will be
demonstrated thatsuch a method, which is built within a needs-based approach to
conflict resolution,is fundamental for reconciliation and the building of peace.
References
[1] Atermintroduced bythe author to summarise the essential nature ofthis approach.
Typicallythisis known as interest-based resolution see Connie Peck, The United
Nations as a Dispute Settlement System: Improving Mechanisms for the Prevention and
Resolution of Conflict, The Hague, London, Boston: Kluwer Law International, 1996, p.
10; For the trend to needs or cooperation-based approach see Jay Rothman, Resolving
Identity-Based Conflict: In Nations, Organizations and Communities, San Francisco:
Jossey-Bass Publishers, 1997, p. 61.
[2] Mohammed Abu-Nimer, Dialogue, Conflict Resolution and Change: Arab-Jewish
Encountersin Israel, New York: State University of New York Press, 1999, p. 12.
[3] Morton Deutsch, Social Psychologys Contributionsto the Study of Conflict
Resolution, Negotiation Journal, 18(4), 2002 p. 308.
[4] Alan C. Tidwell, Conflict Resolved? A Critical Assessment of Conflict Resolution,
London, New York: Pinter, 1998, p. vii.
[5] Hans Morgenthau, The Politics Among Nations, Sixth Edition, New York: Knopf,
(1948), 1966, p. 3.
[6] Georg Simmel, Conflict and the Web of Group Affiliations, Toronto: The Free Press
New York, 1964, p. 13.
[7] Alan Tidwell, 1998.
[8] Morton Deutsch, Social Psychologys Contributionsto the Study of Conflict
Resolution, Negotiation Journal, 18 (4) October 2002, p. 310.
[9] Kurt Lewin, The Background of Conflictin Marriage (1940),in Gertrude Weiss
Lewin (ed.) Resolving Social Conflicts: Selected Papers on Group Dynamics, London:
Souvenir Press (Education and Academic Ltd), 1948, p. 89.
8/8/2019 Conflict Resolution Theory
15/25
[10] Morton Deutsch, 2002, p. 310.
[11]Joseph Folger, Marshall Scott Poole and Randall K. Stutman , Working Through
Conflict, New York: Harper Collins, 1993, p.4ascited in Alan C. Tidwell, 1998, p. 33.
[12] Alan C. Tidwell, p. 63.
[13] Lewis Coser, The Functions of Social Conflict, London: Routledge and Kegan Paul,
(1956) 1965,
p. 8.
[14] For example Lewis Coser The Functions of Social Conflict 1957, p. 197ascited in
Alan. C.
Tidwell, op. cit., p. 33.
[15] D.P. Barash, Introduction to Peace Studies, Belmont CA: Wadsworth Publishing,
1991, p. 25.
[16] Alan C. Tidwell, p. 70-71.
[17] See Article requirements on back of,Journal of Peace Research 1 (1) 1964.
[18]Johan Galtung, Violence and Peace,in P. Smoker, R. Davies and B. Munske (eds)
A Reader in Peace Studies, London: Pergamon Press, 1990, pp. 9-14.
[19] D. P. Barash, Introduction to Peace Studies, Belmont CA: Wadsworth Publishing,
1991, pp. 5-13.
[20] Kenneth Boulding, Twelve Friendly Quarrels with Johan Galtung,Journal of
Peace Research
44(1), 1977, p. 78.
[21] Samuel W. Lewis, Foreword to the Series,in Burton (ed.) Conflict: Human Needs
Theory,
London: Macmillan Press, 1990, p. viii.
[22]John W. Burton and DennisJ. D. Sandole, Generic Theory: The Basis of Conflict
Resolution,
Negotiation Journal, 2(4), October 1986.
[23]Joseph A. Scimecca, Self-reflexivity and Freedom,in Burton (ed.) Conflict:
Human Needs Theory,
op. cit., p. 206.
[24] Burton, 1990, op. cit. p. 338.
[25] Michael Allaby, Aggression, Microsoft Encarta Encyclopedia Standard 2003,
Compact Disc,
8/8/2019 Conflict Resolution Theory
16/25
Microsoft Corporation 1993-2002.
[26] Burton, 1990, op. cit., p. 337.
[27]ibid., p. 2.
[28] Burton, 1986, op. cit., p. 333.
[29] For example Kevin Avruch and Peter W. Black, A Generic Theory of Conflict
Resolution: A
Critique,in Negotiation Journal 3 (1), pp. 87-100.
[30] Mohammed Abu-Nimer Dialogue, Conflict Resolution and Change: Arab-Jewish
Encountersin
Israel, New York: State University of New York Press, 1999, p. 12.
[31] A Gala Celebration of Roger Fishers 80th Birthday, The Program on Negotiation
at Harvard Law
School, www.ponharvard.edu
[32] Roger Fisher and William Ury, Getting to Yes: Negotiating an Agreement without
Giving In, Second
Edition, London, Sydney, Auckland, Bergvlei SA, Business Books Limited (1981) 1991.
[33] Fishers rhetoric favours an interest-based approach to conflict resolution rather
than a position-
based approach. However, whatthis author arguesisthat what eventuates from
interest-based
approach negotiationsare new positions, albeit re-negotiated positions. This does not
take away
from Fisher the brilliance of hisconcept. Instead,the distinction made bythis author is
to give
evidence for the transitory nature ofconflict resolution,thatismore specificallyconflict
transformation.
[34] Roger Fisher et. al., p. 45.
[35]ibid., p. 50.
[36] See John Paul Lederach, Preparing for Peace: Conflict Transformation Across
Cultures, Syracuse
New York: Syracuse University Press, pp. 3-23.
[37] Robert Baruch-Bush and Folger, The Promise of Mediation,Jossey-Bass, 1994.
[38] R. Vayrynen, From Conflict Resolution to Conflict Transformation: A Critical
8/8/2019 Conflict Resolution Theory
17/25
Review,in Ho-Won
Jeong, The New Agenda for Peace Research, Aldershot England: Ashgate Publishing,
2000, pp. 135.
[39]Jay Rothman, Resolving Identity-Based Conflicts: In Nations, Organizations and
Communities, San
Francisco:Jossey Bass Publishers, 1997, p. 173.
[40] Deiniol Jones, Cosmopolitan Mediation? Conflict Resolution and the Oslo Accords,
Manchester:
Manchester University Press, 1999, p. 2.
[41] Keytextsinclude:
(1) Jurgen Habermas, Moral Consciousness and Communicative Action, Cambridge:
Polity Press, 1990; (2) Andrew Linklater, Men and Citizensin the Theory of
International Relations, 2nd ed., London, New York: Pinter Publishers, 1994; and
(3)David Held, Democracy and the Global Order, Cambridge: Polity Press, 1990as
cited in Deiniol Jones, op. cit., 1999, p. 2.
[42] Fisher, Getting to Yes, op. cit.
[43] Herbert Kelman, Resolution ofinternational conflict: An Interactional Approach,
in S. Worchel
and W.G. Austin (eds.) Psychology of Intergroup Relations, Chicago: Hall, pp. 323-
342ascited in
Mohammed Abu-Nimer, op. cit., p. 22.
[44] Leonard Doob and W. Foltz, The Belfast Workshop: An Application of Group
Techniquesto
Destructive Conflict,Journal of Conflict Resolution, 17, pp. 489-512ascited in Abu-
Nimer, p. 21.
[45] For an overview of other methods ofconflict resolution see: Ronald J. Fisher,
Interactive
Conflict Resolution, New York: Syracuse, 1997.
[46]Jack Wood,Joseph Wallace, Rachid Zeffane, Organizational Behaviour: A Global
Perspective
Second Edition, Brisbane, New York, Chichester:John Wiley and Sons Australia,
(1998), 2001,
p. 553.
8/8/2019 Conflict Resolution Theory
18/25
[47] Susan Cross, 1999, op. cit., p. 3.
[48] Herbert C. Kelman, The Israeli-Palestinian Case,in Burton, 1990, op. cit., p. 284;
Susan Cross, 1999, op. cit., p. 3.
[49]John W. McDonald, Observations of a Diplomat,in Edward E. Azar and John W.
Burton (eds.)
International Conflict Resolution: Theory and Practice, Brighton: Wheatsheaf Books;
Boulder:
Lynne Rienner Publishers, 1986, p. 143.
[50] Burton saysspecifically psychologists,sociologists, anthropologists, lawyers and
international
relationsstudentsin John W. Burton and DennisJ.D. Sandole Generic Theory: The
Basis of
Conflict Resolution, Negotiation Journal, vol 2, no. 4 Oct 1986, p. 334.
[51]ibid.
[52]John W. Burton and DennisJ. Sandole, 1986 p. 338.
[53]Jones 1999, op. cit., p. 34
[54]ibid, p. 48.
[55]ibid., p. 51.
[56]ibid., p. 34.
[57] A. I. Dawisha, The Middle East: A Conceptual Definitionin C. Clapman (ed)
Foreign Policy Making in Developing States: A Comparative Approach, Farnborough
Hants.: Saxon House, 1977, p. 46.
[58]Jones, op. cit., p. 47.
[59] DennisJ. D. Sandole, The Biological Basis of Needs,in Burton, 1990, op. cit., p.
65.
[60] Mary E. Clark, Meaningful Social Bonding as a Human Need,in Burton, 1990, p.
39. This view
may be an overly optimistic view of human nature, and thussuffer fromthe same flaw
as pessimistic
realist notions. However,certainlythe shift away from a negative exclusionary future to
a
positive,collaborative scene will at least provide a potential for one.
[61] Geoffrey Watson, op. cit., p. 141.
8/8/2019 Conflict Resolution Theory
19/25
[62] See Bernard Mayer, The Dynamics of Conflict Resolution: A Practitioners Guide,
San Fransisco:
Jossey-Bass, 2000, op. cit., p. 39.
[63] Geoffrey Watson, op. cit., p. 141.
[64] Howard M. Sachar, The Rise of Zionism,in Gordon Levin (ed.) The Zionist
Movementin
Palestine and World Politics, 1880-1918, Lexington, 1974, p. 16.
[65]Jones, op. cit., p. 45.
[66] Robert van Krieken, Philip Smith, Daphne Habibis, Kevin McDonald, Michael
Haralambos and Martin Holborn, Sociology: Themes and Perspectives 2nd ed, Frenchs
Forest, Australia: Pearson Education Australia/Longman, 2000, p. 114.
[67] A. H. Halsey, Class and Marxism, Microsoft Encarta Encyclopedia Standard
2003, Compact Disc, Microsoft Corporation 1993-2002.
[68] Richard E. Rubenstein, Basic Human Needs Theory: Beyond Natural Law ,in
John Burton (ed.),
Conflict: Human Needs Theory, 1990, p. 350.
[69]ibid., p. 351.
[70]ibid. p. 352.
[71]Jim Wallis, The Soul of Politics: A Practical and Prophetic Vision of Change,
London: Fount, 1994
p. 27.
[72] For his role as Defence Minister,in 1982, during the Sabra and Chatilla massacre of
Palestinian refuges,carried out by Lebanese Christians (philangists), with alleged
complicity by Israeli leadership.
[73] Keytextsinclude: (1) Bernard Lewis, The Arabsin History, London 1950, Islam and
the West, New York, 1993 (2) Martin Gilbert, Israel; (3) Howard Sachar, A History of
Israel: Fromthe Rise of Zionismto our Time, Second Edition, New York: Alfred A.
Knopf, 1976, 1996; (4) Martin Kramer, Arab Awakening and Islamic Revival: The
Politics of Ideasin the Middle East. New Brunswick, N.J.: Transaction Publishers,
1996.; Ivory Towers on Sand: The Failure of Middle Eastern Studiesin America.
Washington: The Washington Institute for Near East Policy, 2001. (5) Daniel Pipes,
Militant Islam Reaches America, 2002; Greater Syria: The History of an Ambition,
Oxford, 1990. (6) Benny Morris Righteous Victims: A History ofthe Zionist-Arab
8/8/2019 Conflict Resolution Theory
20/25
Conflict, 1881-2001 New York: Vintage Books, 2001; The Birth ofthe Palestinian
Refugee problem 1947-49 (7) Avi Shlaim, The Iron Wall: Israel and the Arab World,
W.W. Norton & Company 2001; (8) Illan Pappe,
[74] Walid Khalidi (ed.) All That Remains: The Palestinian Villages Occupied and
Depopulated by Israel
in 1948, Institute for Palestine Studies.
[75] Figure 1 wasin partinspired from Hizkias Assefa, The Meaning of Reconciliation,
People Building Peace: 35 Inspiring Stories From Around The World, European Centre
for Conflict Prevention, 1999, p. 37; also see Mohammed Abu-Nimer, op. cit., p. 18.
[76] Assefa,ibid., 1999.
[77] Ascommented by Chief Palestinian negotiator Saeb Erekat.
[78] David Watson, Arbitration, Microsoft Encarta Encyclopedia Standard 2003,
Compact Disc,
Microsoft Corporation 1993-2002.
[79]John Burton, Conflict and Communication: The Use of Controlled Communication
in International
Relations, 1966, p. 15.
[80]John W. Burton and DennisJ.D. Sandole, Expanding the Debate on Generic
Theory of Conflict
Resolution: A Response to a Critique, Negotiation Journal 3(1) January 1987, p. 99.
[81]ibid., p. 37-38.
[82]John Burton, 1969, op. cit., p. 153.
[83]Jones, op. cit., p. 68.
POSTED BY STEWART MILLS AT 4:43 PM
A B O U T M E
STEWART MILLS
SYDNEY, AUSTRALIA
http://palestineisraelsolutions.blogspot.com/
V IEW MY COMPLETE PROFILE
L I N K S
8/8/2019 Conflict Resolution Theory
21/25
T H E S I S
o HOME PAGEo Nonviolence Quotationso Introduction and Hypotheseso Conflict Resolution Theory (Chapter 1)o Satisfying Human Needs (Chpt 2)o Resolving the Palestinian-Israeliconflict (Chapter 3)o Conclusions (Chapter 4)o Sources ofconflict I - threats and violenceo Sources ofconflict II - myths and propagandao Examples of reconciliation
H I S T O R Y ( A U T H O R ' S B L O G )
o Historic Palestine/Israel Population and MapsoWhythe partition plan was rejected in 1948
H I S T O R Y ( E X T E R N A L )
o Simple overview (Guardian)o Brieftimeline(Guardian)o Detailed timeline (Guardian)o Detailed history -good-(Mideastweb)o Resolutions/Agreements -excellent(Mideastweb)o Population (1860-1948;mideastweb)
P H O T O J O U R N A L ( P A L E S T I N I A N S T O R Y )
o Photos 1946-1967(Issa Nakleh)
8/8/2019 Conflict Resolution Theory
22/25
o Photos 1946-1990s(SHAML)o Photos 1948(Hanini)o Images of occupation (WARNING extremely disturbing)o Lebanon 2006 war images (WARNING extremely disturbing))o Israel/Palestine Satellite images + history (Palremembd)
J E W I S H H I S T O R Y
o Russian Jewish History (JVL)o Eastern Europe Jewish History (JVL)oWestern Europe Jewish history (JVL)
H O L O C A U S T
o Holocaust photos (WARNING Very disturbing)o Holocaust photos (shamash; WARNING: Extremely disturbing)o Holocaust video testimonies (USC)o Holocaust remembrance (UN resources)o Timeline ofthe Holocaust (1914-1945)
J E W I S H I S R A E L I P H O T O J O U R N A L
o Photos 2002-2003 (Israeli Embassy)
T E R R O R I S M
o Reasons for Terrorism
8/8/2019 Conflict Resolution Theory
23/25
N E W S ( E X T E R N A L )
o Latest News (Guardian)o Haaretzo The Alternative Information Centero Facts/Leaders/Media(BBC)o The UN Question of Palestine
L I N K S 1
oWhatsettlement expansion looks likeo The Wall at Qalqilyao The Wall isillegal (Int Court ofJustice)o Photos - Gaza 2004o Maps ofthe West Bank and Gaza
D E A T H S / I N J U R I E S D U E T O O C C U P A T I O N
o Children deaths 2000- (Jewish and Palestinian)o Casualties (Jewish and Palestinian)o Palestinian fatalitieso Death of Rachel Corrie (WARNING Very disturbing)
L I N K S 2
o PHOTO VIDEO MAPS ARTICLESo Other good links (IPCRI, Bat Shalom, Peace Now, Women in Black)o Sabeel/Palestinian ChristiansoAsel Asleh - A Seed of Peace
8/8/2019 Conflict Resolution Theory
24/25
J E W I S H P E A C E A C T I V I S T S
o Jewish Peace ActivistsoAntony Loewensteino Norman Finkelstein (good video demystifying the conflicto Finkelstein criticizes Dershowitz
O T H E R B L O G S B Y T H E A U T H O R
o Global Peace Buildingo Poverty, Hunger and DiseaseoWaro Energy and the Environmento Overcoming Apathyo Interfaith
L E T T E R S B Y T H E A U T H O R
o Mr Rudd and Israels 60th birthdayoA response to Dershowitz
P R E V I O U S P O S T S
oWar isthe decision to go for victory[rather] than...
A R C H I
8/8/2019 Conflict Resolution Theory
25/25
CONFLICT RESPONSE
3. "Potential Response" - This strategy focuses on the potential of
working towards a common goal to find a mutually beneficial solution that canlead to a "win" for the entire team. Those who use this conflict response style
know that sometimes we must move through the darkness of conflict to get to the
light of deeper connection. From this position, individuals affirm what is good
about their union--knowing that understanding, compromise and compassion will
help everyone triumph in the end.