RETHINKING DIALOGUE IN CONFLICT RESOLUTION

PROMOTING STRATEGIC ENGAGEMENT AND AGONISTIC DIALOGUE WHEN

CONFLICT RESOLUTION FAILS

WHAT IS CONFLICT RESOLUTION?

WORLD WAR I, WORLD WAR II, AND THE ORIGINS OF CONFLICT RESOLUTION

CONFLICT RESOLUTION AND INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS: A COMPARISON

MULTI-LEVELMULTI-DISCIPLINARYMULTI-CULTURALANALYTIC AND

NORMATIVETHEORY AND PRACTICE

SECOND ORDER SOCIAL LEARNING

ACKNOWLEDGEUNDERSTAND

ADAPT

RESPONDING TO SETBACKS

WHEN THEORY FAILS, BACK TO PRACTICEWHEN PRACTICE FAILS, CHANGE THE THEORY

CHANGING WORLD ORDERS

1945-1990 BI-POLAR WORLD

1990-1996 NEW WORLD ORDER

1997-2003 UNI-POLAR MOMENT

2004-2009 MULTI-POLAR WORLD

2010-2015 ?????

DATA, INTERPRETATION, RESPONSE

CONVERGENCE OF DATA SETS

TRANSNATIONAL CONFLICT

COSMOPOLITAN CONFLICT RESOLUTION

CONFLICT RESOLUTION

PEACEFUL MANAGEMENTSETTLEMENT

TRANSFORMATION

COMMUNICATIVE APPROACHES IN CONFLICT RESOLUTION

NEGOTIATION FOR POLITICAL ACCOMMODATIONINTERACTIVE PROBLEM SOLVING

DIALOGUE FOR MUTUAL UNDERSTANDING

TEST CASES 2014

GAZAUKRAINE

AFGHANISTAN/PAKISTANSYRIA/IRAQ

THE TURN TO CONFLICT ENGAGEMENT

CONFLICT ENGAGEMENT AS PLACEHOLDER

COMMUNICATIVE IMPEDIMENTS

LINGUISTIC INTRACTABILITYRADICAL DISAGREEMENT

AGONISTIC DIALOGUE

WHEN THEORY FAILS, BACK TO PRACTICE

EXPLORING AGONISTIC DIALOGUE

CONFLICT PARTIES ARE, NOT NEARER BUT MUCH FURTHER APARTTHERE IS NO THEORY OF RADICAL DISAGREEMENT

REDUCTIONIST READINGS IN THE SOCIAL AND POLITICAL SCIENCES

RATIONALIZATIONS OF POLITICAL INTERESTSOCIO-LINGUISTIC CONSTRUCTIONS

PSYCHOLOGICAL PROJECTIONSHISTORICAL-CULTURAL POSITS

SUBJECTIVE NARRATIVES

WHEN PRACTICE FAILS, CHANGE THE THEORY

PROMOTE STRATEGIC THINKING WITHIN CONFLICT PARTIESPROMOTE STRATEGIC ENGAGEMENT ACROSS CONFLICT PARTIES

CLARIFY THE ROLES OF THIRD PARTIES

EXAMPLES

ISRAELI STRATEGIC FORUMPALESTINE STRATEGY GROUP

PALESTINIAN CITIZENS OF ISRAEL GROUP

MOTIVE TO ENGAGE

WHY SHOULD CONFLICT PARTIES WANT TO ENGAGE IN STRATEGIC THINKING WHEN THEY ARE NOT READY FOR CONFLICT RESOLUTION?

CONFLICT ENGAGEMENT AS PLACEHOLDER

HOW CAN STRATEGIC THINKING THAT AIMS TO WIN BE A PLACEHOLDER FOR A REVIVAL OF CONFLICT RESOLUTION?

STRATEGIC THINKING AND STRATEGIC PLANNING

PUBLIC STRATEGIC THINKINGPRIVATE STRATEGIC PLANNING/PUBLIC MANIPULATION

PRINCIPLED NEGOTIATION AND STRATEGIC NEGOTIATION

STRATEGIC NEGOTIATION REQUIREMENTS AS PREREQUISITES FOR PRINCIPLED NEGOTIATION

STRATEGIC NEGOTIATION REQUIREMENTS

• All parties must conclude that entering negotiations is better for them than not entering negotiations.

• All parties must conclude that reaching agreement is better for them than not reaching agreement.

• All parties must conclude that implementing agreement is better for them than not implementing agreement.

STRATEGIC SCENARIOS (a simplified expository template)

Scenario (a)A genuinely independent Palestinian state as internationally agreed.

Scenario (b)Permanent effective Israeli control over the whole of historic Palestine.

Scenario (c)Indefinite continuation of the status quo – incremental Israeli settlement in the West Bank and international life-support for an otherwise unviable Palestinian Authority.

WHAT WAS THE US SECRETARY OF STATE’S NEGOTIATION STRATEGY?

• What was his strategic goal? • What was his strategy for managing asymmetry?• What was his strategy for influencing Israeli

calculations of relative strategic risk?• What was his strategy for managing Palestinian

objections to the negotiation process?• What was his strategy in case of initial agreement?• What was his strategy in case of failure? Did he

(does he) have a Plan (B)?