Conflict Resolution And Prevention John Burton Pdf Free

Conflict Resolution And Prevention John Burton Pdf To Word. MIT OpenCourseWare is a free & open publication of material from thousands.

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. ‘Needs-based’, ‘cooperation-based’ or ‘interest-based’ conflict resolution (hereafter referred to as conflict resolution) developed as a discipline following World War II. Conflict resolution as a discipline diverged from power-based conflict theory, which dominated and still dominates political science, and international relations; and converged from psychology and sociology, which was interested in group dynamics, motivation and relationships between institutional structures. Normative political theory saw conflict 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, to encourage ‘win-win solutions’.

Nonviolence, cooperation and the belief in the essential goodness of humanity are basic principles of this approach to conflict resolution. The foundations of this discipline have their origins in the Judeo-Christian culture that developed in Europe and North America and were particularly shaped in the twentieth century by the first and second world wars.

Principal antecedents of conflict resolution included philosopher and sociologist Georg Simmel (1858-1914) and Gestalt (influential on social psychology) psychologist Kurt Lewin (1890-1947). Modern conflict resolution scholars, often quote Georg Simmel, for his contribution to the field for his book Conflict, published posthumously in English in 1955. Conflict was originally a chapter of Simmel’s book Soziologie published in German in 1908.

Simmel, perceived conflict (kampf) as “designed to resolve divergent dualisms”, that is conflict was designed to resolve two different set of principles. He saw conflict as “way of achieving some kind of unity,” as such Simmel took an optimistic view of conflict.

B A B Y L O N F L O R A LWelcome to Babylon Floral Design, Denver's most unique flower boutique, specializing in cutting edge floral design and unique gift items.

However, despite this optimism, what is often not discussed in standard treatments of Simmel is his perception that this unity may be obtained “even if it be through the annihilation of one of the conflicting parties”. Kurt Lewin’s influence on modern conflict resolution follows his influence in the development of social psychology in the United States. Kurt Lewin’s contribution to conflict resolution and psychology was his emphasis on the role of social context in an individual’s development of perception, values and beliefs. This was in contrast to the normative theory of psychology prior to the 1930s, which still heavily favoured biological determinism. Lewin saw conflict as a situation of “tension” which was caused by a number of factors including the degree to which the needs of a person were in a “state of hunger or satisfaction”. Examples of those basic needs he identified included “sex and security”. Morton Deutsch following in Lewin’s footsteps in ideas and teaching institutions (they both taught at Massachusetts Institute of Technology) continued research on cooperation-competition systems.

Deutsch’s contribution was highlighting the role of perception and the existence of conflict. The American sociologist Lewis Coser followed Simmel in identifying positive aspects of conflict as expressed in The Functions of Social Conflict 1956. Coser felt the need to correct the balance of analysis, which tended to focus on the “dysfunction” of conflict rather than the potential positive aspects of conflict. Coser provisionally defined conflict as “a struggle over claims to scarce status, power and resources in which the aims of the opponents are to neutralise or eliminate their rivals”. Later he defined conflict as a “clash of values and interests”. Conflict resolution came of age in the United States in 1957 with the founding of the Journal of Conflict Resolution by Kenneth Boulding (1910-1995), Anatol Rapoport (1911- ) and Herb Kelman (1920s- ) among others.

Anatol Rapoport (1911- ) a Russian born American mathematical psychologist and co-founder of the Journal of Conflict Resolution was an important contributor to this journal with his game theories, which given the mathematical approach were a highly abstract (although overly rational) way of looking at conflict. On the other side of the Atlantic in Norway, Johan Galtung, a sociologist, founded the Journal of Peace Research in 1964.

This journal was less reliant on econometric-like theory and was more readable for the less mathematically inclined. Galtung, for the purposes of identifying steps to peace, introduced a broader notion of violence which encompasses those “avoidable insults to basic human needs”. These basic needs included security and identity.

Galtung goes on to categorise violence into two forms: direct violence and structural violence. The former includes the everyday notion of violence, whereby an individual or group suffers physical or emotional pain as the result of direct action.

Structural violence is caused by the institutions and structures of society which result in inequality or “oppression” among individuals. Chapter two will develop the concept of structural 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 essentially the colloquial perception of peace as an end to war. Positive peace includes not only the absence of war, but the absence of structural violence. That is positive peace is the absence of violence, in all its forms and as such has greater value in the long-term as it removes the factors which lead to direct violence. This was Galtung’s genius to 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”. In England John Burton (1915 - ), former Secretary to the prominent Australian United Nations representative Herbert Evatt (1894-1965), established the Centre for the Analysis of Conflict, University of London in 1966.

It was through Burton that conflict resolution techniques expanded to the international arena, following his problem-solving workshops in Cyprus and Sri Lanka. In 1981, Burton moved to the United States where he collaborated in the founding of the Institute for Conflict Analysis and Resolution at George Mason University in 1982. Burton, synthesized the main theoretical assumptions of conflict resolution, which are known as ‘human needs theory’. This theory operates on the premise that a pre-condition for the resolution of conflict is that fundamental human needs be met.

Burton adopted eight fundamental needs from the basis of the work by the American sociologist Paul Sites and introduced one further need of his own. Those adopted needs included control, security, justice, stimulation, response, meaning, rationality and esteem/recognition. Burton’s additional need was ‘role-defence,’ the need to defend one’s role. Burton called these “ontological needs” as he regarded them as a consequence of human nature, which were universal and would be pursued regardless of the consequence.

Antecedents to human needs theory came from a variety of disciplines. In the biological and sociobiological disciplines conflict is perceived to result from competition over scarce resources as a result of common needs.

In social psychology Henry Murray, Erich Fromm (1900-1980), and Abraham Maslow (1908-1970) describe needs (some say ‘drives’) as important in understanding factors for human motivation. Further discussion of human needs theory 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. Burton distinguishes conflict from the related term of ‘dispute’.

He defined ‘conflict’ as an action over these non-negotiable human needs, whereas a ‘dispute’ was over negotiable values. Burton distinguishes conflict resolution, from the related terms of conflict management and conflict settlement.

To Burton conflict resolution solved deep seemingly intractable issues, whereas settlement only addressed the superficial factors of conflict. Burton was not without controversy. His notion of needs falls under criticism especially from those cultural anthropologists and relativists, who were (and still are) resistant to universal values, among those were fellow members of the Institute for Conflict Analysis and Resolution, Kevin Avruch and Peter Black. Despite this Burton had many supporters who applied his methods in other international conflicts. These included people like Herbert Kelman in Palestine-Israel, Edward Azar in Lebanon and Vamik Volkan in Cyprus. In 1978 Roger Fisher (1922- ) a law professor collaborated in the founding of the Harvard Negotiation Project (HNP), and he was a significant figure in the founding of the Programme on Negotiation (PON) at the Harvard Law School in 1983. The Negotiation Journal founded in 1985 included Jeremy Rubin and Roger Fisher among others.

Roger Fisher’s approach to conflict resolution (or negotiation) was popularised in his book Getting to Yes, which introduced the term ‘principled-negotiation.’ The principle-based approach aims to resolve conflict by deferring judgement to a moral principle. Such an approach advocates the need for interest-based negotiations in contrast to those based on a ‘position’. For example Fisher would suggest that an interest would include issues like security, esteem and pleasures, whereas positions would define how one achieved those interests. Fisher encourages the need for empathy and asks the question – “why does one hold one position, and another hold a different one”? Fisher suggests that empathy allows parties to discern the underlying interest which by creativity may result in amicable solutions (what this author would refer to as ‘re-negotiated positions’) to each party. Like Burton, Fisher defines the most powerful interests as human needs, which he identifies as security, economic-well-being, a sense of belonging, recognition, and control over one’s life.

In the 1990s scholars began to refer to conflict resolution with terms such as ‘conflict transformation’ and ‘peace-building’. Keeping with the spirit of Georg Simmel, such terms denote methods of encouraging constructive results from conflict for all parties. John Paul Lederach, Robert Baruch-Bush, Joseph Folger, R.

Vayrynen and Peter Wallensteen may be described as adherents of the conflict transformation school. In conflict transformation, conflict is not seen as a final state, but a “dynamic processwherein as one problem is solved a new one emerges”. Similarly, the symbolism of the Chinese character for ‘crisis’ provides cross-cultural evidence of an optimistic notion of conflict and conflict transformation, as the character “simultaneously means opportunity”. In what may be a dramatic creative input to conflict resolution scholarship are provided by lessons from critical and cosmopolitan theory.

This is part of the post-modern sociological or philosophical perspective that concludes that mediators can be charged with: enlarging the boundaries of political community, overcoming sectional and factional differences, expanding the domain of moral responsibilityand promoting relations which conform to some standards of international order. This alternative to realist international relations theory (which is developed in section 1.3) is heavily influenced by the philosophy of Jurgen Habermas and his interpreters in the field of international relations such as Andrew Linklater and David Held. The main methods of needs-based conflict resolution are: integrative bargaining (Roger Fisher’s principled negotiation); analytic or interactive problem-solving (John Burton and Herb Kelman);and the human relations workshops (Leonard Doob). For the purposes of this thesis, only integrative bargaining and interactive problem-solving will be discussed.

The integrative bargaining process, sometimes called principled negotiation, involves negotiation in which the focus is on “merits of the issues and the parties try to enlarge the available ’pie’ rather than stake claims to certain portions of it”. That is integrative bargaining involves “both concession making and searching for mutually profitable solutions”. Integrative bargaining tries to move beyond position-based bargaining and determine underlying interests. Interactive or analytic problem-solving is a “form of third-party consultation or informal mediationit is a needs-based approach to resolving conflict”. It begins with an analysis of the political needs and fears. This approach was pioneered by John Burton, and extended by Herbert Kelman. It is a “nontraditional, nongovernmental approach emphasizing analytical dialogue and problem-solving”.

This process is known by former American diplomat Joseph Montville as the “track two,” or a grass root method of conflict resolution, in contrast to governmental diplomacy which is known as “track one diplomacy”. This section will introduce the two alternatives to 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 result in a win/lose situation. The ‘power-based’, ‘force-based’ or ‘coercive’ approach to international conflict resolution is what is called realism and is the dominant or normative theory of international relations and security studies. Power-based conflict resolution includes both violent and nonviolent forms of coercion—war and diplomacy.

Traditional diplomacy is often described as “war by other methods,” and as such a win/lose situation. Negotiators advance their own ‘position’ and the process is decided by the most powerful party. John Burton argues that realism ends with “coercive settlement” and not resolution.

(ResMed Ltd). 'This ain't no ordinary barcode software.' (BrassCraft)The Software is very easy to install and operate.Dr P.S. - This is not your ordinary barcode software.This barcode software creates barcodes using fonts.

Realist theory argues that international security is best achieved through the action of Great Powers which can create regional power balances in unstable regions across the globe, by force or by “geostrategic mediation” (‘diplomacy’). Henry Kissinger, former US Secretary of State in the early 1970s, was a powerful advocate of such an approach to conflict resolution.

The Sinai I (1974), and Sinai II (September 1975), ceasefire agreements which lay the foundations for Camp David Accords (September 1978) and then the Egypt-Israel Peace Treaty (1979) were examples of settlements based on power politics. Presidents of the United States of America such as Jimmy Carter, Ronald Reagan, George Bush Snr., Bill Clinton, and George Bush Jnr, and their respective Secretaries of State have used “American muscle” or power-based approaches to resolving conflict. Such mediatory actions may include nonviolent coercive approaches like tying action to aid, such as military aid. For example, the United States’ action in the “spring of 1975 to freeze an Israeli request for $3,000 million in military aid was meant to induce Israel to accept an interim agreement with Egypt”.

Realist theory, is slowly being questioned by international relations scholars. Deiniol Jones, argues that realism as a “moral and political commitment,” is flawed due to its “overemphasis on states as an end in themselves and not society; [its] narrow perspective of power” and its overly “pessimistic” view of human nature.

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 of international anarchy needs to remember that “humans evolved with a desire to belong, not to compete”. Conflict manipulation Included within the realist approach this author would suggest is conflict manipulation which is a deceitful method of settling a conflict.

Conflict manipulation, is a public relations exercise approach to diplomacy, where there is an appearance of a conflict resolution process whilst in reality, dialogue is only engaged to ‘buy-time’ and increase bargaining power. This is a short term approach to conflict resolution. Once the manipulated party discovers the deceit, they may retaliate or, at the very least, re-activate the dispute, thus undoing any progress achieved. This author will outline in chapter three, that the establishment of Israeli settlements within the West Bank, Gaza Strip and the Golan Heights in the 1970s, 1980s, and then the renewed effort in the 1990s is an example of conflict manipulation.

Conflict manipulation gives the superficial view that there is a ‘peace process’ whereas in practice the time taken during ‘negotiations’ enables the more powerful party to advance their position. Past examples of conflict manipulation within the context of Israel have included Moshe Dayan’s establishment of ‘facts (settlements) on the ground’. An approach, this author would suggest, is analogous to the ‘practical Zionist’ approach of the early twentieth century. This approach contrasted with the diplomatic methods of ‘political’ or “diplomatic” Zionists’ such as the founding father of modern Zionism Theodor Herzl.

Marxism, considered by some as a “social movement,” is another approach which falls into the coercive approach to handling conflict. Marxist and neo-Marxist conflict theorists see ‘power’ as the control over economic resources and property, and seek its elimination by a worldwide class revolution”. Larkin Rescue Frame Manual. History by Marxists is regarded as the history of exploiters, those in control of the modes of production, and those without control, the exploited, which results in a class struggle.

From these premises, Marx drew the conclusion in the Communist Manifesto that the capitalist class would be overthrown and that it would be eliminated by a worldwide working-class revolution and replaced by a classless society. Marxist adherents within conflict resolution scholarship include Richard Rubenstein, 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”.

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 points in the development of a more complete identity”. Rubenstein concludes in his support of the Marxist approach which states that human needs can only be fully developed when “men and women [sic.] become masters of production of the state of themselves”. Critics, such as Jim Wallis, argue that Marxism as an ideology underestimates the corruptibility of the self-appointed elites who would carry out the utopian task.

Secondly, Wallis argues that Marxism over-estimates how much humanity could be changed by top-down processes. The rights-based approach to conflict ‘resolution’ (settlement) involves resolution based on a standard or normative principle commonly recognised by the parties concerned. Often, the legal system is used as a source of those norms. Rights-based approaches to international conflict settlement may be found in the International Court of Justice (ICJ/World Court, the Hague), and the newly created International Criminal Court (ICC). The jurisdiction of the first deals with state disputes and the latter is the domain of individual indictments for human rights violations.

In the Palestinian-Israeli conflict, recourse is not possible to the World Court, as the Palestinian people do not yet have sovereign rights of a nation-state. As for the ICC it remains to be seen what effect it will have in the Palestinian-Israeli conflict. The ICC may play a critical role, given that some countries within the European community have already taken steps to indict persons (for example Prime Minister Ariel Sharon) for war crimes, 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 travelling to Europe.

Methods of rights-based conflict resolution include both: formal (adjudication in courts) and informal law (arbitration, and alternate dispute resolution). Historical narratives are another way of determining a ‘right’. Historians, like lawyers, make a case which may contribute to the growing body of ‘lore,’ that becomes accepted as a body of ‘fact’.

This ‘pseudo-law’ (lore) of history becomes the standard for establishing right from wrong in a contemporary situation. History is potentially more of a political statement, an ideology, than an objective law.

Historians relevant to the Palestinian-Israeli conflict include 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). The first group of traditional historians provides a Zionist sympathetic perspective, the second group provides a sensational version of Islam and the third group presents a more humanist approach to the conflict, identifying acts of inhumanity by both the Zionists and the various Arab neighbours.

Scholarship that has developed from the Palestinian side is much less developed. The most prominent Palestinian historical scholar would be Walid Khalidi. Conflict resolution scholarship, despite its preference for a needs-based or cooperation approach to conflict resolution, still acknowledges the place power-based and rights-based methods have in conflict resolution. As such needs-based conflict resolution has a more extensive range of methodologies available to it than power or rights-based paradigms alone.

Figure 1 summarises the various methods of conflict resolution including resolution based on power, rights, principles and cooperation. An overlap is indicated between each of these approaches by the arrangement of the horizontal brackets. Preference is for resolution of conflict based on cooperation and mutual interests—although other mechanisms exist which can be used as a tool to help resolve conflict. Specific types of conflict-handling mechanisms include coercion, avoidance, arbitration, adjudication, negotiation, mediation and reconciliation. The most adversarial approach and least joint participatory approach is coercion, and the least adversarial and most mutual participatory approach is reconciliation.

‘Coercion’ includes both the violent and nonviolent methods of force. The United Nations Charter Chapter VII resolutions includes both nonviolent (for example economic sanctions) and violent (that is military) forms of coercion. ‘Avoidance’, like force, is a short-term solution.

Avoidance would include territorial separation, such as partition of states, and relies on the saying “good fences make good neighbours”. ‘Adjudication’ of conflict involves a third party who pronounces a judgement on a grievance. This third party is most often connected with the state. In ‘arbitration’, an arbiter such as a judge or lawyer settles the dispute. The arbiter may be selected by the disputing parties. Examples of arbitration include industrial arbitration such as employer-trade unions, employer-employee, divorce disputes and minor matters in local courts.

The distinction between arbitration and adjudication is arbitration is generally a more informal and less expensive process, which tends to leave parties with more amicable results. An early form of international arbitration was developed following the Hague Peace Conference of 1899. In this context ‘negotiation’ implies the parties making an agreement, in the absence of a third party, although one party may still have slightly more power than the other.

In other contexts negotiation may imply an agreement by parties in a non-judicial or non-arbitral setting. In ‘mediation’ and ‘facilitation’ a third party helps an agreement to be concluded. The rapid development of mediation and alternate dispute resolution is evident in the United States given from 1971 to 1986 there was an increase in the number of dispute resolution centres from three to 350 according to the American Bar Association (ABA) Special Committee. Conflict handing mechanisms – Not shown here. The spectrum of power-based, rights, principle and needs based resolution methodologies].

In ‘reconciliation’ both parties seek friendship from each other. Conciliation “implies a closer relationship of parties that lead to an agreement” (not just settlement). Conciliation may involve use of Burton’s “controlled communication”, Kelman’s “problem-solving”, or Jurgen Habermas’ “discourse ethics”, which implies agreement is based on the idealistic notion of an equal sharing of power. Discourse ethics is a political theory which offers a “theory of justicea theory of the right”. Jones considers that a critical mediation theory, in particular cosmopolitan theory, takes a ‘broader historical view of an emancipatory political process”, rather than “limited micro-dynamics of the problem-solving workshop”.

This chapter has firstly outlined gaps in the literature and suggested hypotheses for the resolution of conflict, in particular the Palestinian-Israeli conflict. Secondly, an overview of the terminology and history of conflict resolution has been provided. This has included the origins of conflict resolution scholarship from sociology, 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 of scholars, but especially prominent is the work of sociologist Paul Sites and international relations scholar John Burton.

Those basic needs identified by Sites include control, security, justice, stimulation, response, meaning, rationality and esteem. Lastly, the methods of ‘conflict’ resolution were established including coercive-based, rights-based, or needs-based approaches. The next chapter will expand on the human needs theory developed by Paul Sites and John Burton and incorporate this into a general method for conflict resolution. It will be demonstrated that such a method, which is built within a needs-based approach to conflict resolution, is fundamental for reconciliation and the building of peace. References A term introduced by the author to summarise the essential nature of this approach. Typically this is 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.

Mohammed Abu-Nimer, Dialogue, Conflict Resolution and Change: Arab-Jewish Encounters in Israel, New York: State University of New York Press, 1999, p. Morton Deutsch, “Social Psychology’s Contributions to the Study of Conflict Resolution”, Negotiation Journal, 18(4), 2002 p.

Tidwell, Conflict Resolved? A Critical Assessment of Conflict Resolution, London, New York: Pinter, 1998, p. Hans Morgenthau, The Politics Among Nations, Sixth Edition, New York: Knopf, (1948), 1966, p. Georg Simmel, Conflict and the Web of Group Affiliations, Toronto: The Free Press New York, 1964, p. Alan Tidwell, 1998. Morton Deutsch, “Social Psychology’s Contributions to the Study of Conflict Resolution”, Negotiation Journal, 18 (4) October 2002, p. Kurt Lewin, “The Background of Conflict in Marriage” (1940), in Gertrude Weiss Lewin (ed.) Resolving Social Conflicts: Selected Papers on Group Dynamics, London: Souvenir Press (Education and Academic Ltd), 1948, p.

Morton Deutsch, 2002, p. Joseph Folger, Marshall Scott Poole and Randall K. Stutman, Working Through Conflict, New York: Harper Collins, 1993, p.4—as cited in Alan C. Tidwell, 1998, p. Lewis Coser, The Functions of Social Conflict, London: Routledge and Kegan Paul, (1956) 1965, p. For example Lewis Coser The Functions of Social Conflict 1957, p. 197—as cited in Alan.

Barash, Introduction to Peace Studies, Belmont CA: Wadsworth Publishing, 1991, p. See “Article requirements” on back of, Journal of Peace Research 1 (1) 1964. Johan Galtung, “Violence and Peace”, in P. Davies and B. Munske (eds) A Reader in Peace Studies, London: Pergamon Press, 1990, pp.

Barash, Introduction to Peace Studies, Belmont CA: Wadsworth Publishing, 1991, pp. Kenneth Boulding, “Twelve Friendly Quarrels with Johan Galtung”, Journal of Peace Research 44(1), 1977, p. Lewis, “Foreword to the Series,” in Burton (ed.) Conflict: Human Needs Theory, London: Macmillan Press, 1990, p. Burton and Dennis J. Sandole, “Generic Theory: The Basis of Conflict Resolution”, Negotiation Journal, 2(4), October 1986. Scimecca, “Self-reflexivity and Freedom,” in Burton (ed.) Conflict: Human Needs Theory, op.

Burton, 1990, op. Michael Allaby, “Aggression, ” Microsoft Encarta Encyclopedia Standard 2003, Compact Disc, Microsoft Corporation 1993-2002. Burton, 1990, op. Burton, 1986, op. For example Kevin Avruch and Peter W. Black, “A Generic Theory of Conflict Resolution: A Critique,” in Negotiation Journal 3 (1), pp. Mohammed Abu-Nimer Dialogue, Conflict Resolution and Change: Arab-Jewish Encounters in Israel, New York: State University of New York Press, 1999, p.

“A Gala Celebration of Roger Fisher’s 80th Birthday,” The Program on Negotiation at Harvard Law School, www.ponharvard.edu 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. Fisher’s rhetoric favours an interest-based approach to conflict resolution rather than a position- based approach. However, what this author argues is that what eventuates from ‘interest-based approach’ negotiationsare new positions, albeit re-negotiated positions. This does not take away from Fisher the brilliance of his concept.

Instead, the distinction made by this author is to give evidence for the transitory nature of conflict resolution, that is more specifically conflict transformation. Roger Fisher et.

See John Paul Lederach, Preparing for Peace: Conflict Transformation Across Cultures, Syracuse New York: Syracuse University Press, pp. Robert Baruch-Bush and Folger, The Promise of Mediation, Jossey-Bass, 1994. Vayrynen, “From Conflict Resolution to Conflict Transformation: A Critical Review,” in Ho-Won Jeong, The New Agenda for Peace Research, Aldershot England: Ashgate Publishing, 2000, pp. Jay Rothman, Resolving Identity-Based Conflicts: In Nations, Organizations and Communities, San Francisco: Jossey Bass Publishers, 1997, p. Deiniol Jones, Cosmopolitan Mediation? Conflict Resolution and the Oslo Accords, Manchester: Manchester University Press, 1999, p. Key texts include: (1) Jurgen Habermas, Moral Consciousness and Communicative Action, Cambridge: Polity Press, 1990; (2) Andrew Linklater, Men and Citizens in 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, 1990—as cited in Deiniol Jones, op.

Cit., 1999, p. Fisher, Getting to Yes, op. Herbert Kelman, “Resolution of international conflict: An Interactional Approach”, in S. Worchel and W.G.

Austin (eds.) Psychology of Intergroup Relations, Chicago: Hall, pp. 323-342—as cited in Mohammed Abu-Nimer, op. Leonard Doob and W. Foltz, “The Belfast Workshop: An Application of Group Techniques to Destructive Conflict”, Journal of Conflict Resolution, 17, pp. 489-512—as cited in Abu-Nimer, p. For an overview of other methods of conflict resolution see: Ronald J. Fisher, Interactive Conflict Resolution, New York: Syracuse, 1997.

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. Susan Cross, 1999, op. Kelman, “The Israeli-Palestinian Case,” in Burton, 1990, op. 284; Susan Cross, 1999, op. 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.

Burton says specifically “psychologists, sociologists, anthropologists, lawyers and international relations students” in John W. Burton and Dennis J.D. Sandole “Generic Theory: The Basis of Conflict Resolution”, Negotiation Journal, vol 2, no. 4 Oct 1986, p. Burton and Dennis J.

Sandole, 1986 p. Jones 1999, op. Dawisha, “The Middle East: A Conceptual Definition” in C. Clapman (ed) Foreign Policy Making in Developing States: A Comparative Approach, Farnborough Hants.: Saxon House, 1977, p. Sandole, “The Biological Basis of Needs,” in Burton, 1990, op. Clark, “Meaningful Social Bonding as a Human Need,” in Burton, 1990, p.

This view may be an overly optimistic view of human nature, and thus suffer from the same flaw as pessimistic realist notions. However, certainly the shift away from a negative exclusionary future to a positive, collaborative scene will at least provide a potential for one. Geoffrey Watson, op. See Bernard Mayer, The Dynamics of Conflict Resolution: A Practitioners Guide, San Fransisco: Jossey-Bass, 2000, op. Geoffrey Watson, op. Sachar, “The Rise of Zionism”, in Gordon Levin (ed.) The Zionist Movement in Palestine and World Politics, 1880-1918, Lexington, 1974, p.

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. Halsey, “Class” and “Marxism”, Microsoft Encarta Encyclopedia Standard 2003, Compact Disc, Microsoft Corporation 1993-2002. Rubenstein, “Basic Human Needs Theory: Beyond Natural Law”, in John Burton (ed.), Conflict: Human Needs Theory, 1990, p. Jim Wallis, The Soul of Politics: A Practical and Prophetic Vision of Change, London: Fount, 1994 p. 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. Key texts include: (1) Bernard Lewis, The Arabs in History, London 1950, Islam and the West, New York, 1993 (2) Martin Gilbert, Israel; (3) Howard Sachar, A History of Israel: From the Rise of Zionism to our Time, Second Edition, New York: Alfred A.

Knopf, 1976, 1996; (4) Martin Kramer, Arab Awakening and Islamic Revival: The Politics of Ideas in the Middle East. New Brunswick, N.J.: Transaction Publishers, 1996.; Ivory Towers on Sand: The Failure of Middle Eastern Studies in 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 of the Zionist-Arab Conflict, 1881-2001 New York: Vintage Books, 2001; The Birth of the Palestinian Refugee problem 1947-49 (7) Avi Shlaim, The Iron Wall: Israel and the Arab World, W.W.

Norton & Company 2001; (8) Illan Pappe, Walid Khalidi (ed.) All That Remains: The Palestinian Villages Occupied and Depopulated by Israel in 1948, Institute for Palestine Studies. Figure 1 was in part inspired 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. Assefa, ibid., 1999. As commented by Chief Palestinian negotiator Saeb Erekat. David Watson, “Arbitration”, Microsoft Encarta Encyclopedia Standard 2003, Compact Disc, Microsoft Corporation 1993-2002. John Burton, Conflict and Communication: The Use of Controlled Communication in International Relations, 1966, p.

Burton and Dennis J.D. Sandole, “Expanding the Debate on Generic Theory of Conflict Resolution: A Response to a Critique”, Negotiation Journal 3(1) January 1987, p. John Burton, 1969, op. About Me Name: Location: Sydney, Australia Links THESIS • • • • • • • • • • History (Author's blog)• • History (External)• • • • • • Photo Journal (Palestinian Story)• • • • • • Jewish history• • • Holocaust• • • • • Jewish Israeli Photo Journal• Terrorism• News (External)• • • • • Links 1• • • • • Deaths/Injuries due to occupation• • • • Links 2• • • • Jewish Peace Activists• • • • Other Blogs by the Author• • • • • • Letters by the Author• • Previous Posts • Archives •.

March 1998 An entry prepared for the Institute of Peace Studies, Seoul, Korea, for its 'World Encyclopedia of Peace', 1998 Edition. Contents Philosophical Failure A Shift in Thinking The Development of Theory Recent Developments: Interests and Needs Settlement Processes as a Cause of Protracted Conflict The Problem of Change An Emerging Political Philosophy References Conflict resolution as a concept has been promoted over the years by members of the Society of Friends (Quakers) and others. When 'Conflict Resolution' was introduced at the University of London in 1965 as an extension of the conventional strategic, power politics, International Relations course, it was given a specific meaning. This new section dwelt on the possibilities of analytical problem solving in inter-state relationships rather than dealing with potential military conflict situations by balance of power and alliance means. Why had Germany and Japan gone to war against Britain? Why was a revolt in Vietnam not deterred by the threat of force from the leading world power of the time and from the United Nations? If deterrence did not deter, what were the options?

After some years of debate and discussion Conflict Resolution became an alternative to the traditional Morgenthau (1948) power politics approach to International Relations. This problem solving approach, with its analytical focus on human motivations and relationships, was soon seen to apply to all social and political levels, thus offering an alternative to the power-based law-and-order approach to the problems of societies. A body of theory and a Conflict Resolution literature quickly evolved. Conflict Analysis and Resolution emerged as a separate social science area of study. To cope with its comprehensive, a-disciplinary approach, frequently independent Institutes and Centres were established within universities, rather than separate departments or sections within departments. By reason of its comprehensive nature, Conflict Resolution is now emerging as a political philosophy, with widespread social and political implications.

The Charter of the United Nations was drafted at San Francisco in 1945. At that time conventional wisdom held that the emerging global society should be a centralised federal system. The central authority was to have final power in the preservation of peace. There were certain international legal norms to be observed.

There was to be a Court to interpret these. There was to be a body, the Security Council, comprising the five major powers, plus ten others elected by the General Assembly. The Security Council was given enforcement powers. Member states were to contribute forces for the purpose. The world society was, in short, to be constructed and administered along the lines of the prevailing single nation state. Majority rule, law and order, the common good, were among the conceptual notions that made up the political philosophy of the time. Philosophical Failure It was not then acknowledged that the common good was, both at the domestic level and at the international level, the common good as interpreted by the powerful.

It was assumed, and widely accepted, that authorities which have effective control within their territories are, by dint of this control, politically legitimised authorities. We now know from experience that this power conception of legitimisation is false. In the absence of consensus support, the maintenance of law and order through coercion by a central authority, can be a source of violence and protracted conflict which spills over into the international system. The UN was thus flawed from the outset in two ways. Many of its members are non-legitimised authorities and, as such, the source of serious domestic conflicts. And the UN is flawed by its own non-legitimacy.

The General Assembly has no means of control in respect of matters of international concern. Only the Security Council can apply law and order, and the permanent members of that body each has the right of veto. It is hard to believe now, but at the time at which the Charter was drafted few people, perhaps none at San Francisco, had any clear ideas on the handling of conflict situations outside this traditional power framework. The national central authority coercive model was what was in the minds of all as the ideal for an international institution.

The goal was to prevent aggression of the World War 11 German, Italian and Japanese type. Few were educated to ask why this aggression had occurred, what were the background circumstances, and were there problems that could have been resolved. It was not until the early 'sixties that there was any effective challenge to the normative and authoritarian approach of power theory. When it came, it came in the field of industrial relations. Scholars and consultants, (such as Blake, Shepard and Mouton, 1964), pointed to the need for inter-action between management and workers if there were to be co-operation and increased productivity. This coincided with work in decision-making theory which focused attention on the advantages of feed-back processes, rather than on unqualified power and hierarchical approaches to decision making, (Karl Deutsch, 1963).

A Shift in Thinking A group of lawyers in Britain associated with the David Davis Memorial Institute published in 1966 their considered view that the institutions available to states, judicial settlement, mediation, conciliation, negotiation and the other means contemplated within the UN Charter and within classical power political philosophy, were adequate as means by which to maintain peaceful international relationships. The League of Nations had failed because of an unwillingness on the part of states to use the instruments available, but the powers given to the United Nations Security Council had changed this.

The academic community became sharply divided between those who adopted this traditional power view, and those who sought to determine the nature of conflict and how to resolve it through an understanding of it by the parties concerned. In England in the late 1960's one outcome of this quite bitter academic debate was an attempt by some teachers of International Relations at University College, London, to falsify the belief that parties in conflict were unwilling to cooperate in resolving conflicts. Their hypothesis was that parties to conflicts would endeavour to avoid the costs of escalation of conflicts and to resolve them if they were placed in an exploratory and analytical framework in which they could explore possible options. Obviously some new process would be required, some analytical process, that would avoid power bargaining from stated positions and would be exploratory once the goals and objectives of all sides had been revealed. Clearly, this would require an appropriate third party, preferably a panel of four or five facilitators, who could inject interdisciplinary knowledge and information, not about the conflict at issue, but about conflicts and human behaviour generally which the parties could apply to their conflict.

This would need to be without publicity so as to avoid charges of weakness by leaders who were willing to negotiate with the enemy, and possibly change perceptions and policies. One test case in the mid-60's concerned a conflict in South East Asia, involving Indonesia, Malaysia and Singapore, which the British Prime Minister of the day, Harold Wilson, had tried to mediate. The parties had all refused to accept his invitation-which he had made public. With his knowledge and consent the London group invited the three heads of government to send nominees to meet in London for an off-the-record analytical and exploratory dialogue. They responded immediately. The nominees met for ten days in a face-to-face situation controlled by a panel of five scholars.

The agenda was an analysis of the situation, with no preliminary proposals. There was no bargaining or negotiation.

All three discovered that they shared the same fears and aspirations, possible infiltration, sponsored by the other parties, of their economies by foreign nationals. After some days they could communicate readily. They returned home. Fighting stopped and diplomatic relations were re-established without any public statements. (For an account of this intervention, see 'Civilisations in Crisis' in International Journal of Peace Studies Vol 1 No 1.) This exercise was followed by others which again falsified the proposition that conflicting parties would not meet together. The same processes were tested at the industrial level and at the community level.

Much was learned by these experiences, which were shared by many scholars working in the field. Confidentiality became an important consideration. There were none of the usual academic reports of experiments. Once it was accepted by the parties that there would be no publicity or reporting of any observations made during discussions, at least for many years, changes in attitudes and policies could be made, without any possibility of accusations of being 'weak' or climbing down. The degree to which parties re-perceived the total situation, and the values and motivations of their 'enemy', came as a welcome surprise to those facilitating and observing.

The Development of Theory A theory of behaviour was now required which would not merely explain why parties were unwilling to meet within existing international institutions, but which would also indicate what kind of institutions and processes would be acceptable and helpful. Paul Sites, in 1973, introduced a previously neglected behavioural dimension into the study of human relationships. He attributed 'power', not to governments, but to individuals and groups of individuals. He observed that they use all means at their disposal to pursue certain human needs.

The individual or group has an inherent need for a social role, an identity and identification with others, and social recognition as an individual or ethnic group. He argued that there are certain societal needs that will be pursued regardless of consequences.

This, in his view, was the source of ultimate power and explained why authorities are powerless in many situations, both domestic and international, to deter or to enforce their decisions. It was then possible to make a clear distinction between human needs, such as those listed by Sites and which are an ontological part of the human organism, and interests, such as commercial and material interests. It followed that in any conflict situation there are differences (interests) that can be negotiated, but there are also differences (human needs and some cultural values) that are not for trading at any price. The latter, being ontological needs, are shared by all parties.

When there is a direct interaction they are readily recognised by all as shared sources of conflict to be removed. It was necessary, therefore, in resolving any conflict situation to work towards political structures that enable the full development of the individual and of the identity group to which the individual belongs. Ethnic conflicts could not be settled by 'democratic' majority government, and other options had to be explored. Indeed, the major role of panels associated with conflict resolution processes would be to be innovative in translating the shared needs and values that are revealed by the dialogue into political structures, institutions and behaviours that would promote their fulfilment. There is one other strand in the development of conflict resolution theory that should be noted.

We are here dealing with what must be regarded as the most complex field of study that man will ever come across: the behavioural relations of humans as persons and as groups. It happened that, during this period of development of behavioural theory, the philosophy of science was also developing. What was previously described as scientific method was found to be not so scientific, and indeed, useful and reliable only in limited circumstances. The debate between Popper (1957) and Kuhn (1962) revealed shortcomings in controlled experiments and in empirically based theorising. It also demonstrated that a formal deductive approach that relied upon falsification was impractical, as such testing was usually not possible in open systems. Further insights emerged after Peirce's work on 'abduction' (1980)-the questioning of the consensus assumptions.

Those engaged in conflict resolution analysis were persuaded, by the behaviours and responses revealed in a conflict situation, to conclude that traditional concepts of law and order, of the common good, of majority decision making, of the right to rule and to expect obedience, were probably at the root of a great deal of social conflict. Clearly this was the case in situations where there was an absence of political legitimisation. The attempt to impose structures that denied to people their identity and their development in all aspects, and the attempt to impose the norms of the powerful, were dysfunctional and a source of conflict. Recent Developments: Interests and Needs The theory of needs led logically to the development of a process that would enable parties to conflicts to ascertain the hidden data of their motivations and intentions, and to explore means by which human-societal needs held in common could be satisfied.

As these needs were universal, and as they related to security, identity and other developmental requirements that are not in short supply, the process soon revealed that conflict resolution with win-win outcomes is possible. Many research and teaching institutes in different cultures have now sought to test both theory and practice in actual situations. The Foreign Service Institute of the U.S. Department of State has published reports on the process (1986).

An extensive literature on conflict resolution now exists. (Banks and Kelman, 1984, Burton, 1979 and 1990, Dukes, 1996, Mitchell and Banks, 1996, Sandole and Van der Merwe, 1993, and many others). In summary, classical thinking led us to believe that conflict was about negotiable interests only. For that reason it was thought that the individual could be socialised and, if necessary, deterred by punishments. What both conflict theory and resolution processes revealed was that protracted conflicts are primarily over non-negotiable human needs such as those listed by Sites. This being the case, it is impossible to socialise the individual into behaviours that run counter to the pursuit of security, identity and other aspects of development.

(Burton, 1997). The warning flag is out: conflicts, such as wage disputes, and conflicts over opposing cultural and national 'human values', may not really be over negotiable interests. They may relate to needs that are not for trading, such as being treated on the shop floor as a person and not a machine. Indeed, it may well be that conflicts are protracted unnecessarily just because inalienable values (identity) are translated into interests (wages) merely to fit into the traditional processes of bargaining and negotiation. When analytical processes are available, the hidden data are revealed and can be dealt with.

A new conceptual frame requires a new language. As suggested, there is a need to re-define disputes and conflicts. A 'dispute' may be a matter for negotiation, but a 'conflict' has its sources in values that are not subject to bargaining or negotiation. 'Prevention' by police action is a quite different concept from 'provention', that is getting to the source of problems so that they do not occur.

There are many terms with special meanings within this non-power philosophy. (Burton 1996). Settlement Processes as a Cause of Protracted Conflict At the international policy level, however, there has been little change. National defence is the main priority of state policy. Superiority of power remains the goal of states-which leads to adversary diplomacy and politics, and to arms escalation. States, and the UN as the institution of states, still see the global society in the classical framework.

In the absence of any national institutions or international agency with the role of conflict resolution, leaders of powerful governments intervene. They seek credits for their initiatives, and informal, confidential exchanges become impossible. Publicity forces parties to adhere to their positions and to avoid being accused by local interest groups of weakness in changing their positions.

There are, in addition, structural conditions which make any significant change towards conflict provention unlikely. Whenever there are political changes which remove a source of serious international conflict, as for example, changes in the former Soviet Union, other serious situations seem to emerge, for example, the denial of 'human rights' in China and its reactions to Western policies, and existing 'preventive' structures are once again justified and extended. The practical reality is that national armies, intelligence agencies and the global arms industry combine to make up an interest group more extensive and powerful than any other likely combination of problem-solving structures.

(Saul, 1993 and Timberg, 1996). The Problem of Change The evolution of civilisations has required change and adjustment to change, yet 'survival of the fittest', the struggle by leaders and potential leaders for recognition, identity and a social role, results in many built-in mechanisms for preservation against change. Leadership and elites seek to conserve existing roles and institutions by whatever military and political means are at their disposal until overcome by more powerful forces. Societies have always been in conflict because some sections have drives for change stemming from pursuit of their human needs, while others fear it and its threat to their interests. The facilitated conflict resolution processes that have now evolved are effective to the extent that parties to conflicts are helped to cost accurately the consequences of change or no change, to cut down the delays that occur in change, and to speed up the evolutionary process toward greater fulfilment of societal needs. Societies are moving towards insights and processes in which bargaining of needs against interests can be avoided, and in which the parties concerned can define needs and interests and cost the consequences of preserving interests at the expense of needs.

Translated on to the global scene the great powers fear change lest it prejudice their relative power positions. Yet all sides know that change in political systems is not merely inevitable, but also desirable. Does not particularly desire to defend repressive feudal systems in Central America and elsewhere throughout the globe; but it fears the consequences of unpredictable political change. China fears the responses of existing 'great powers' to its emergence as a major developing economy. Analytical interaction has not yet taken place. If there were a means of reliably bringing about change with desired outcomes, many situations in the world society would no longer attract great power interventions. An Emerging Political Philosophy The shift of Conflict Analysis and Resolution as a study from the resolution of specific conflicts to the 'provention' of conflicts by getting at their institutional sources is a shift towards an altered political philosophy.

It is a shift from adversarial political, industrial, legals and other institutions towards problem-solving processes. This makes Conflict Analysis and Resolution a challenge to all social sciences, which have to date failed adequately to include a human dimension. Economics treats unemployment as a function of economic development, treating the unemployed as robots to be employed or not according to financial needs governing inflation and investment. Sociology was founded on the assumption that the human being is malleable and can, if socially motivated or coerced, adjust to institutional requirements.

Politics is still within the traditional power frame and continues to define 'democracy' as majority rule, the majority frequently being elected by a minority of voters, and excluding many class and ethnic groups. Once a human dimension is included in social analysis it becomes clear that many traditional assumptions are false, and no more than historical myths.

The long-term trend from feudalism, through industrial relations and political classes towards continuing and increasing conflict has now placed civilisations in crisis. A holistic approach is required to all problems: conflict, crime, violence, corruption and other sources of personal insecurity. The analytical challenge is finally a challenge to political philosophy. Democratic systems are founded on adversarial institutions: adversarial party politics, adversarial industrial relations, adversarial legal systems and processes, and others which are power based and do not take into account the human needs which have been found to require satisfaction if there are to be non-conflictual relationships. In the light, however, of structural conditions which ensure the continuing production and sales of weapons of war, and professions which rest on continuing threats to security, national and international, movements towards conflict resolution, to be credible, must be within the prevailing defence, intelligence, and industrial structure.

It may be possible to modify or eliminate some adversarial processes in party political processes, in industrial relations, in law and order, in families, etc, but more than this becomes no more than idealism, at least until these preliminary changes become accepted and future generations are educated in a non-power environment. References Banks, M. And Kelman, H.C. Conflict in World Society: A new perspective on international relations. Wheatsheaf Books Ltd.

Blake, P.R, Shepard, H.A. & Mouton, J.S. (1964) Managing Inter-Group Conflict in Industry.

Gulf Publishing Co. Deviance, Terrorism and War: The Processes of Solving Unsolved Social and Political Problems. St.Martin's Press. Conflict Resolution and Provention.

St.Martin's Press. Conflict Resolution: Its Language and Processes.

The Scarecrow Press. Lanham, MD., and London. Violence Explained.

Manchester University Press. David Davis Memorial Institute, 1966. Report of a Study Group On Peaceful Settlement of International Disputes, London. Karl Deutsch, (1963).

The Nerves of Government. The Free Press, N.Y. Kuhn, Thomas. (1962) The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. The Chicago Press. Handbook of Conflict Resolution: the analytical and problem-solving approach. Pinter, London.

Morgenthau, Hans. Politics Among Nations: The Struggle For Power and Peace. (1980) in Levi I. 'Induction in Peirce,' in Mellor, D.H. (ed) Science, Belief and Behavior. Cambridge University Press. Popper, Karl.

(1957) The Poverty of Historicism. Routledge & Kegan Paul, N.Y. Sandole, D.J.D. And Hugo van der Merwe.

Conflict Resolution: Theory and Practice. Manchester University Press. (1973) Control, the Basis of Social Order.

Dunellen Publishers. Tinberg, Robert. (1996) The Nightingale's Song. Simon and Schuster.

Voltaire's Bastards: The Dictatorship of Reason in the West. Penguin Books. United States Department of State, Foreign Service Institute. Perspectives on Negotiation.