conflict resolution theory

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


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]


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


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,


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]


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


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


8/25

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


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,


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


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


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]


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


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.


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,


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


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.


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.


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.


[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


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.


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


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)


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


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


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


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.

conflict resolution theory

Documents