Kriesberg - Evolution of ConRes

8/13/2019 Kriesberg - Evolution of ConRes

1/18

. :

j . 1

- . .

The Evolution of onflictResolutionLouis Kriesberg

BERCOVITCH. JACOB. ~ T O R KR M NYUK ND I WILLIAM Z RTM N EDS.) 2009.THE S GE H NDBOOK OF CONFLICT RESOLUTION. THOUS ND OAKS. CA: S GE

INTRODU TIONBefore discussing how the field of contemporary conflict resolution CR) has evolvedand continues to evolve, we must considerdifferent views of its parameters and of themajor realms it encompasses. This is neededbecause consensus about those characteristicsis lacking. For some workers in the field, theterm refers essentially to a specific kind ofwork, for example, engaging in mediation ina particular manner. For many other conflictresolvers, it refers to ways of settling or endingconflicts that entail joint efforts to reachmutually acceptable agreements. For still others, conflict resolution is a Weltanschauungthat can apply to all stages of conflicts,and encompasses relatively constructive waysof conducting and transfonning conflictsand then maintaining secure and equitablerelations. A very broad conception of R isadopted here, which facilitates discussing thechanging conceptions of the field as it evolves.

Conflict resolution relates to all domains ofconflicts, whether within or between families,

organizations, COillIDunltles, or countries.Workers in the R field differ in the degreeto which they focus on theory, research,or practice, attending to a single domainor to a wide range of arenas. This chapteremphasizes large-scale conflicts, within andamong societies, but conflict resolution workin all arenas is recognized.

R workers often stress that the fieldincorporates conflict applications as well asacademic theorizing and researching. Indeed,the changing interplay among these realms isquite important in the evolution of the field.Therefore, each realm: theory, research, andpractice, and their relations are discussed atthe outset of this chapter.

Theory building in CR, as in other socialscience disciplines, varies in range and tothe degree that it is inductive or deductive.Some theories refer to limited conflict arenasor to particular conflict stages, while somepurport to provide a general understandingof a wide range of conflicts in their entirecourse; but there is no consensus aboutany comprehensive theory of social conflicts


2/18

I

6 THE S GE H NDBOOK OF CONFLICT RESOLUTION

and their resolution. There is neverthelessgeneral agreement that conflicts can be man-aged better than they often are. This viewmay entail a vision of a harmonious worldor it may entail only the belief that terriblydestructive conflicts often can be avoided orat least limited.

Considerable agreement exists about par-ticular conflict processes and empirical gener-alizations as noted in this Handbook. Withouta comprehensive theory however inconsis-tencies among various generalizations andpropositions are not reconciled. Moreoverwithout a comprehensive theory or theoriesof a middle range it is difficult to knowunder what specific conditions a particularsocial process or empirical generalization isor is not operative and difficult to focus theapplication of such knowledge on practice.On the other hand the more general andnecessarily abstract theories about socialconflicts lack the precision needed for reliableapplications. Despite these considerationsempirical generalizations and knowledge ofrelevant conflict processes can be usefulguides to effective actions that minimizethe destructiveness of conflicts if used inconjunction with good information aboutthem.

The realm of practice includes actionsthat particular persons or groups undertaketo affect the course of conflicts applyingtheir understanding of CR methods. For thepurposes of this chapter practice also includesactions taken by persons unwittingly applyingCR such as in the work of many traditionalmediators. Because of their relevance to CRtheory and research practice will also includethe actions of persons and groups that areinconsistent with good CR principles andmethods. The experiences and consequencesof acting contrary to CR ideas providethe appropriate comparisons to assess theeffectiveness of adhering to conflict resolutionideas. Practice in this broad sense providesmuch of the data for conflict resolutionresearch and theory building. The data maybe case studies of peace negotiations orquantitative analyses of mediations or ofcrises as discussed in other chapters.

Finally the realm of research includesthe analyses that help test deductive theoryand are the bases for inductive theorybuilding. Furthermore analysis is an integralpart of good conflict resolution applications.Every conflict is unique in some ways butlike some other contlicts in certain ways;determining how a conflict is like and unlikeother conflicts helps decide what would beappropriate actions. Good analysis of theconflict in which a practitioner is engagedor is considering entering whether as apartisan or as an intermediary helps determinewhich strategy and tactics are likely to beeffective. Significantly research assessing theconsequences of various CR methods is nowunderway and increasing.

PERIODS OF ONFLI T RESOLUTIONEVOLUTIONSince humans have always waged conflictshumans have also always engaged in var-ious ways to end them. Often one sidecoercively imposes its will upon the otherside sometimes violently and thus terminatesa conflict. Within every society howevermany other ways of settling fights havelong been practiced including various formsof mediation or adjudication. Even betweenopposing societies negotiations have beenused throughout history to reach agreementsregarding issues of contention between them.

Contemporary CR differs in several waysfrom many traditional conflict resolutionmethods. The differences include the Remphasis upon conflict processes that gener-ate solutions yielding some mutual gains forthe opposing sides. n addition the contempo-rary R approach builds on academic researchand theorizing as well as traditional andinnovative practices. t tends to stress relyingminimally if at all on violence in wagingand settling conflicts. Finally it tends toemphasize the role of external intermediariesin the ending of conflicts.

The breadth and diversity of the con-temporary R field is a consequence ofthe long history of the field and of the


3/18

17HE VOLUTION OF ONFLI T RESOLUTION

many sources of its present-day character. Itscontemporary manifestation initially focusedon stopping violence but t has broadenedgreatly to incorporate building the conditions for peace, including post-violencereconciliation, enhancing justice, establishingconflict management systems, and manyother issues. Certainly, calls and actionsfor alternatives to war and other violentconflict have a long history; major exemplarydocuments, starting from classical Greciantimes, are available n Chatfield and I1ukhina(1994). The time between the Americanand French revolutions and the First WorldWar deserve noting, prior to discussing themore proximate periods. The revolutions ofthe late 1770s established the importanceof popular participation n governance andof fundamental human rights. Many intellectual leaders of that time, particularly nEurope and North America, discussed theprocesses and procedures to manage differences and to avoid tyrannies. They includeVoltaire (1694--1778), Jean Jacques Rousseau(1712-1778), Adam Smith (1723-1790),Thomas Jefferson (1743-1826), and JamesMadison (1751-1836). The moral and practical issues related to dealing with variouskinds of conflicts were widely discussed,emphasizing the importance of reasoning.For example, Immanuel Kant (1724-1804)wrote about perpetual peace resulting fromstates being constitutional republics and JohnStuart Mill (1806-1873) wrote about thevalue of liberty and the free discussion ofideas.

But the path of progress was not smooth;wars and oppression obviously were notabolished. Many explanations for these socialills and ways to overcome them were putforward, including the influential work of KarlMarx (1818-1883), which emphasized classconflict and its particular capitalist manifestation. Vladimir Ilyich Lenin (1870-1924)elaborated Marxism with his still influentialanalysis of the relationship between capitalism and imperialism, which generated warsand struggles for radical societal transformations. Many other non-Marxist and morereformist efforts were undertaken to advance

justice and oppose war-making, for example,by Jane Adams n the United States.

Finally, during this time, religious thoughtand practice were also developing n waysthat proved relevant to CR. Pacifist sentimentsand commitments had long been an elementof Christianity and other religions, oftenexpressed by quiet withdrawal from worldlyconflicts. During this time, however, variousforms of engagement became manifest. forexample, n the anti-war reform efforts of thepeace societies n North America, Britain, andelsewhere in Europe (Brock 1968).

Mohandas Gandhi, drawing from his Hindutraditions and other influences, developeda powerful strategy of popular civil disobedience, which he called Satyagraha, thesearch for truth (Bondurant 1965). Gandhi,after his legal studies n London, went toSouth Africa, where, in the early 1890s, hebegan experimenting with different nonviolent ways to counter the severe discriminationimposed upon Indians living in South Africa.The nonviolent strategies he developed wereinfluential for the strategies that the AfricanNational Congress (ANC) adopted n itsstruggle against Apartheid.

With this background, we can beginexamining four major periods n the evolution of contemporary CR: I) preliminarydevelopments, 1914-1945, (2) laying thegroundwork, 1946-1969, (3) expansion andinstitutionalization, 1970-1989, and (4) diffusion and differentiation, since 1989. In thelast part of this chapter, current issues arediscussed.Preliminary developments 1914-1945.The First World War (1914-1918) destroyedmany millions oflives and also shattered whatseemed to have been illusions of internationalproletarian solidarity, of global harmony fromgrowing economic interdependence, and ofrational political leadership. The revulsionfrom the war s mass kill ings was expressedin the growth of pacifist sentiments andorganizations, in the Dada art movement,and n political cynicism. Nevertheless, nthe United States and n many Europeancountries, peace movement organizations


4/18


renewed their efforts to construct institutionsto reduce the causes o war and in manycases to foster collective security to stopwars Cortright 2008). These efforts pressuredmany governments to establish the Leagueo Nations; but the terms o the Versaillestreaty undercut the League. Similarly, publicpressures fostered the 1928 Kellogg-BriandPact to outlaw wars; however, to the consternation o peace movement organizations, thegovernments failed to take actions consistentwith the Pact.

Numerous religious and other nongovernmental groups had mobilized to stop warfare; for example, in December 1914, ata gathering in Cambridge, England, the interfaith Fellowship o Reconciliat ion FOR) wasorganized; and in 1915, the US FOR wasfounded. In 1919, the International FORIFOR) was established to foster reconcilia

tion, nonviolence, and to empower youth tobe peacemakers. The IFOR and other groupsbegan to win governmental recognition o theright for individuals to refuse military service,as conscientious objectors. In the UnitedStates, these efforts were significantly pursuedby members o the Jehovah Witness, andby traditional peace churches, the Brethren,the Mennonites, and the Society o FriendsQuakers).The worldwide economic depression o the

1930s, the rise o Fascism in Germany andItaly, and the recognition o the totalitariancharacter o Stalinism in the Soviet Union,however, made these efforts seem inadequate.In any case, in actuality, governments andpublics tried to deal with conflicts in conventional ways to advance their narrow interestsand relying upon military force. The result wasthe wars in Spain and in China, culminatingin the horrible disasters o World War II.

Many societal developments in the periodbetween the outbreak o World War I andthe end o World War II were the precursorsfor contemporary conflict resolution. Theyinclude research and social innovations thatpointed to alternative ways o thinking aboutand conducting conflicts, and ending them.The variety o sources in the emergence o CRresulted in diverse perspectives and concerns

in the field, which produced continuingtensions and disagreements.

Much scholarly research focused on analyzing violent conflict; it included studies oarms races, war frequencies, revolutions, andalso peace making, for example, by QuincyWright 1942), and Pitirim Sorokin 1925).Other research and theorizing examined thebases for conflicts generally, s in the workon psychological and social psychologicalprocesses by John Dollard and others 1939).

Non-rational factors were also recognizedas important in the outbreak o conflicts.Research on these matters examined scapegoating and other kinds o displaced feelings, susceptibility to propaganda, and theattributes o leaders who manipulated political symbols Lasswell 1935, 1948). Thesephenomena were evident in various socialmovements and their attendant conflicts. Forsome analysts, the rise o Nazism in Germanyexemplified the workings o these factors.

Conflicts with non-rational componentsmay erupt and be exacerbated in varyingdegrees by generating misunderstandings andunrelated concerns. In some ways, however,the non-rational aspects o many conflictscan make them susceptible to control andsolution, if the source o displaced feelingsare understood and corrected. The humanrelations approach to industrial conflict isbuilt on this assumption Roethlisbergeret al. 1939). Other research about industrialorganizations stressed the way struggles basedon differences o interest could be controlledby norms and structures, if asymmetries inpower were not too large. The experiencewith regulated collective bargaining provideda model for this possibility, s exemplified inthe United States, with the establishment othe National Labor Relations Board in 1942.Mary Parker Follett 1942) influentially wroteabout negotiations that would produce mutualbenefits.Laying the groundwork 1946-1969.Between 1946 and 1969, many developmentsprovided the materials with which contemporary CR was built. Many governmental andnongovernmental actions were undertaken to

...


5/18

9HE VOLUTION OF CONFLICT RESOLUTION

prevent future wars by building new transnational institutions and fostering reconciliationbetween former enemies. Globally, this wasevident in the establishment of the UnitedNations (UN), the United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization(UNESCO), the International Monetary Fund,and the World Bank. Regionally, such effortswere most notable in Europe. A primeexample is the European Coal and SteelCommunity, which was established in 1952and was the forerunner of the EuropeanUnion. In 1946, in Caux, Switzerland, aseries of conferences began to be held tobring together persons, from countries andcommunities that had been in intense conflict,for mutual understanding and forgiveness;this nongovernmental endeavor was inspiredby Moral Re-Armament (Henderson 1996).

The developments also included numerouswars and crises associated with the globalCold War and the national liberation s trugglesof the de-colonization process. Those conflictsgenerated traumas that were a source ofmore violence, but, if managed well, someoffered hope that conflicts could be controlled (Wallensteen 20 2). For example, theoutbreak of the Cuban Missile Crisis wasa frightening warning about the risks of anuclear war, and its settlement an example ofeffective negotiation. Also, high-level, nonofficial, regular meetings of the Pugwashand the Dartmouth conferences, starting in1957 and 1960, respectively, greatly aidedthe Soviet-American negotiations about armscontrol.

Indian independence from Britain wasachieved in 1947, following many yearsof nonviolent resistance, led by MohandasGandhi. The Satyagraha campaigns andrelated negotiations influentially modeledmethods of constructive escalation. Thestrategies of nonviolent action and associatednegotiations were further developed in thecivil rights struggles in the United States during the 1960s. For many academic analysts,the value of conflicts to bring about desirablesocial change was evident, but the dangers offailure and counterproductive consequencesalso became evident.

Many scholarly endeavors during thisperiod helped provide the bases for theevolution of contemporary CR (Stephenson2 08). In the 1950s and I960s. particularly inthe United States, the research and theorizingwas intended to contribute to preventinga devastating war, perhaps a nuclear war.Many academics consciously tried to build abroad, interdisciplinary, cooperative endeavorto apply the social sciences so as to overcomethat threat. Several clusters of scholars undertook projects with perspectives that differedfrom the prevailing international relationsrealist approach.

The Center for Advanced Study in theBehavioral Sciences (CASBS), at Stanford,California, played a catalytic role in theemergence of what was to be the contemporary CR field (Harty and Modell 1991).CASBS was designed to foster major newundertakings in the behavioral sciences. Inits first year of operation, 1954-55, severalscholars were invited who reinforced eachother's work related to the emerging fieldof CR; they included: Herbert Kelman,Kenneth E Boulding, Anatol Rapoport,Harold Laswell, Ludwig von Bertalanffy, andStephan Richardson. Kelman brought someissues of the mimeographed newsletter, TheBulletin o Research Exchange Prevention oWar which was begun in 1952, under theeditorship of Arthur Gladstone. Richardsonbrought microfilm copies of the then unpublished work of his father, Lewis F Richardson(1960); is statistical analyses of arms racesand wars was influential in stimulating suchresearch.

After their CASBS year, Boulding,Rapoport, and von Bertalanffy returned tothe University of Michigan; and joined withmany other academics to begi n The Journal oConflict Resolution in 1957, as the successorto the Bulletin Then, in 1959, they andothers established the Center for Researchon Conflict Resolution at the University ofMichigan. Robert C Angell was the firstdirector, succeeded by Boulding.

Scholars at the Center and in otherinstitutions published a variety of worksthat might contribute to developing a


6/18

.,2 THE SAGE H NDBOOK OF CONFLICT RESOLUTION

comprehensive inter-disciplinary theoreticalanalysis o conflicts. Such works wereauthored by Boulding (1962), Coser (1956),Lentz (1955), and Schelling (1960). Otherworks focused on particular phases o conflicts, such as those written by Karl Deutschand associates (1957), about the formationo security communities between countries.Ernest B Haas (1958) analyzed the EuropeanCoal and Steel Community as an example ofunctionalism, how international cooperationin one functional area can foster increasedcooperation and integration in other areas, anidea developed by David Mitrany (1948).

Influential research and theorizing examined the bases for conflicts generally, forexample, the work on psychological andsocial psychological processes (Lewin 1948)and the functions o social conflict (Coser1956). More specifically, analyses were doneabout the military industrial complex in theUSA and elsewhere (Mills 1956; Pilusik andHayden 1965; Senghaas 1970).

Numerous research projects were undertaken, varyingly part o a shared endeavor.They included the collection and analyseso quantitative data about interstate wars,notably the Correlates o War project, initiatedin 1963, under the leadership o 1 DavidSinger, also at the University o Michigan.The logic o game theory and the experimentalresearch based on it has also contributedto CR, showing how individually rationalconduct can be collectively self-defeating(Rapoport 1960, 1966).

Related work was conducted at a few otheruniversities. At Stanford, Robert C North leda project examining why some internationalconflicts escalated to wars and others did not.At Northwestern, Richard Snyder analyzedforeign policy decision-making and HaroldGuetzkow developed computerized modelsand human-machine simulations to study andto teach about international behavior. A greatvariety o work was done by academicsin other institutions, including research andtheorizing about ways conflicting relationscould be overcome and mutually beneficialoutcomes achieved, for example, by formingsuperordinate goals, as discussed by Muzafer

Sheri f (1966) and by Graduated Reciprocationin Tension-Reduction (GRIT), as advocatedby Charles E Osgood (1962).

CR centers in Europe took a somewhatdifferent course. Most began and have continued to emphasize peace and conflict research,which often had direct policy relevance.Many centers were not based in collegesor universities, receiving institutional supportand research grants from their respectivegovernments and from foundations. The firstsuch center, the International Peace ResearchInstitute (PRIO), was established in Oslo,Norway in 1959, with lohan Galtung asDirector for its first ten years. Galtung foundedthe foum t of Peace Research at PRIOin 1964, and in 1969 he was appointedProfessor o Conflict and Peace Research atthe University o Oslo. His work was highlyinfluential, not only in the Nordic countries,but also throughout the world; for example. hisanalysis o structural violence was importantin the conflict analysis and resolution field inEurope and in the economically underdeveloped world (Galtung 1969).

n Sweden, the Stockholm InternationalPeace Research Institute (SIPRI) began operations in 1966 (see anniversary.sipri.orglbook/book_html/intro/introduction). Its establishment followed years o discussion in theSwedish Government and Parliament andSwedish universities and research institutes.Two security issues were matters o high priority: the uncontroversial policy o neutralityand the decision on whether or not to acquirenuclear weapons. Alva Myrdal was Sweden schief disarmament negotiator and urged thegovernment to produce more informationand analyses relevant to disarmament. Sheand her husband Gunnar Myrdal pushedfor the establishment o a research centerthat would gather such material and makeit available. SIPRI was established withgovernmental support and it began to publishthe vitally significant SIPRIYearbook ofWorldArmaments and Disarmament

n 1968, Swisspeace was founded in Bern,Switzerland to promote independent actionoriented peace research. Also in 1968, theCentre for Intergroup Studies was established


7/18

2HE VOLUTION OF ONFLI T RESOLUTION

in Capetown, South Africa, which became achannel for meetings between meetings ofANC officials and Africaan leaders (van derMerwe 1989).

Some academics began to apply their CRideas to ongoing conflicts; for example, theyconducted problem-solving workshops withofficials, or often with non-officials, fromcountries in conflict. Thus, John W Burton,in 1965, organized such a productive workshop with representatives from Malaysia,Indonesia, and Singapore. Burton, who hadheld important offices in the Australiangovernment, including Secretary of ExternalAffairs, had established the Centre for theAnalysis of Conflict, at the University ofLondon, in 1963. The workshop was an effortto apply the ideas he and his associateswere developing as an alternative to theconventional international relations approach(Fisher 1997).

Finally, we should note the developmentof professional CR networks in the form ofnational and international associations. Thus,in 1963, the Peace Science Society (International) was founded with the leadershipof Walter Isard. In 1964, the InternationalPeace Research Association was foundedin London, having developed from a 1963meeting in Switzerland, which was organizedby the Quaker International Conferences andSeminars.Expansion and institutionalization1970 1989The years 1970 1989 include three distinctiveinternational environments. Early in the1970s, the Cold War became more managed,a variety of arms control agreements betweenthe USA and the USSR were reachedand detente led to more cultural exchangesbetween the people of the two countries.Furthermore, steps toward the nonnalizationof US relations with the People s Republicof China were taken. However, at the end ofthe 1970s, US Soviet antagonism markedlyrose, triggered by the Soviet invasion ofAfghanistan and intensified during the firstadministration of Ronald Reagan. Finally,in 1985, Mikhail Gorbachev was chosen to

lead the Soviet Union, which accelerated theSoviet transformation that resulted in the endof the Cold War in 1989.

Within the United States and many othercountries around the world, the civil rightsstruggle and the women s, student, environmental, anti-Vietnam war, and other socialmovements reflected and magnified the powerof nongovernmental actors. These phenomenaappeared to many people to demonstrate thatconflict was a way to advance justice andequality, and improve the human condition.Importantly, these struggles also revealed howconflicts could be conducted constructively,often with little violence. The CR field sevolution was affected by these internationaland national developments, and at timesaffected them as well.Interestingly, the period of rapid CRexpansion and institutionalization began inthe 1970s, at a time when many of the pioneersin CR in the United States had becomedisappointed with what had been achievedduring the 1950s and 1960s (Boulding 1978;Harty and Modell 1991). Many of themfelt that too little progress had been madein developing a comprehensive agreed-upontheory of conflicts and their resolution.Moreover, funds to sustain research andprofessional activities were inadequate, andacademic resistance to CR remained strong.All this was exemplified in the 1971 decisionby the University of Michigan trustees toclose the Center for Research on ConflictResolution.

The improvement in the fortunes of the CRfield in the 1970s and 1980s was spurred bythe great increase in a variety of CR practicesin the United States. Alternative disputeresolution (ADR) practices quickly expanded.partly as a result of the increase in litigationand court congestion in the 1970s and theincreased attraction of non-adversarial waysof handling disputes. Community disputeresolution centers with volunteer mediatorswere established across the country.

The productive US mediation in the MiddleEast in the 1970s, by national security adviserand then secretary of state Henry Kissingerand by President Jimmy Carter, raised


8/18

THE SAGE H NDBOOK OF CONFLICT RESOLUTION

the visibility and increased the confidencein the potentialities of such undertakings.During the 1970s and 1980s, numerousinteractive problem-solving workshops wereconducted by John W Burton, Leonard Doob,Herbert C Kelman, Edward E Azar,Ronald J. Fisher, and other academicallybased persons; the workshops related toconflicts in Northern Ireland, Cyprus, theMiddle East, and elsewhere. In addition,NGOs were founded in this period that conducted training, consultations, and workshopsrelating to large-scale conflicts.

Many professional associations in thesocial science disciplines established sectionsrelated to peace and conflict studies, inresponse to the escalating war in Vietnam andthe intensified Cold War These have continued and in many cases have incorporatedthe R approach as it rose in salience andrelevance.

Academic and non-academic books andarticles continued to be published alongthe lines of research and theory begunearlier. Some of these works developedfundamental ideas about the possibilities ofwaging conflicts constructively, as in thesocial psychological research (Deutsch 1973).Analyses were also made of the ways thatconflicts de-escalated, as well as escalated,and how even seemingly intractable conflictscould become transformed and cooperativerelations established (Axelrod 1984; Curle1971; Kriesberg 1973; Kriesberg, et al. 1989;Sharp 1973).

During this period, the increase in writingabout negotiation and mediation is particularly striking, reflecting the expansion oftheseactivities within the now fast-growing field ofCR. The book, Getting to YES by Roger Fisherand William Ury (1981), was and remainshighly popular and influential, explaining howto negotiate without giving in and moreoverhow to gain mutual benefits. Many otheranalyses of the different ways negotiations aredone in diverse settings were published, withimplications for reaching agreements thatstrengthen relations between the negotiatingsides; (see, for example, Gulliver 1979; Rubinand Brown 1975; Strauss 1978; Zartman

1978; Zartman and Berman 1982). Mediationwas also the subject of research and theorizing, often with implications for the effectivepractice of mediation (Moore 1986). Muchresearch was based on case studies (Kolb1983; Rubin 1981; Susskind 1987; Touval andZartman 1985), but quantitative data were alsoanalyzed (Bercovitch 1986).

DUling the 1970s and 1980s, R tookgreat strides in becoming institutionalizedwithin colleges and universities, governmentagencies, and the corporate and nongovernmental world. The William and Flora HewlettFoundation contributed greatly to this development, expansion, and institutionalization ofthe field. William Hewlett, the founding chairman of the Foundation, and Roger Heyns,who became its first president in 1977, shareda commitment to develop more constructiveways to resolve conflicts (Kovick 2005). Thiswas evident in the Foundation s support fornew decision-making models in regard toenvironmental issues beginning in 1978 andin joining with the Ford, MacArthur, and otherfoundations to establish the National Instituteof Dispute Resolution in 1981. Then, in1984, the Foundation launched a remarkablefield-building strategy, providing long-termgrants in support of R theory, practice, andinfrastructure. Bob Barrett, the first programofficer, began to implement the strategy,identifying the persons and organizationsto be recruited and awarded grants. Thefirst theory center grant was made in 1984to the Harvard Program on Negotiation, aconsortium of the Massachusetts Institute ofTechnology, Tufts University, and HarvardUniversity. In the same year, it initiated publication of the Negotiation Journal In 1985,Hewlett grants were made to start centers atthe Universities of Hawaii, Michigan, andMinnesota; in 1986, Hewlett-funded centersbegan at Northwestern, Rutgers, Syracuse,and Wisconsin Universities, and then atGeorge Mason University in 1987. By the endof 1994, 18 centers had begun to be funded.Practitioner organizations in the environment,community, and in many other sectorswere also awarded grants. The infrastructurefor the field was strengthened, primarily

l


9/18

3HE EVOLUTION OF ONFLI T RESOLUTION

by supporting professional organizations. In1985, Hewlett began providing funding tothe Society for Professionals in DisputeResolution (SPlDR) and to the NationalConference on Peacemaking and ConflictResolution (NCPCR), and went on to supportmany other professional CR associations.

The establishment of graduate programs inCR in the [980s and 1990s was also spurred bythe rising demand for training in negotiationand mediation. MA degree programs wereinstituted in several universities, including theEastern Mennonite University, the Universityof Denver, the University of Notre Dame, andWayne State University. Many universitiesbegan to offer educational concentrations inconflict resolution, often issuing certificatesin conjunction with PhD or other graduate degrees; this was the case at CornellUniversity, Fordham University, The JohnsHopkins University School of AdvancedInternational Studies, Syracuse University,and the Universities of Colorado, Hawaii atManoa, and New Hampshire. A major PhDprogram in CR was established at GeorgeMason University in 1987; yet since then onlytwo other PhD programs have been institutedin the USA, at Nova Southeastern Universityand at the University of Massachusetts atAmherst.

Several other kinds of independent centerswere also established in the United States,during the 1980s, to carry out a varietyof R applications. In 1982, fonner USPresident Jimmy Carter and former First LadyRosalynn Carter founded the Carter Center,based in Atlanta, Georgia. The Center's activities include mediating conflicts, overseeingelections, and fighting disease worldwide.Also in 1982, Search for Common Ground(SFCG) was founded in Washington, DC,funded by foundations and nongovernmentalorganizations. t conducts a wide range ofactivities to transfonn the way conflicts arewaged around the world, from adversarialways to collaborative problem-solving methods. Significantly, after long Congressionaldebates and public campaigns, the UnitedStates Institute of Peace Act was passed andsigned into law by President Ronald Reagan

in 1984. The Institute was opened in 1986, andincludes programs of education, of researchgrants and fellowship awards, and of policyrelated meetings and analytical reports.

In Europe, too, many new R centerswere founded, but with somewhat differentorientations. Generally designated as peaceand conflict research centers, they were moredirected at international affairs, more closelyrelated to economic and social developmentand more linked to government policies,as well as to peace movements in someinstances. The international and societalcontexts for the European centers were alsodifferent than those for the American Rorganizations. The 1969 electoral victory ofthe Social Democratic party (SPD) in WestGermany had important CR implications.Under the leadership of Chancellor WillyBrandt, a policy that recognized East Germanand East European realities was undertaken;this Ost-Politik entailed more East-Westinteractions.

In 1975, after long negotiations, therepresentatives of the 35 countries in theConference on Security and Cooperation inEurope (CSCE) signed the Helsinki Accords.The agreement entailed a trade-off betweenthe Soviet Union and the Western countries.The Soviets achieved recognition of thepermanence of the border changes followingWorld War II, when the Polish borderswere shifted westward, incorporating part ofGermany and the Soviet borders were shiftedwestward incorporating part of Poland. n akind of exchange, the Soviets agreed to recognize fundamental human rights, includinggreater freedom for its citizens to leave theSoviet Union.The new Gennan government moved

quickly to help establish independentpeace and conflict institutes, for example,the Hessische Stiftung Friedens undKonfliktforschung (HSFK) was foundedin Frankfurt in 1970. Additional peace andconflict institutes were established in otherEuropean countries, including the TamperePeace Research Institute, which was foundedby the Finnish Parliament in 1969 andopened in 1970. The Danish Parliament


10/18


established the Copenhagen Peace ResearchInstitute CaPRI) as an independent institutein 1985.

n the early 1970s, peace and conflict chairsand programs began to be established in moreEuropean universities; for example, in 1973.the Department of Peace Studies was openedat the University of Bradford in the UnitedKingdom. n 1971, a university-based centeremerged at Uppsala University, in Sweden,which soon began teaching undergraduatestudents; in 1981, the Dag HammarskjoldPeace Chair was established and after PeterWallensteen was appointed the chair in 1985,a PhD program was begun in 1986.

The research and theorizing in theseEuropean centers were undertaken to havepolicy implications for nongovernmental aswell as governmental actors (Senghaas 1970).The Arbeitsstelle Friedensforschung Bonn(AFB) or Peace Research Information Unit(PRIU) was established in 1984 to provideinformation about peace research findings informs that were accessible and relevant togovernment officials.

The International Institute of Applied Systems Analysis (HASA) was created in 1973in Laxenburg, Austria, as an internationalthink-tank to bridge Cold War differences.Subsequently, in the 1980s, the Processes ofInternational Negotiation (PIN) Project waslaunched at nASA to develop and propagateknowledge about negotiation (Kremenyuk1991; Mautner-Markhof 1989; Zartman andFaure 2005). PIN brought together a group ofsix European scholars and diplomats and two(later one) Americans. t was initially fundedby the Carnegie Corporation and then for tenyears by the Hewlett Foundation.

The work of peace researchers in Denmark,West Germany, and other European centerssignificantly contributed to ending the ColdWar (Evangelista 1999; Kriesberg 1992). Theresearchers analyzed the military structuresand doctrines of NATO and reported on howthe Warsaw Pact Soviet forces were arrayedto ensure that a war, if it came, wouldbe carried forward against the enemy, andnot have their forces fall back to fight thewar in their homeland. At the same time,

the NATO forces were also structured toquickly advance eastward, to avoid fighting onWest European territories. Each side, studyingthe other side s military preparat ions, couldreasonably believe that the other side wasplanning an aggressive war (Tiedtke 1980).The peace researchers developed possibleways to construct an alternative militaryposture, which would be clearly defensive,a non-provocative defense (Komitee fUrGrundrechte und Democratie1982). Theycommunicated their findings to officials onboth sides of the Cold War, and receivedan interested hearing from Soviet officials,in the Mikhail Gorbachev government. Gorbachev undertook a restructuring of Sovietforces and adopted some of the language ofthe peace researchers. These developmentshelped convince the US government and othergovernments in NATO of the reality of aSoviet transformation.

Institutions providing training in CRmethods as well as engaging in mediationand dialogue facilitation continued to beestablished in other countries in the world.For example, in Kenya, the Nairobi PeaceInitiative-Africa (NPI-Africa) was foundedin 1984 and conducts such activities in East,Central and West Africa. The increasing CRactivities throughout the world are discussedin the next section.Diffusion and differentiation 1990-2008.The world environment was profoundlychanged by the ending of the Cold War in1989 and the dissolution of the Soviet Unionin 1991. With the end of the Cold War, theUN was better able to take actions to stopconflicts from escalating destructively, andconsequently wars that had been perpetuatedas proxy wars were settled. Many other developments contribute to limiting destructiveinternational and domestic conflicts. Theseinclude the increasing economic integrationof the world and the intensification ofglobal communications. The developmentsalso include the growing adherence to normsprotecting human rights, the increasing number of democratic countries, the growingengagement of women in governance, and the


11/18

THE EVOLUTION OF ONFLI T RESOLUTION S

increasing attention to feminist perspectives.FinaIly, transnational social movements andorganizations increased in number and levelof engagements. All these developmentscontributed to greater resistance in allowingdestructive conflicts to arise and persist(Kriesberg 2007).

Indeed, since 1989, international warsdeclined in number and magnitude (Erikssonand Wallensteen 2004; Human Security Centre 2005; MarshaIl and Gurr 2005). Civilwars, after the spike of wars in 1990-1991associated with the breakup of the SovietUnion, also declined. Since the end of the ColdWar, many large-scale conflicts, which hadbeen waged for very many years, were settledby negotiated agreements (Wallensteen 2002).Of course, all destructive conflicts werenot ended; some continued and new oneserupted.

The September II 200I attacks carriedout by Al Qaeda against the United Statesand the subsequent wars in Afghanistanand Iraq may seem to have marked thebeginning of a new world system in whichterrorist attacks, violent repressions, andprofound religious and ethnic antagonismswere intensifying and spreading. These newdestructive conflicts are, to some degree,the consequence of some of the globaldevelopments noted above. Some socialgroups feel harmed or humiliated by the newdevelopments and, using particular elementsof them, fought against other elements. Thisis illustrated by the increase in religious militancy within Islam, Hinduism, Judaism, andChristiani ty

The CR field has been deeply affected bythese many developments, but it also impactson them. The CR field affects the way variousconflicts are conducted and contributes to theincrease in peaceful accommodations in the1990s and beyond. The witting and unwittingrejection of the CR approach by leaders ofAl Qaeda, and in some ways the responseof leaders in President George W Bush sadministration, have exacerbated eruptingconflicts, increasing their destructiveness andduration. These complex matters cannot befully explored in this chapter, but they provide

the context for the observations that will bemade regarding the ongoing evolution of theCR approach.

Beginning in the )990s, the practice of CRgrew in its established arenas and expandedinto new spheres of work. More specializedapplications and research activities becameevident, for example, in the publicationof nternational Negotiation by the JohnsHopkins Washington Interest in NegotiationGroup. In addition, external interventionsand negotiated agreements increased, ending many protracted international and civilconflicts. Even after violence was stoppedor a negotiated agreement was reached, thefrequent recurrence of wars made evidentthe need for external intervention to sustainagreements. Governments and IGOs werenot fully prepared and lacked the capacityto manage the multitude of problems thatfollowed the end of hostilities. They increasingly employed nongovernmental organizations to carry out some of the needed workof humanitarian relief, institution building,protection of human rights, and training inconflict resolution skills. The number andscope of NGOs working on such matters grewquickly, many of them applying various CRmethods.

Some of the CR methods that had beendeveloped earlier to help prepare adversariesfor de-escalating steps began to be employedat the later phases of conflicts as well.These include small workshops, dialoguecircles, and training to improve capacitiesto negotiate and mediate. Such practiceshelped avert a renewal of vicious fights byfostering accommodations, and even reconciliation at various levels of the antagonisticsides. Government officials have becomemore attentive to the significance of nongovernmental organizations and grassrootsengagement in managing conflicts and inpeace-building, matters that have always beenimportant in the CR field.

Concurrent with these applied CR developments, numerous publications described.analyzed, and assessed these applications.An important development, linking theoryand applied work, is the assessment of


12/18

;' ''in 6 THE S GE HANDBOOK OF CONFLICT RESOLUTION

practItIOner undertakings. A growing bodyof empirically grounded assessments of CRapplications examine what kinds of interventions, by various groups. have diverseconsequences (Anderson and Olson 2003;O'Leary and Bingham 2003).

A growing literature focuses on postagreement problems and solutions. relating toexternal intervention and institution building(Paris 2004; Stedman et al. 2002). The role ofpublic engagement and attention to participatory governance has also increased in the CRapproach. Another trend is greater attentionto conflict prevention and to establishingnew systems of participatory governanceto minimize unproductive and destructiveconflict. These developments are related tothe growing view that conihct transformationis central to the field of CR (Botes 2003;Kriesberg 2006; Lederach 1997).

The period sincel989 is characterized byworldwide CR diffusion and great expansion.The diffusion is not in one direction; rather.ideas and practices from each part of theworld influence the ideas and practices inother regions. Analyses and reports about CRmethods and approaches in diverse culturesincreased. for example. in African and Arabsocieties (Malan 1997; Salem 1997). Moreover, more and more organizat ions function astransnational units, with members from several countries. For example, the PIN Project,associated with IIASA gave rise in tum tonational networks, such as Groupe Fran9ais deNegociation (GFN) (Faure et al. 2000 Faure2005; Zartman and Faure 2005), FinnPIN,and the Negociation Biennale (Dupont 2007).as well as to negotiation courses in asdiverse places as the Catholic University ofLouvain and Foreman Christian College inLahore (Kremenyuk 1991; Zartman 2(05).The Loccum Academy and the DeutschenStiftung Friedensforschung have supportedCR programs (Hauswedell 2(07), and theBernhein Foundation program at the FreeUniversity of Brussels has developed ateaching, research, and publication program(Jaumain and Remade 2(06).

The Internet provides other ways ofconducting CR education and training

transnationally. TRANSCEND. led byJohan Galtung, is a prime example of suchprograms (see www.transcend.org .Itis apeace and development network for conflict

transformation by peaceful means and itoperates the Transcend Peace Universityonline. The Universitat Oberta de Catalunya,based in Barcelona, also offers graduatedegrees in conflict resolution, also online. Inaddition, some websites provide informationabout various CR methods and approachesand analyses of specific conflicts. See, forexample, www.crinfo.org. The Conflict Resolution Information Source; www.beyondintractability.org, Beyond Intractability;mediate.com, information about resolution,training, and mediation; www.c-r.org, Conciliation Resources; www.incore.ulst.ac.uk/cds. ethnic conflicts; and www.crisisgroup.org, International Crisis Group.

CR educational programs are being established in countries around the world. Asof 2007, 88 graduate programs of somekind are active in the United States, butPhD programs remain few (Botes 2004;Polkinghorn et al. 2007). There has beena great increase in certificate programs,associated with Law Schools and graduatedegrees in international relations and publicadministration. CR programs are increasingin many countries. In 2007, there were 2active programs in England, 4 in Irelandand Northern Ireland, 12 in Canada, andlOin Australia (Polkinghorn et al. 2007).n Latin America, there are more than 25

certificate mediation training programs, andMaster Programs in CR in five countries:Argentina, Colombia, Ecuador, Peru, andMexico (Femenia 2007).

CR research centers and organizationsproviding CR services are also increasinglybeing established in many countries. Forexample, the African Centre for the Constructive Resolution of Disputes (ACCORD),based in Durban, South Africa, was foundedin 99 and operates throughout Africa.Academic Associates Peace Works (AAPW)was founded in Lagos, Nigeria in 1992and under the leadership of Judith Asuni,it has conducted very many skills-building


13/18

7HE EVOLUTION O ONFLI T RESOLUTION

workshops as well as mediated conflictsthroughout Nigeria.Beginning in the 1990s, ADR programsspread in Latin America and some countriesrefonned their legal systems to includemandatory mediation. CR organizations proliferated, offering mediation training andservices to help settle private disputes, forexample, the Libra Foundation began trainingmediators in Argentina inl991 the InstitutoPentano de Resolucion de Conflictos, Negociacion, y Mediacion was established in Peruin 1992, and Mediare opened in Brazil in 1997.Publications pertaining to CR increasinglybegan to appear in many languages, includingGennan, Spanish, and French (Camp 1999,200 I; Eckert and Willems 1992; Six 1990).

The diffusion of the CR approach also takesthe form of institutionalizing CR practices, forexample, by mandating mediation in disputesof a civil matter. This is the case in Peru andother Latin American countries (OnnacheaChoque 1998). In the United States, stateand local governments, as well as the USGovernment, increasingly mandate the utilization of CR methods in providing services,settling child custody disputes, improvinginter-agency relations and in formulating andimplementing policy. At the federal level, thisis particularly evident in managing conflictsrelating to environmental issues; see theInstitute for Environmental Conflict Resolution (www.ecr.gov). On August 28, 2004,President George W Bush released Executive Order 13352, Facilitat ion of Cooperative Conservation, to support constructiveapproaches to resolving conflicts regardingthe use, conservation, and restoration of theenvironment, natural resources, and publiclands.

Asia is also a growing locus ofCR practicesand institutions (Jeong 2006). For example,in South Korea, the increased freedom in thecivil society and the decline in the high context or collectivist character of its culture,which had contributed to conflict avoidance,have helped generate interest in CR trainingand the adoption of the CR approach.The Korean government has established CRworking groups by presidential decree and

allocated funding for CR education fromelementary to college levels. The Koreangovernment has also established variousdispute resolution mechanisms, includingombudsman offices and mediation in cases ofdivorce. In Japan, CR has been less in demandfor domestic issues, but more developed inforeign policy circles and development aidgroups.

China has not yet become a locus ofsignificant contemporary conflict resolutionactivity. is true that mediation has beenan important conti ict settlement method inChina before Maoist rule and during it Butin the Imperial period, mediation was doneby the gentry who decided which side wascorrect in a dispute and in the period underMao, mediation committees decided whatthe ideologically correct outcome was to be.In both periods, the process was closer toarbitration than to mediation, as understoodin the conflict resolution field. Subsequently,mediation has continued to be practiced. butin a less doctrinaire manner. There has beena great expansion of the judicial system inrecent years, but it is not yet functioningsatisfactorily for many people. Access toofficial procedures is limited and unequal,with local officials who are viewed as thecause of many grievances being seen tohave privileged access to the official justicesystem (Michelson 2007). The socio-politicocultural conditions are not conducive to thewidespread adoption of the contemporaryconflict resolution approach. The growingprevalence of protests and demonstrations,however, may increase the attractiveness ofthe CR approach.

CONTEMPOR RY CR ISSUESWorkers in the CR field differ about thedirections the field should take. Many of thesedifferences are primarily internal to the field,while some relate to public policy and torelations with other fields. The resulting issuesare interrelated, as the following discussionmakes evident.


14/18

THE S GE HANDBOOK OF CONFLICT RESOLUTION8

A major internal issue concerns the extentto which R is and should be a focuseddiscipline or a broad general approach. Thevision for many workers in the R field in the1950s, of a new interdisciplinary field witha shared research-grounded theory, has notbeen realized. Some R workers continue towork toward this vision and some programsand centers are relatively focused on particularmatters for investigation and practice, forexample, the Program on Negotiation (PON)based in Harvard University, the DisputeResolution Research Center at NorthwesternUniversity, and the Washington Interest inNegotiation Group at the Johns HopkinsUniversity. Others tend to emphasize a widerrange of R matters, for example, The Joan B.Kroc Institute for International Peace Studiesat the University of Notre Dame, the Instituteof Global Conflict and Cooperation at theUniversity of California, and the Programon the Analysis and Resolution of Conflicts(PARC) at Syracuse University.

I

A related issue is the relative emphasis oncore topics that are crucial in training and education or attention to specialized knowledgeand training for particular specialties withinthe broad R field. Another contentious issueis the degree to which the field is an area ofacademic study or is a profession, with theacademic work focused on providing trainingfor practitioners. In addition, there are debatesabout certification and codes of conduct andwho might accord them over which domainsof practice.

An underlying difference is between Ranalysts and practitioners who stress theI process that is used in waging and settlingconflicts and those who emphasize the goalsI sought and realized. Thus, in theory andi practice about the role of the mediator,some CR workers stress the neutrality ofthe mediator and the mediator s focus onthe process to reach an agreement. However,others argue that a mediator either shouldavoid mediating when the parties are sounequal that equity is not likely to be achievedor should act in ways that will help the partiesreach a just outcome. Some maintain thatthe way ADR is practiced tends to adversely

affect the weaker party, otherwise protectedby the equalizing rules and standards of law(Nader 1991). The reliance on the generalconsensus embodied in the UN declarationsand conventions about human rights offersCR analysts and practitioners standards thatcan help produce equitable and enduringsettlements.

An enduring matter of controversy relatesto the universality of R theory and practices (Avruch 1998). Obviously, ways ofnegotiating, forms of mediation, styles ofconfrontation, and many other aspects of conducting and settling conflicts vary to somedegree among different national cultures,religious traditions, social classes, gender,and many other social groupings (Abu-Nimer2003; Cohen 1997; Faure 2005). Moreover.within each of these groups, there aresub-groupings and personal variations. Thedifferences between groups are matters ofcentral tendencies, with great overlaps ofsimilarities. More needs to be known about theeffects of situational s well s cultural effectsand of the ease with which people learn newways of contending and settling fights.

Another contentious issue relates to theuse of violence in waging conflicts. Thereis widespread agreement among R analystsand practitioners that violence is wrong,particularly when violence is used to serveinternal needs rather than for its effects uponan adversary. They generally agree that itis morally and practically wrong when it isused in an extremely broad and imprecisemanner, and when it is not used in conjunctionwith other means to achieve constructivegoals. However, some R workers opposeany resort to violence in conflicts whileothers believe various kinds of violenceare sometimes necessary and effective inparticular circumstances. These differencesare becoming more important with increasedmilitary interventions to stop destructivelyescalating domestic and internat ional conflictsand gross violations of human rights. Moreanalysis is needed about how specific violent and nonviolent policies are combinedand with what consequences under variousconditions.


15/18

9

P

THE EVOLUTION O ONFLI T RESOLUTION

CR workers also differ in their timeperspectives. Frequently, CR analysts stresslong-term changes and strategies for conflicttransformation, while CR practitioners tendto focus on short-term policies of conflictmanagement. Theoretical work tends to giveattention to major factors that affect thecourse of conflicts, which often do notseem amenable to change by acts of anysingle person or group. Persons engagedin ameliorating a conflict feel pressures toact with urgency, which dictates short-termconsiderations; these pressures include fundraising concerns for NGOs and electoralconcerns for government officials drivenby upcoming elections. More recognitionof these different circumstances may helpfoster useful syntheses of strategies and bettersequencing of strategies.

These contentions are manifested ininstitutions of higher learning among thediverse M programs, certificate programs,courses, and tracks within universitygraduate schools, law schools, and otherprofessional schools in the United Statesand around the world (see www.campusadr.org/Classroom_Building/degreeoprograms.html). PhD programs remain few in number,reflecting the emphasis on training studentsfor applied work, the lack of consensus aboutCR being a discipline, and the resistanceof established disciplines to the entry ofa new one.

A major issue relates to the degree andnature of the integration of theory, practice,and research. Each has varied in prominencewithin the field and all have been regarded asimportant, in principle. In actuality, however,they have not been well integrated. Researchhas rarely sought to specify or assess majortheoretical premises or propositions. Often, itis largely descriptive of patterns of actions.Recently, more research is being done onassessing practice, but this has been focusedon particular interventions and within a shorttime-frame. Overall, however, much morework is needed to integrate these realms moreclosely.

Another set of issues pertain primarilyto external relations. Funding for CR poses

a major concern. The Hewlett Foundationended its 20-year program of support forthe conflict resolution program in December,2004, and no comparable source for sustainingprograms of theory, research, and applicationshas appeared. Tuition charges help supporteducation and training, service fees helpsustain NGOs doing applied work, andgovernment agencies and various foundationsprovide funds for particular research andservice projects. All this keeps the workrelevant for immediate use. However, thesmall scale and short duration of such kindsof funding hamper making the long-term andlarge-scale research assessments and theorybuilding that are needed for creative newgrowth and appropriate applications.

Coordination of applied work poses otherissues. As more and more interveninggovernmental and nongovernmental organizations appear at the scene of majorconflicts, the relations among them andthe impact of their relations expand anddemand attention. The engagement of manyorganizations allows for specialized andcomplementary programs but also producesproblems of competition, redundancy, andconfusion. Adversaries may try to co-optsome organizations or exploit differencesamong them. To enhance the possible benetitsand minimize the difficulties, a wide rangeof measures may be taken, ranging frominformal ad hoc exchanges of information,regular meetings among organizations in thefield, and having one organization be thelead agency.

Finally, issues relating to autonomy andprofessional independence deserve attention.CR analysts as well s practitioners maytailor their work to satisfy the preferences,as they perceive them, of their funders andclients. This diminishes those goals that intheir best judgment they might otherwiseadvance. These risks are enhanced when tasksare contracted out by autocratic or highlyideological entities. Furthermore, as moreNGOs are financially dependent on fundingby national governments and internationalorganizations, issues regarding autonomy andco-optation grow (Fisher 2006).


16/18

3 THE SAGE HANDBOOK OF CONFLICT RESOLUTION

ON LUSIONThe CR field is in continuing evolution. Thebreadth o interests considered continues toexpand both in the range o conflict stagesand in the variety o conflicts that are ointerest. The field is necessarily becomingmore differentiated, with workers in the fieldspecializing in particular kinds and stages oconflicts and particular aspects and methodso conflict resolution.

The CR field is likely to increase in sizeand societal penetration in the future. Theneed and the potentiality for growth are greatin many regions o the world, notably theMiddle East, parts o Asia, and in Westernand Central Africa. Furthermore, the need forincreased knowledge and application o theCR approach is growing. Intensifying worldintegration is a source o more and morepotentially destructive conflicts, as well asa source o reasons to reduce and containthem. The cost o failing to prevent andstop destructive conflicts is rising and CRcan help foster more constructive methodsto wage and resolve conflicts. Traditionalreliance on coercive impositions with littleregard to possible mutual gains and reasonableregard for opponents concerns is proving tobe increasingly maladapted to contemporaryglobal developments.

NOTES1 I thank the editors of this volume, I WilliamZartman, Victor Kremenyuk, and Jacob Bercovitch,for their helpful comments and suggestions. I alsowant to thank the many persons who commentedon earlier versions of this chapter and provided mewith information about CR developments in particularplaces and times, including Nora Femenia, GeraldineForbes, Ho Won Jeong, Karlheinz Koppe, Marie Pace,Brian Polkinghorn, Peter M. Wallensteen, Hongying

Wang, and Honggang Yang.

REFEREN ESAbu-Nimer, Mohammed. 2003. Nonviolence and PeaceBuilding in Islam: Theory and Practice. Gainesville, FL:

University Press of Florida.

Anderson, Mary B and Lara Olson. 2003. ConfrontingWar: Critical Lessons for Peace Practitioners.pp. 1-98. Cambridge, MA: The Collaborative forDevelopment Action, Inc.

Avruch, Kevin. 1998. Culture and Conflict Resolution.Washington, DC: United States Institute of PeacePress.

Axelrod, Robert. 1984. The Evolution of Cooperation.New York: Basic Books.

Bercovitch, Jacob. 1986. International Mediation:A Study of Incidence, Strategies and Conditions ofSuccessful Outcomes. Cooperation and Conflict 21 :155-168

Bondurant. Joan V. 1965 Conquest of Violence: TheGandhian Philosophy o Violence. Berkeley and LosAngeles: University of California Press.

Botes, Johannes. 2003. Conflict Transformation:A Debate over Semantics or a Crucial Shift inthe Theory and Practice of Peace and ConflictStudies? InternationalJournalofPeace Studies 8 (2):1-27.. 2004. Graduate Peace & Conflict Studies Pro

grams: Reconsidering Their Problems & Prospects.Conflict Management in Higher Education Report 5(1): 1-10.

Boulding, Kenneth. 1962. Conflict and Defense. NewYork: Harper & Row.

Boulding, Kenneth E 1978. Future Directions inConflict and Peace Studies. The Journal of ConflictResolution 22 2) June: 342-354.

Brock, Peter. 1968. Pacifism in the United States: Fromthe Colonial ra to the First World War. Princeton,NJ: Princeton University Press.Camp, Eduard Vinyamata. 1999. Manual de Prevenci6ny Resoluti6n de Conflictos: Conciliaci6n Mediaci6nNegociaci6n. Barcelona: Ariel.. 2001. Conflictologia: Teoria y Practica en

Resoluci6n de Conflictos Barcelona: Ariel.Chatfield, Charles, and R.M. Ilukhina. 1994. Peace/mir:

An Anthology of Historic Alternatives to War.Syracuse, NY: Syracuse University Press.

Cohen, Raymond. 1997. Negotiating Across Cultures.Washington, DC: US Institute of Peace Press.

Cortright, David. 2008. Peace: History ofMovementsand Ideas. New York: Cambridge University Press

Coser, Lewis A 1956. The Functions ofSocial Conflict.New York: The Free Press.

Curle, Adam. 1971. Making Peace. london: Tavistock.Deutsch, Karl W., Sidney A.Burrell, Robert A. Kann,

Maurice Lee Jr., Martin Lichterman, RaymondLindgren, Francis L Loewenheim, and RichardW. Van Wagenen. 1957 Political Community andthe North Atlantic Area. Princeton, NJ: PrincetonUniversity Press.


17/18

3H EVOLUTION OF CONFLICTRESOLUTION

Deutsch, Morton. 1973. The Resolution o Conflict:Constructive and Destructive Processes. NewHaven,CT: Yale University Press.Dollard, John, Leonard W. Doob, Neal E Miller,O H Mowrer, andRobert R Sears. 1939. Frustrationand Aggression. NewHaven: Yale UniversityPress.

Dupont, Christophe (Ed.). 2007 r n s f ~ r m t i o n s duMonde et Negociation ImplicatIOns, Deffs et Oppor-tunities. Paris: Negocia.

Eckert, Rolandand HelmutWillems. 1992. Konfliktinter-vention: Perspectivenubernahme in gesselschaflichenAusienandersetzungen. Opladen: Leske andBudrich.

Eriksson, Mikaeland PeterWallensteen. 2004. "ArmedConflict, 1989-2003. Journal o Peace Research41,5: 625-636.

Evangelista, Matthew. 1999. Unarmed Forces: TheTransnational Movement to End the Cold War. Ithacaand London: CornellUniversityPress.

Faure, GuyOlivier(Ed.). 2005. La Negociation: Regardssur sa Diversite. Paris: Publibook.

Faure, GuyOlivier,MermetL. TouzardH andDupontC2000. La Negociation: Situations et Problematiques.Paris: Dunod.

Femenia, Nora. 2007 January 15. "Personal communication." email.

Fischer, Martina. 2006. "Civil society in Conflict Transformation:Ambivalence, potentialsand Challenges."Berlin: Berghof Research Center for ConstructiveConflictManagement. 1-33.

Fisher, Roger and William Ury. 1981. Getting to YES:Negotiating Agreement Without Giving In. Boston:Houghton Mifflin.Fisher, Ronald. 1997. Interactive Conflict Resolution.Syracuse:Syracuse University Press.

Follen,MaryParker. 1942. Dynamic Administration: TheCollected Paperso Mary Parker Follett. NewYorkandLondon: Harper.

Galtung, Johan. 1969. "Violence, Peace, and Peace Research." Journal of Peace Research 3 (3): 168.

Gulliver,P.H. 1979. Disputes and Negotiations: Cross-cultural Perspective. New York: Academic Press.

Haas, Ernst B 1958. The Uniting of Europe. Stanford,CA: StanfordUniversity Press.

Harty, Martha and John Modell. 1991. "The FirstConflict Resolution Movement, 1956-1971: AnAttempt to Institutionalize Applied InterdisciplinarySocial Science." Journal o Conflict Resolution 35:720-758.

Hauswedell, Corinna (Ed.). 2007. Deeskalation vonGewaltkonflikten seit 1945. Essen: Klartext.Henderson, Michael. 1996. The Forgiveness Factor.

London: GrosvenorBooks.Human Security Centre. 2005. Human Security Report

2005 NewYork: Oxford UniversityPress.

Jaumain,Sergeand Remacle Eric (Eds.). 2006. Memoirede Guerre et Construction de la Paix. Frankfort amMain: PeterLang.

Jeong, Ho-Won. 2006 December 3. "personal communication."email.Kolb, Deborah M. 1983. The Mediators. Cambridge,MA: MIT Press.

Komitee fur Grundrechte und Democratie. 1982.Frieden mit Anderen Waffen. Reinbeckbei Hamburg:Rowohlt.

Kovick,David.2005. "TheHewlettFoundation'sConflictResolution Program: Twenty Years of Field-Building,1984-2004 Menlo Park, CA:HewlettFoundation.

Kremenyuk, Victor A. (Ed.). 1991. International Nego-tiation: Analysis, Approaches, Issues. San Franciscoand Oxford:Jossey-Bass.

Kriesberg, Louis. 1973. The SociologyofSocial Conflicts.EnglewoodCliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

. 1992. International Conflict Resolution: TheUS USSR and Middle East Cases. New Haven: YaleUniversityPress.

. 2006. "AssessingPast Strategiesfor CounteringTerrorism in Lebanon and by Libya." Peace andConflict Studies 13 (1): 1-20.. 2007. "Long Peace or Long War: Conflict

Resolution Perspective." Negotiation Journal 20 (1):97-116.

Kriesberg, Louis, Terrell A Northrup, and StuartJ Thorson (Eds.). 1989. Intractable Conflicts andTheir Transformation. Syracuse: Syracuse UniversityPress.

Lasswell, Harold Dwight. 1935. World Politics and Per-sonallnsecurity. NewYorkandLondon: McGraw-Hili. . 1948. Power and Personality. NewYork: Norton.Leatherman,Janie.2003. From Cold War to Democratic

Peace. Syracuse, NY: SyracuseUniversityPressLederach, JohnPaul. 1997. Building Peace: Sustainable

Reconciliation in Divided Societies. Washington, DC:United States InstituteofPeace Press

Lentz, Theodore F 1955. Towards a Science of Peace:Turning Point in Human Destiny. NewYork: BookmanAssociates.

Lewin, Kurt. 1948. Resolving Social Conflicts: SelectedPapers on Group Dynamics 1935-1946. New York:Harper.

Malan, Jannie. 1997. Conflict Resolution Wisdom fromAfrica. Durban, South Africa: African Centre for theConstructiveResolution ofDisputes(ACCORD).

Marshall, Monty G and Ted Robert Gurr. 2005."Peace and Conflict, 2005." College Park, MD:Center for International Development and ConflictManagement, UniversityofMaryland.

Mautner-Markhof, Frances (Ed.). 1989. Processes oInternational Negotiations. Westport, CT: Praeger.


18/18

3 TH SAGE H NDBOOK OF CONFLICT RESOLUTION

Michelson, Ethan. 2007. "Climbing the Dispute Pagoda:Grievances and Appeals to the Official Justice Systemin Rural China." American Sociological Review 72 (3):459-485

Mills, C Wright. 1956. The Power Elite. New York:Oxford University Press.Mitrany, David. 1948. "The Functional Approach to

World Organization." International Affairs.Moore, Christopher W 1986. The Mediation Process.

San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Nader, Laura. 1991. "Harmony Models and the Con

struction of Law." pp. 41 59 in Conflict Resolution:Cross-cultural Perspectives, edited by Keven Avruch,Peter W. Black, and Joseph A. Scimecca. New York:Greenwood Press.

O'Leary, Rosemary and Lisa Bingham (Eds.). 2003. ThePromise and Performance of Environmental ConflictResolution. Washington, DC: Resources forthe FuturePress.Ormachea-Choque, Ivan. 1998. Analisis de la Ley deConciliacion Extrajudicial. Lima, Peru: Cultural CUZCD.

Osgood, Charles E. 1962. An Alternative to War orSurrender. Urbana: University of Illinois Press.

Paris, Roland. 2004. At War s End: Building Peace AfterCivil Conflict. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge UniversityPress.

Pilusik, Marc and Thomas Hayden. 1965. "Is There aMilitary Industrial Complex Which Prevents Peace 7Journal of Social Issues 21 (January): 67-117.

Polkinghorn, Brian, Robert LaChance and HaleighLaChance. 2007. "A Comprehensive Profile andTrend Forecast of the Conflict Resolution Field inthe United States." Center for Conflict Resolution atSalisbury University.

Rapoport, Anatol. 1960. Fights, Games, and Debates.Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.. 1966. Two-Person Game Theory: The Essential

Ideas. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.Richardson, Lewis F. 1960. Statistics of Deadly Quarrels.

Pittsburgh, PA: The Boxwood Press.Roethlisberger, Fritz Jules, William John Dickson, Harold

A. Wright, and Western Electric Company. 1939.Management and the Worker: An Account of aResearch Program Conducted by the Western ElectricCompany, Hawthorne Works, Chicago. Cambridge,MA: Harvard University Press.

Rubin, Jeffrey Z. (Ed.). 1981. Dynamics of Third PartyIntervention: Kissinger in the Middle East New York:Praeger.

Rubin, Jeffrey Z. and Bert R. Brown. 1975. The SocialPsychology Bargaining and Negotiation. New York:Academic Press.

Salem, Paul, (Ed.) 1997. Conflict Resolution in the ArabWorld: Selected Essays Beirut: American Universityof Beirut.

Schelling, Thomas C 1960. The Strategy of Conflict.Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Senghaas, Dieter. 1970. Friedensforschung und Gesellschaftskritik. Munchen: C Hanser.. 1972. Rustung und Militarismus. Frankfurt am

Main: Suhrkamp.Sharp, Gene 1973. The Politics of Nonviolent Action.

Boston: Porter Sargent.Sherif, Muzafer. 1966./n Common Predicament. Boston:

Houghton Mifflin.Six J e a n F r a n ~ o i s 1990. Le Temps des MMiateurs.

Paris: Seuil.Sorokin, Pitirim Aleksandrovich. 1925. The Sociology of

Revolution. Philadelphia and London: J. B. Lippincott.Stedman, Stephen John, Donald Rothchild, and Elizabeth

M. Cousens (Eds.). 2002. Ending Civil Wars: TheImplementation of Peace Agreements. Boulder andLondon: Lynne Rienner.

Stephenson, Carolyn M. "Peace Studies, Overview," inLester Kurtz (ed.), Encyclopedia of Violence, Peaceand Conflict 2nd Ed. Oxford: Elsevier, 2008.

Strauss, Anselm. 1978. Negotiations: Varieties, Contexts, Processes, and Social Order. San Francisco,Washington, and London: Jossey-Bass.

Susskind, Lawrence. 1987. Breaking the Impasse:Consensual Approaches to Resolving Public Disputes.New York: Basic Books.

Tiedtke, Stephen. 1980. Rustungskontrolle aus sowjetischer Sicht. Frankfurt: Campus Verlag.

Touval, Saadia and I. William Zartman. 1985.International Mediation in Theory and Practice.Boulder, CO: Westview Press.

van der Merwe, Hendrik. 1989. Pursuing Justice andPeace in South Africa. London and New York:Routledge.

Wallensteen, Peter. 2002. Understanding ConflictResolution: War, Peace and the Global System.London: Sage.

Wright, Quincy. 1942. Study of War. Chicago:University of Chicago Press.

Zartman, I. William (Ed.). 1978. The Negotiation Process.Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

Zartman, I. William and Guy Olivier Faure (Eds.)2005. Escalation and Negotiation in InternationalConflicts. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge UniversityPress.

Zartman, I. William and Maureen Berman. 1982. ThePractical Negotiator. New Haven, CT: Yale UniversityPress.

Kriesberg - Evolution of ConRes

Documents

Transcript of Kriesberg - Evolution of ConRes