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 as conflict resolution) developed as a discipline following World War II.[2] Conflict resolution as a discipline diverged from power-based conflict theory, which dominated and still dominates political science, and international relations; and converged from psychology and sociology, which was interested in group dynamics, motivation and relationships between institutional structures. Normative political theory saw conflict as a competitive struggle to be won by one side. In contrast, needs-based conflict resolution theorists developed a cooperative approach to conflict resolution, focusing on fundamental human needs,[3] to encourage ‘win-win solutions’.[4] Nonviolence, cooperation and the belief in the essential goodness of humanity are basic principles of this approach to conflict resolution.[5]
The foundations of this discipline have their origins in the Judeo-Christian culture that developed in Europe and North America and were particularly shaped in the twentieth century by the first and second world wars. Principal antecedents of conflict resolution included philosopher and sociologist Georg Simmel (1858-1914) and Gestalt (influential on social psychology) psychologist Kurt Lewin (1890-1947). Modern conflict resolution scholars, often quote Georg Simmel, for his contribution to the field for his book Conflict, published posthumously in English in 1955. Conflict was originally a chapter of Simmel’s book Soziologie published in German in 1908. Simmel, perceived conflict (kampf) as “designed to resolve divergent dualisms”, that is conflict was designed to resolve two different set of principles. He saw conflict as “way of achieving some kind of unity,” as such Simmel took an optimistic view of conflict. However, despite this optimism, what is often not discussed in standard treatments of Simmel is his perception that this unity may be obtained “even if it be through the annihilation of one of the conflicting parties”.[6]
Kurt Lewin’s influence on modern conflict resolution follows his influence in the development of social psychology in the United States. Kurt Lewin’s contribution to conflict resolution and psychology was his emphasis on the role of social context in an individual’s development of perception, values and beliefs.[7] This was in contrast to the normative theory of psychology prior to the 1930s, which still heavily favoured biological determinism.[8] Lewin saw conflict as a situation of “tension” which was caused by a number of factors including the degree to which the needs of a person were in a “state of hunger or satisfaction”. Examples of those basic needs he identified included “sex and security”.[9]
Morton Deutsch following in Lewin’s footsteps in ideas and teaching institutions (they both taught at Massachusetts Institute of Technology) continued research on cooperation-competition systems.[10] Deutsch’s contribution was highlighting the role of perception and the existence of conflict.[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 felt the need to correct the balance of analysis, which tended to focus on the “dysfunction” of conflict rather than the potential positive aspects of conflict. Coser provisionally defined conflict as “a struggle over claims to scarce status, power and resources in which the aims of the opponents are to neutralise or eliminate their rivals”.[13] Later he defined conflict as a “clash of values and interests”.[14]
Conflict resolution came of age in the United States in 1957 with the founding of the Journal of Conflict Resolution by Kenneth Boulding (1910-1995), Anatol Rapoport (1911- ) and Herb Kelman (1920s- ) among others.[15] Anatol Rapoport (1911- ) a Russian born American mathematical psychologist and co-founder of the Journal of Conflict Resolution was an important contributor to this journal with his game theories, which given the mathematical approach were a highly abstract (although overly rational) way of looking at conflict.[16]
On the other side of the Atlantic in Norway, Johan Galtung, a sociologist, founded the Journal of Peace Research in 1964. This journal was less reliant on econometric-like theory and was more readable for the less mathematically inclined.[17] Galtung, for the purposes of identifying steps to peace, introduced a broader notion of violence which encompasses those “avoidable insults to 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 includes the everyday notion of violence, whereby an individual or group suffers physical or emotional pain as the result of direct action. Structural violence is caused by the institutions and structures of society which result in inequality or “oppression” among individuals.[19] Chapter two will develop the concept of structural reconciliation, the process of overcoming structural violence.
Similarly, Galtung classified peace into two forms: ‘positive peace’ and ‘negative peace.’ Negative peace, according to Galtung, fits essentially the colloquial perception of peace as an end to war. Positive peace includes not only the absence of war, but the absence of structural violence. That is positive peace is the absence of violence, in all its forms and as such has greater value in the long-term as it removes the factors which lead to direct violence. This was Galtung’s genius to merge his dual definition of violence with his dual concept of peace. However, critics of Galtung, such as Kenneth Boulding complain of his overly “taxonomical” approach and his “constant” use of “dichotomies”.[20]
John Burton and Human Needs Theory
In England John Burton (1915 - ), former Secretary to the prominent Australian United Nations representative Herbert Evatt (1894-1965), established the Centre for the Analysis of Conflict, University of London in 1966. It was through Burton that conflict resolution techniques expanded to the international arena, following his problem-solving workshops in Cyprus and Sri Lanka.[21] In 1981, Burton moved to the United States where he collaborated in the founding of the Institute for Conflict Analysis and Resolution at George Mason University in 1982.
Burton, synthesized the main theoretical assumptions of conflict resolution, which are known as ‘human needs theory’. This theory operates on the premise that a pre-condition for the resolution of conflict is that fundamental human needs be met.[22] Burton adopted eight fundamental needs from the basis of the work by the American sociologist Paul Sites and introduced one further need of his own. [23] Those adopted needs included control, security, justice, stimulation, response, meaning, rationality and esteem/recognition. Burton’s additional need was ‘role-defence,’ the need to defend one’s role. Burton called these “ontological needs” as he regarded them as a consequence of human nature, which were universal and would be pursued regardless of the consequence.[24]
Antecedents to human needs theory came from a variety of disciplines. In the biological and sociobiological disciplines conflict is perceived to result from competition over scarce resources as a result of common needs.[25] In social psychology Henry Murray, Erich Fromm (1900-1980), and Abraham Maslow (1908-1970) describe needs (some say ‘drives’) as important in understanding factors for human motivation. Further discussion of human needs theory will be developed in chapter two.
Burton distinguishes ontological needs from values and interests. He defines ontological needs as non-negotiable; values as offering some limited opportunities for negotiation; and interests as negotiable issues.[26] Burton distinguishes conflict from the related term of ‘dispute’. He defined ‘conflict’ as an action over these non-negotiable human needs, whereas a ‘dispute’ was over negotiable values.[27] Burton distinguishes conflict resolution, from the related terms of conflict management and conflict settlement.[28] To Burton conflict resolution solved deep seemingly intractable issues, whereas settlement only addressed the superficial factors of conflict.
Burton was not without controversy. His notion of needs falls under criticism especially from those cultural anthropologists and relativists, who were (and still are) resistant to universal values, among those were fellow members of the Institute for Conflict Analysis and Resolution, Kevin Avruch and Peter Black.[29]
Despite this Burton had many supporters who applied his methods in other international conflicts. These included people like Herbert Kelman in Palestine-Israel, Edward Azar in Lebanon and Vamik Volkan in Cyprus.[30]
Roger Fisher and Interest-Based Negotiation
In 1978 Roger Fisher (1922- ) a law professor collaborated in the founding of the Harvard Negotiation Project (HNP), and he was a significant figure in the founding of the Programme on Negotiation (PON) at the Harvard Law School in 1983.[31] The Negotiation Journal founded in 1985 included Jeremy Rubin and Roger Fisher among others. Roger Fisher’s approach to conflict resolution (or negotiation) was popularised in his book Getting to Yes,[32] which introduced the term ‘principled-negotiation.’
The principle-based approach aims to resolve conflict by deferring judgement to a moral principle. Such an approach advocates the need for interest-based negotiations in contrast to those based on a ‘position’. For example Fisher would suggest that an interest would include issues like security, esteem and pleasures, whereas positions would define how one achieved those interests.
Fisher encourages the need for empathy and asks the question – “why does one hold one position, and another hold a different one”? Fisher suggests that empathy allows parties to discern the underlying interest which by creativity may result in amicable solutions (what this author would refer to as ‘re-negotiated positions’[33]) to each party.[34] Like Burton, Fisher defines the most powerful interests as human needs, which he identifies as security, economic-well-being, a sense of belonging, recognition, and control over one’s life.[35]
Conflict Transformation
In the 1990s scholars began to refer to conflict resolution with terms such as ‘conflict transformation’ and ‘peace-building’. Keeping with the spirit of Georg Simmel, such terms denote methods of encouraging constructive results from conflict for all parties.[36] John Paul Lederach, Robert Baruch-Bush[37], Joseph Folger, R. Vayrynen[38] and Peter Wallensteen may be described as adherents of the conflict transformation school. In conflict transformation, conflict is not seen as a final state, but a “dynamic process…wherein as one problem is solved a new one emerges”. Similarly, the symbolism of the Chinese character for ‘crisis’ provides cross-cultural evidence of an optimistic notion of conflict and conflict transformation, as the character “simultaneously means opportunity”.[39]
In what may be a dramatic creative input to conflict resolution scholarship are provided by lessons from critical and cosmopolitan theory. This is part of the post-modern sociological or philosophical perspective that concludes that mediators can be charged with:
enlarging the boundaries of political community, overcoming sectional and factional differences, expanding the domain of moral responsibility…and promoting relations which conform to some standards of international order.[40]
This alternative to realist international relations theory (which is developed in section 1.3) is heavily influenced by the philosophy of Jurgen Habermas and his interpreters in the field of international relations such as Andrew Linklater and David Held.[41]
1.2 Methods of Needs-Based Conflict Resolution
The main methods of needs-based conflict resolution are: integrative bargaining (Roger Fisher’s 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 of this thesis, only integrative bargaining and interactive problem-solving will be discussed.[45]
The integrative bargaining process, sometimes called principled negotiation, involves negotiation in which the focus is on “merits of the issues and the parties try to enlarge the available ’pie’ rather than stake claims to certain portions of it”.[46] That is integrative bargaining involves “both concession making and searching for mutually profitable solutions”. Integrative bargaining tries to move beyond position-based bargaining and determine underlying interests.[47]
Interactive or analytic problem-solving is a “form of third-party consultation or informal mediation…it is a needs-based approach to resolving conflict”. It begins with an analysis of the political needs and fears.[48] This approach was pioneered by John Burton, and extended by Herbert Kelman. It is a “nontraditional, nongovernmental approach emphasizing analytical dialogue and problem-solving”. This process is known by former American diplomat Joseph Montville as the “track two,” or a grass root method of conflict resolution, in contrast to governmental diplomacy which is known as “track one diplomacy”.[49]
1.3 Alternative Approaches to Needs-based Conflict Resolution
This section will introduce the two alternatives to the needs-based approach to conflict resolution which include the ‘power-based’ and the ‘rights-based’ approaches. Both these approaches are highly adversarial, and generally result in a win/lose situation.
Power-based
a. Realism
The ‘power-based’, ‘force-based’ or ‘coercive’ approach to international conflict resolution is what is called realism and is the dominant or normative theory of international relations and security studies.[50] Power-based conflict resolution includes both violent and nonviolent forms of coercion—war and diplomacy. Traditional diplomacy is often described as “war by other methods,” and as such a win/lose situation. Negotiators advance their own ‘position’ and the process is decided by the most powerful party.[51] John Burton argues that realism ends with “coercive settlement” and not resolution.[52]
Realist theory argues that international security is best achieved through the action of Great Powers which can create regional power balances in unstable regions across the globe, by force or by “geostrategic mediation” (‘diplomacy’).[53] Henry Kissinger, former US Secretary of State in the early 1970s, was a powerful advocate of such an approach to conflict resolution.[54] The Sinai I (1974), and Sinai II (September 1975), ceasefire agreements which lay the foundations for Camp David Accords (September 1978) and then the Egypt-Israel Peace Treaty (1979) were examples of settlements based on power politics.[55]
Presidents of the United States of America such as Jimmy Carter, Ronald Reagan, George Bush Snr., Bill Clinton, and George Bush Jnr, and their respective Secretaries of State have used “American muscle”[56] or power-based approaches to resolving conflict. Such mediatory actions may include nonviolent coercive approaches like tying action to aid, such as military aid. For example, the United States’ action in the “spring of 1975 to freeze an Israeli request for $3,000 million in military aid was meant to induce Israel to accept an interim agreement with Egypt”.[57]
Realist theory, is slowly being questioned by international relations scholars. Deiniol Jones, argues that realism as a “moral and political commitment,” is flawed due to its “overemphasis on states as an end in themselves and not society; [its] narrow perspective of power”[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 of international anarchy needs to remember that “humans evolved with a desire to belong, not to compete”.[60]
Conflict manipulation
Included within the realist approach this author would suggest is conflict manipulation which is a deceitful method of settling a conflict. Conflict manipulation, is a public relations exercise approach to diplomacy, where there is an appearance of a conflict resolution process whilst in reality, dialogue is only engaged to ‘buy-time’ and increase bargaining power.[61] This is a short term approach to conflict resolution. Once the manipulated party discovers the deceit, they may retaliate or, at the very least, re-activate the dispute, thus undoing any progress achieved.[62]
This author will outline in chapter three, that the establishment of Israeli settlements within the West Bank, Gaza Strip and the Golan Heights in the 1970s, 1980s, and then the renewed effort in the 1990s is an example of conflict manipulation. Conflict manipulation gives the superficial view that there is a ‘peace process’ whereas in practice the time taken during ‘negotiations’ enables the more powerful party to advance their position.[63]
Past examples of conflict manipulation within the context of Israel have included Moshe Dayan’s establishment of ‘facts (settlements) on the ground’. An approach, this author would suggest, is analogous to the ‘practical Zionist’ approach of the early twentieth century. This approach contrasted with the diplomatic methods of ‘political’ or “diplomatic” Zionists’ such as the founding father of modern Zionism Theodor Herzl.[64]
b. Marxism
Marxism, considered by some as a “social movement,”[65] is another approach which falls into the coercive approach to handling conflict. Marxist and neo-Marxist conflict theorists see ‘power’ as the control over economic resources and property, and seek its elimination by a worldwide class revolution”.[66] History by Marxists is regarded as the history of exploiters, those in control of the modes of production, and those without control, the exploited, which results in a class struggle. From these premises, Marx drew the conclusion in the Communist Manifesto that the capitalist class would be overthrown and that it would be eliminated by a worldwide working-class revolution and replaced by a classless society.[67]
Marxist adherents within conflict resolution scholarship include Richard Rubenstein, Professor of Conflict Resolution at George Mason University. He sees Marxism as a way to occupy a “common relationship to the means of production, existing across ethnic, cultural, religious and national boundaries and “destined to become a self-conscious identity group”.[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 points in the development of a more complete identity”.[69] Rubenstein concludes in his support of the Marxist approach which states that human needs can only be fully developed when “men and women [sic.] become masters of production of the state of themselves”.[70]
Critics, such as Jim Wallis, argue that Marxism as an ideology underestimates the corruptibility of the self-appointed elites who would carry out the utopian task. Secondly, Wallis argues that Marxism over-estimates how much humanity could be changed by top-down processes.[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 by the parties concerned. Often, the legal system is used as a source of those norms. Rights-based approaches to international conflict settlement may be found in the International Court of Justice (ICJ/World Court, the Hague), and the newly created International Criminal Court (ICC). The jurisdiction of the first deals with state disputes and the latter is the domain of individual indictments for human rights violations.
In the Palestinian-Israeli conflict, recourse is not possible to the World Court, as the Palestinian people do not yet have sovereign rights of a nation-state. As for the ICC it remains to be seen what effect it will have in the Palestinian-Israeli conflict. The ICC may play a critical role, given that some countries within the European community have already taken steps to indict persons (for example Prime Minister Ariel Sharon) for war crimes[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 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 may contribute to the growing body of ‘lore,’ that becomes accepted as a body of ‘fact’. This ‘pseudo-law’ (lore) of history becomes the standard for establishing right from wrong in a contemporary situation. History is potentially more of a political statement, an ideology, than an objective law.
Historians relevant to the Palestinian-Israeli conflict include traditional historians I (Bernard Lewis, Martin Gilbert and Howard Sachar), traditional historians II (Martin Kramer, and Daniel Pipes), and new historians (Benny Morris, Avi Shlaim, Illan Pappe).[73]
The first group of traditional historians provides a Zionist sympathetic perspective, the second group provides a sensational version of Islam and the third group presents a more humanist approach to the conflict, identifying acts of inhumanity by both the Zionists and the various Arab neighbours.
Scholarship that has developed from the Palestinian side is much less developed. The most prominent Palestinian historical scholar would be Walid Khalidi.[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 acknowledges the place power-based and rights-based methods have in conflict resolution.
As such needs-based conflict resolution has a more extensive range of methodologies available to it than power or rights-based paradigms alone. Figure 1 summarises the various methods of conflict resolution including resolution based on power, rights, principles and cooperation.[75] An overlap is indicated between each of these approaches by the arrangement of the horizontal brackets. Preference is for resolution of conflict based on cooperation and mutual interests—although other mechanisms exist which can be used as a tool to help resolve conflict.
Specific types of conflict-handling mechanisms include coercion, avoidance, arbitration, adjudication, negotiation, mediation and reconciliation. The most adversarial approach and least joint participatory approach is coercion, and the least adversarial and most mutual participatory approach is reconciliation.[76]
‘Coercion’ includes both the violent and nonviolent methods of force. The United Nations Charter Chapter VII resolutions includes both nonviolent (for example economic sanctions) and violent (that is military) forms of coercion. ‘Avoidance’, like force, is a short-term solution. Avoidance would include territorial separation, such as partition of states, and relies on the saying “good fences make good neighbours”.[77] ‘Adjudication’ of conflict involves a third party who pronounces a judgement on a grievance. This third party is most often connected with the state.
In ‘arbitration’, an arbiter such as a judge or lawyer settles the dispute. The arbiter may be selected by the disputing parties. Examples of arbitration include industrial arbitration such as employer-trade unions, employer-employee, divorce disputes and minor matters in local courts[78]. The distinction between arbitration and adjudication is arbitration is generally a more informal and less expensive process, which tends to leave parties with more amicable results. An early form of international arbitration was developed following the Hague Peace Conference of 1899.
In this context ‘negotiation’ implies the parties making an agreement, in the absence of a third party, although one party may still have slightly more power than the other. In other contexts negotiation may imply an agreement by parties in a non-judicial or non-arbitral setting.[79]
In ‘mediation’ and ‘facilitation’ a third party helps an agreement to be concluded. The rapid development of mediation and alternate dispute resolution is evident in the United States given from 1971 to 1986 there was an increase in the number of dispute resolution centres from three to 350 according to the American Bar Association (ABA) Special Committee.[80]
[ Figure 1. Conflict handing mechanisms – Not shown here. The spectrum of power-based, rights, principle and needs based resolution methodologies].
In ‘reconciliation’ both parties seek friendship from each other.[81] Conciliation “implies a closer relationship of parties that lead to an agreement” (not just settlement).[82] Conciliation may involve use of Burton’s “controlled communication”, Kelman’s “problem-solving”, or Jurgen Habermas’ “discourse ethics”, which implies agreement is based on the idealistic notion of an equal sharing of power. Discourse ethics is a political theory which offers a “theory of justice…a theory of the right”. Jones considers that a critical mediation theory, in particular cosmopolitan theory, takes a ‘broader historical view of an emancipatory political process”, rather than “limited micro-dynamics of the problem-solving workshop”.[83]
Conclusion
This chapter has firstly outlined gaps in the literature and suggested hypotheses for the resolution of conflict, in particular the Palestinian-Israeli conflict. Secondly, an overview of the terminology and history of conflict resolution has been provided. This has included the origins of conflict resolution scholarship from sociology, social psychology and political science.
Thirdly, conflict has been identified as a consequence of frustrated human needs. Those needs have been developed by a variety of scholars, but especially prominent is the work of sociologist Paul Sites and international relations scholar John Burton. Those basic needs identified by Sites include control, security, justice, stimulation, response, meaning, rationality and esteem. Lastly, the methods of ‘conflict’ resolution were established including coercive-based, rights-based, or needs-based approaches.
The next chapter will expand on the human needs theory developed by Paul Sites and John Burton and incorporate this into a general method for conflict resolution. It will be demonstrated that such a method, which is built within a needs-based approach to conflict resolution, is fundamental for reconciliation and the building of peace.
References
[1] A term introduced by the author to summarise the essential nature of this approach. Typically this is known as ‘interest-based resolution’ see Connie Peck, The United Nations as a Dispute Settlement System: Improving Mechanisms for the Prevention and Resolution of Conflict, The Hague, London, Boston: Kluwer Law International, 1996, p. 10; For the trend to needs or ‘cooperation-based approach’ see Jay Rothman, Resolving Identity-Based Conflict: In Nations, Organizations and Communities, San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers, 1997, p. 61.
[2] Mohammed Abu-Nimer, Dialogue, Conflict Resolution and Change: Arab-Jewish Encounters in Israel, New York: State University of New York Press, 1999, p. 12.
[3] Morton Deutsch, “Social Psychology’s Contributions to 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 Psychology’s Contributions to the Study of Conflict Resolution”, Negotiation Journal, 18 (4) October 2002, p. 310.
[9] Kurt Lewin, “The Background of Conflict in Marriage” (1940), in Gertrude Weiss Lewin (ed.) Resolving Social Conflicts: Selected Papers on Group Dynamics, London: Souvenir Press (Education and Academic Ltd), 1948, p. 89.
[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.4—as cited 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. 197—as cited 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 Dennis J. 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,
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 Encounters in
Israel, New York: State University of New York Press, 1999, p. 12.
[31] “A Gala Celebration of Roger Fisher’s 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] Fisher’s rhetoric favours an interest-based approach to conflict resolution rather than a position-
based approach. However, what this author argues is that what eventuates from ‘interest-based
approach’ negotiations…are new positions, albeit re-negotiated positions. This does not take away
from Fisher the brilliance of his concept. Instead, the distinction made by this author is to give
evidence for the transitory nature of conflict resolution, that is more specifically conflict
transformation.
[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 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] Key texts include:
(1) Jurgen Habermas, Moral Consciousness and Communicative Action, Cambridge:
Polity Press, 1990; (2) Andrew Linklater, Men and Citizens in the Theory of International Relations, 2nd ed., London, New York: Pinter Publishers, 1994; and (3)David Held, Democracy and the Global Order, Cambridge: Polity Press, 1990—as cited in Deiniol Jones, op. cit., 1999, p. 2.
[42] Fisher, Getting to Yes, op. cit.
[43] Herbert Kelman, “Resolution of international conflict: An Interactional Approach”, in S. Worchel
and W.G. Austin (eds.) Psychology of Intergroup Relations, Chicago: Hall, pp. 323-342—as cited in
Mohammed Abu-Nimer, op. cit., p. 22.
[44] Leonard Doob and W. Foltz, “The Belfast Workshop: An Application of Group Techniques to
Destructive Conflict”, Journal of Conflict Resolution, 17, pp. 489-512—as cited in Abu-Nimer, p. 21.
[45] For an overview of other methods of conflict 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.
[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 says specifically “psychologists, sociologists, anthropologists, lawyers and international
relations students” in John W. Burton and Dennis J.D. Sandole “Generic Theory: The Basis of
Conflict Resolution”, Negotiation Journal, vol 2, no. 4 Oct 1986, p. 334.
[51] ibid.
[52] John W. Burton and Dennis J. 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 Definition” in 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] Dennis J. 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 thus suffer from the same flaw as pessimistic
realist notions. However, certainly the shift away from a negative exclusionary future to a
positive, collaborative scene will at least provide a potential for one.
[61] Geoffrey Watson, op. cit., p. 141.
[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 Movement in
Palestine and World Politics, 1880-1918, Lexington, 1974, p. 16.
[65] Jones, op. cit., p. 45.
[66] Robert van Krieken, Philip Smith, Daphne Habibis, Kevin McDonald, Michael Haralambos and Martin Holborn, Sociology: Themes and Perspectives 2nd ed, Frenchs Forest, Australia: Pearson Education Australia/Longman, 2000, p. 114.
[67] A. H. Halsey, “Class” and “Marxism”, Microsoft Encarta Encyclopedia Standard 2003, Compact Disc, Microsoft Corporation 1993-2002.
[68] Richard E. Rubenstein, “Basic Human Needs Theory: Beyond Natural Law”, in John Burton (ed.),
Conflict: Human Needs Theory, 1990, p. 350.
[69] ibid., p. 351.
[70] ibid. p. 352.
[71] Jim Wallis, The Soul of Politics: A Practical and Prophetic Vision of Change, London: Fount, 1994
p. 27.
[72] For his role as Defence Minister, in 1982, during the Sabra and Chatilla massacre of Palestinian refuges, carried out by Lebanese Christians (philangists), with alleged complicity by Israeli leadership.
[73] Key texts include: (1) Bernard Lewis, The Arabs in History, London 1950, Islam and the West, New York, 1993 (2) Martin Gilbert, Israel; (3) Howard Sachar, A History of Israel: From the Rise of Zionism to our Time, Second Edition, New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1976, 1996; (4) Martin Kramer, Arab Awakening and Islamic Revival: The Politics of Ideas in the Middle East. New Brunswick, N.J.: Transaction Publishers, 1996.; Ivory Towers on Sand: The Failure of Middle Eastern Studies in America. Washington: The Washington Institute for Near East Policy, 2001. (5) Daniel Pipes, Militant Islam Reaches America, 2002; Greater Syria: The History of an Ambition, Oxford, 1990. (6) Benny Morris Righteous Victims: A History of the Zionist-Arab Conflict, 1881-2001 New York: Vintage Books, 2001; The Birth of the Palestinian Refugee problem 1947-49 (7) Avi Shlaim, The Iron Wall: Israel and the Arab World, W.W. Norton & Company 2001; (8) Illan Pappe,
[74] Walid Khalidi (ed.) All That Remains: The Palestinian Villages Occupied and Depopulated by Israel
in 1948, Institute for Palestine Studies.
[75] Figure 1 was in part inspired from Hizkias Assefa, “The Meaning of Reconciliation”, People Building Peace: 35 Inspiring Stories From Around The World, European Centre for Conflict Prevention, 1999, p. 37; also see Mohammed Abu-Nimer, op. cit., p. 18.
[76] Assefa, ibid., 1999.
[77] As commented 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 Dennis J.D. Sandole, “Expanding the Debate on Generic Theory of Conflict
Resolution: A Response to a Critique”, Negotiation Journal 3(1) January 1987, p. 99.
[81] ibid., p. 37-38.
[82] John Burton, 1969, op. cit., p. 153.
[83] Jones, op. cit., p. 68.
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 as conflict resolution) developed as a discipline following World War II.[2] Conflict resolution as a discipline diverged from power-based conflict theory, which dominated and still dominates political science, and international relations; and converged from psychology and sociology, which was interested in group dynamics, motivation and relationships between institutional structures. Normative political theory saw conflict as a competitive struggle to be won by one side. In contrast, needs-based conflict resolution theorists developed a cooperative approach to conflict resolution, focusing on fundamental human needs,[3] to encourage ‘win-win solutions’.[4] Nonviolence, cooperation and the belief in the essential goodness of humanity are basic principles of this approach to conflict resolution.[5]
The foundations of this discipline have their origins in the Judeo-Christian culture that developed in Europe and North America and were particularly shaped in the twentieth century by the first and second world wars. Principal antecedents of conflict resolution included philosopher and sociologist Georg Simmel (1858-1914) and Gestalt (influential on social psychology) psychologist Kurt Lewin (1890-1947). Modern conflict resolution scholars, often quote Georg Simmel, for his contribution to the field for his book Conflict, published posthumously in English in 1955. Conflict was originally a chapter of Simmel’s book Soziologie published in German in 1908. Simmel, perceived conflict (kampf) as “designed to resolve divergent dualisms”, that is conflict was designed to resolve two different set of principles. He saw conflict as “way of achieving some kind of unity,” as such Simmel took an optimistic view of conflict. However, despite this optimism, what is often not discussed in standard treatments of Simmel is his perception that this unity may be obtained “even if it be through the annihilation of one of the conflicting parties”.[6]
Kurt Lewin’s influence on modern conflict resolution follows his influence in the development of social psychology in the United States. Kurt Lewin’s contribution to conflict resolution and psychology was his emphasis on the role of social context in an individual’s development of perception, values and beliefs.[7] This was in contrast to the normative theory of psychology prior to the 1930s, which still heavily favoured biological determinism.[8] Lewin saw conflict as a situation of “tension” which was caused by a number of factors including the degree to which the needs of a person were in a “state of hunger or satisfaction”. Examples of those basic needs he identified included “sex and security”.[9]
Morton Deutsch following in Lewin’s footsteps in ideas and teaching institutions (they both taught at Massachusetts Institute of Technology) continued research on cooperation-competition systems.[10] Deutsch’s contribution was highlighting the role of perception and the existence of conflict.[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 felt the need to correct the balance of analysis, which tended to focus on the “dysfunction” of conflict rather than the potential positive aspects of conflict. Coser provisionally defined conflict as “a struggle over claims to scarce status, power and resources in which the aims of the opponents are to neutralise or eliminate their rivals”.[13] Later he defined conflict as a “clash of values and interests”.[14]
Conflict resolution came of age in the United States in 1957 with the founding of the Journal of Conflict Resolution by Kenneth Boulding (1910-1995), Anatol Rapoport (1911- ) and Herb Kelman (1920s- ) among others.[15] Anatol Rapoport (1911- ) a Russian born American mathematical psychologist and co-founder of the Journal of Conflict Resolution was an important contributor to this journal with his game theories, which given the mathematical approach were a highly abstract (although overly rational) way of looking at conflict.[16]
On the other side of the Atlantic in Norway, Johan Galtung, a sociologist, founded the Journal of Peace Research in 1964. This journal was less reliant on econometric-like theory and was more readable for the less mathematically inclined.[17] Galtung, for the purposes of identifying steps to peace, introduced a broader notion of violence which encompasses those “avoidable insults to 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 includes the everyday notion of violence, whereby an individual or group suffers physical or emotional pain as the result of direct action. Structural violence is caused by the institutions and structures of society which result in inequality or “oppression” among individuals.[19] Chapter two will develop the concept of structural reconciliation, the process of overcoming structural violence.
Similarly, Galtung classified peace into two forms: ‘positive peace’ and ‘negative peace.’ Negative peace, according to Galtung, fits essentially the colloquial perception of peace as an end to war. Positive peace includes not only the absence of war, but the absence of structural violence. That is positive peace is the absence of violence, in all its forms and as such has greater value in the long-term as it removes the factors which lead to direct violence. This was Galtung’s genius to merge his dual definition of violence with his dual concept of peace. However, critics of Galtung, such as Kenneth Boulding complain of his overly “taxonomical” approach and his “constant” use of “dichotomies”.[20]
John Burton and Human Needs Theory
In England John Burton (1915 - ), former Secretary to the prominent Australian United Nations representative Herbert Evatt (1894-1965), established the Centre for the Analysis of Conflict, University of London in 1966. It was through Burton that conflict resolution techniques expanded to the international arena, following his problem-solving workshops in Cyprus and Sri Lanka.[21] In 1981, Burton moved to the United States where he collaborated in the founding of the Institute for Conflict Analysis and Resolution at George Mason University in 1982.
Burton, synthesized the main theoretical assumptions of conflict resolution, which are known as ‘human needs theory’. This theory operates on the premise that a pre-condition for the resolution of conflict is that fundamental human needs be met.[22] Burton adopted eight fundamental needs from the basis of the work by the American sociologist Paul Sites and introduced one further need of his own. [23] Those adopted needs included control, security, justice, stimulation, response, meaning, rationality and esteem/recognition. Burton’s additional need was ‘role-defence,’ the need to defend one’s role. Burton called these “ontological needs” as he regarded them as a consequence of human nature, which were universal and would be pursued regardless of the consequence.[24]
Antecedents to human needs theory came from a variety of disciplines. In the biological and sociobiological disciplines conflict is perceived to result from competition over scarce resources as a result of common needs.[25] In social psychology Henry Murray, Erich Fromm (1900-1980), and Abraham Maslow (1908-1970) describe needs (some say ‘drives’) as important in understanding factors for human motivation. Further discussion of human needs theory will be developed in chapter two.
Burton distinguishes ontological needs from values and interests. He defines ontological needs as non-negotiable; values as offering some limited opportunities for negotiation; and interests as negotiable issues.[26] Burton distinguishes conflict from the related term of ‘dispute’. He defined ‘conflict’ as an action over these non-negotiable human needs, whereas a ‘dispute’ was over negotiable values.[27] Burton distinguishes conflict resolution, from the related terms of conflict management and conflict settlement.[28] To Burton conflict resolution solved deep seemingly intractable issues, whereas settlement only addressed the superficial factors of conflict.
Burton was not without controversy. His notion of needs falls under criticism especially from those cultural anthropologists and relativists, who were (and still are) resistant to universal values, among those were fellow members of the Institute for Conflict Analysis and Resolution, Kevin Avruch and Peter Black.[29]
Despite this Burton had many supporters who applied his methods in other international conflicts. These included people like Herbert Kelman in Palestine-Israel, Edward Azar in Lebanon and Vamik Volkan in Cyprus.[30]
Roger Fisher and Interest-Based Negotiation
In 1978 Roger Fisher (1922- ) a law professor collaborated in the founding of the Harvard Negotiation Project (HNP), and he was a significant figure in the founding of the Programme on Negotiation (PON) at the Harvard Law School in 1983.[31] The Negotiation Journal founded in 1985 included Jeremy Rubin and Roger Fisher among others. Roger Fisher’s approach to conflict resolution (or negotiation) was popularised in his book Getting to Yes,[32] which introduced the term ‘principled-negotiation.’
The principle-based approach aims to resolve conflict by deferring judgement to a moral principle. Such an approach advocates the need for interest-based negotiations in contrast to those based on a ‘position’. For example Fisher would suggest that an interest would include issues like security, esteem and pleasures, whereas positions would define how one achieved those interests.
Fisher encourages the need for empathy and asks the question – “why does one hold one position, and another hold a different one”? Fisher suggests that empathy allows parties to discern the underlying interest which by creativity may result in amicable solutions (what this author would refer to as ‘re-negotiated positions’[33]) to each party.[34] Like Burton, Fisher defines the most powerful interests as human needs, which he identifies as security, economic-well-being, a sense of belonging, recognition, and control over one’s life.[35]
Conflict Transformation
In the 1990s scholars began to refer to conflict resolution with terms such as ‘conflict transformation’ and ‘peace-building’. Keeping with the spirit of Georg Simmel, such terms denote methods of encouraging constructive results from conflict for all parties.[36] John Paul Lederach, Robert Baruch-Bush[37], Joseph Folger, R. Vayrynen[38] and Peter Wallensteen may be described as adherents of the conflict transformation school. In conflict transformation, conflict is not seen as a final state, but a “dynamic process…wherein as one problem is solved a new one emerges”. Similarly, the symbolism of the Chinese character for ‘crisis’ provides cross-cultural evidence of an optimistic notion of conflict and conflict transformation, as the character “simultaneously means opportunity”.[39]
In what may be a dramatic creative input to conflict resolution scholarship are provided by lessons from critical and cosmopolitan theory. This is part of the post-modern sociological or philosophical perspective that concludes that mediators can be charged with:
enlarging the boundaries of political community, overcoming sectional and factional differences, expanding the domain of moral responsibility…and promoting relations which conform to some standards of international order.[40]
This alternative to realist international relations theory (which is developed in section 1.3) is heavily influenced by the philosophy of Jurgen Habermas and his interpreters in the field of international relations such as Andrew Linklater and David Held.[41]
1.2 Methods of Needs-Based Conflict Resolution
The main methods of needs-based conflict resolution are: integrative bargaining (Roger Fisher’s 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 of this thesis, only integrative bargaining and interactive problem-solving will be discussed.[45]
The integrative bargaining process, sometimes called principled negotiation, involves negotiation in which the focus is on “merits of the issues and the parties try to enlarge the available ’pie’ rather than stake claims to certain portions of it”.[46] That is integrative bargaining involves “both concession making and searching for mutually profitable solutions”. Integrative bargaining tries to move beyond position-based bargaining and determine underlying interests.[47]
Interactive or analytic problem-solving is a “form of third-party consultation or informal mediation…it is a needs-based approach to resolving conflict”. It begins with an analysis of the political needs and fears.[48] This approach was pioneered by John Burton, and extended by Herbert Kelman. It is a “nontraditional, nongovernmental approach emphasizing analytical dialogue and problem-solving”. This process is known by former American diplomat Joseph Montville as the “track two,” or a grass root method of conflict resolution, in contrast to governmental diplomacy which is known as “track one diplomacy”.[49]
1.3 Alternative Approaches to Needs-based Conflict Resolution
This section will introduce the two alternatives to the needs-based approach to conflict resolution which include the ‘power-based’ and the ‘rights-based’ approaches. Both these approaches are highly adversarial, and generally result in a win/lose situation.
Power-based
a. Realism
The ‘power-based’, ‘force-based’ or ‘coercive’ approach to international conflict resolution is what is called realism and is the dominant or normative theory of international relations and security studies.[50] Power-based conflict resolution includes both violent and nonviolent forms of coercion—war and diplomacy. Traditional diplomacy is often described as “war by other methods,” and as such a win/lose situation. Negotiators advance their own ‘position’ and the process is decided by the most powerful party.[51] John Burton argues that realism ends with “coercive settlement” and not resolution.[52]
Realist theory argues that international security is best achieved through the action of Great Powers which can create regional power balances in unstable regions across the globe, by force or by “geostrategic mediation” (‘diplomacy’).[53] Henry Kissinger, former US Secretary of State in the early 1970s, was a powerful advocate of such an approach to conflict resolution.[54] The Sinai I (1974), and Sinai II (September 1975), ceasefire agreements which lay the foundations for Camp David Accords (September 1978) and then the Egypt-Israel Peace Treaty (1979) were examples of settlements based on power politics.[55]
Presidents of the United States of America such as Jimmy Carter, Ronald Reagan, George Bush Snr., Bill Clinton, and George Bush Jnr, and their respective Secretaries of State have used “American muscle”[56] or power-based approaches to resolving conflict. Such mediatory actions may include nonviolent coercive approaches like tying action to aid, such as military aid. For example, the United States’ action in the “spring of 1975 to freeze an Israeli request for $3,000 million in military aid was meant to induce Israel to accept an interim agreement with Egypt”.[57]
Realist theory, is slowly being questioned by international relations scholars. Deiniol Jones, argues that realism as a “moral and political commitment,” is flawed due to its “overemphasis on states as an end in themselves and not society; [its] narrow perspective of power”[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 of international anarchy needs to remember that “humans evolved with a desire to belong, not to compete”.[60]
Conflict manipulation
Included within the realist approach this author would suggest is conflict manipulation which is a deceitful method of settling a conflict. Conflict manipulation, is a public relations exercise approach to diplomacy, where there is an appearance of a conflict resolution process whilst in reality, dialogue is only engaged to ‘buy-time’ and increase bargaining power.[61] This is a short term approach to conflict resolution. Once the manipulated party discovers the deceit, they may retaliate or, at the very least, re-activate the dispute, thus undoing any progress achieved.[62]
This author will outline in chapter three, that the establishment of Israeli settlements within the West Bank, Gaza Strip and the Golan Heights in the 1970s, 1980s, and then the renewed effort in the 1990s is an example of conflict manipulation. Conflict manipulation gives the superficial view that there is a ‘peace process’ whereas in practice the time taken during ‘negotiations’ enables the more powerful party to advance their position.[63]
Past examples of conflict manipulation within the context of Israel have included Moshe Dayan’s establishment of ‘facts (settlements) on the ground’. An approach, this author would suggest, is analogous to the ‘practical Zionist’ approach of the early twentieth century. This approach contrasted with the diplomatic methods of ‘political’ or “diplomatic” Zionists’ such as the founding father of modern Zionism Theodor Herzl.[64]
b. Marxism
Marxism, considered by some as a “social movement,”[65] is another approach which falls into the coercive approach to handling conflict. Marxist and neo-Marxist conflict theorists see ‘power’ as the control over economic resources and property, and seek its elimination by a worldwide class revolution”.[66] History by Marxists is regarded as the history of exploiters, those in control of the modes of production, and those without control, the exploited, which results in a class struggle. From these premises, Marx drew the conclusion in the Communist Manifesto that the capitalist class would be overthrown and that it would be eliminated by a worldwide working-class revolution and replaced by a classless society.[67]
Marxist adherents within conflict resolution scholarship include Richard Rubenstein, Professor of Conflict Resolution at George Mason University. He sees Marxism as a way to occupy a “common relationship to the means of production, existing across ethnic, cultural, religious and national boundaries and “destined to become a self-conscious identity group”.[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 points in the development of a more complete identity”.[69] Rubenstein concludes in his support of the Marxist approach which states that human needs can only be fully developed when “men and women [sic.] become masters of production of the state of themselves”.[70]
Critics, such as Jim Wallis, argue that Marxism as an ideology underestimates the corruptibility of the self-appointed elites who would carry out the utopian task. Secondly, Wallis argues that Marxism over-estimates how much humanity could be changed by top-down processes.[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 by the parties concerned. Often, the legal system is used as a source of those norms. Rights-based approaches to international conflict settlement may be found in the International Court of Justice (ICJ/World Court, the Hague), and the newly created International Criminal Court (ICC). The jurisdiction of the first deals with state disputes and the latter is the domain of individual indictments for human rights violations.
In the Palestinian-Israeli conflict, recourse is not possible to the World Court, as the Palestinian people do not yet have sovereign rights of a nation-state. As for the ICC it remains to be seen what effect it will have in the Palestinian-Israeli conflict. The ICC may play a critical role, given that some countries within the European community have already taken steps to indict persons (for example Prime Minister Ariel Sharon) for war crimes[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 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 may contribute to the growing body of ‘lore,’ that becomes accepted as a body of ‘fact’. This ‘pseudo-law’ (lore) of history becomes the standard for establishing right from wrong in a contemporary situation. History is potentially more of a political statement, an ideology, than an objective law.
Historians relevant to the Palestinian-Israeli conflict include traditional historians I (Bernard Lewis, Martin Gilbert and Howard Sachar), traditional historians II (Martin Kramer, and Daniel Pipes), and new historians (Benny Morris, Avi Shlaim, Illan Pappe).[73]
The first group of traditional historians provides a Zionist sympathetic perspective, the second group provides a sensational version of Islam and the third group presents a more humanist approach to the conflict, identifying acts of inhumanity by both the Zionists and the various Arab neighbours.
Scholarship that has developed from the Palestinian side is much less developed. The most prominent Palestinian historical scholar would be Walid Khalidi.[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 acknowledges the place power-based and rights-based methods have in conflict resolution.
As such needs-based conflict resolution has a more extensive range of methodologies available to it than power or rights-based paradigms alone. Figure 1 summarises the various methods of conflict resolution including resolution based on power, rights, principles and cooperation.[75] An overlap is indicated between each of these approaches by the arrangement of the horizontal brackets. Preference is for resolution of conflict based on cooperation and mutual interests—although other mechanisms exist which can be used as a tool to help resolve conflict.
Specific types of conflict-handling mechanisms include coercion, avoidance, arbitration, adjudication, negotiation, mediation and reconciliation. The most adversarial approach and least joint participatory approach is coercion, and the least adversarial and most mutual participatory approach is reconciliation.[76]
‘Coercion’ includes both the violent and nonviolent methods of force. The United Nations Charter Chapter VII resolutions includes both nonviolent (for example economic sanctions) and violent (that is military) forms of coercion. ‘Avoidance’, like force, is a short-term solution. Avoidance would include territorial separation, such as partition of states, and relies on the saying “good fences make good neighbours”.[77] ‘Adjudication’ of conflict involves a third party who pronounces a judgement on a grievance. This third party is most often connected with the state.
In ‘arbitration’, an arbiter such as a judge or lawyer settles the dispute. The arbiter may be selected by the disputing parties. Examples of arbitration include industrial arbitration such as employer-trade unions, employer-employee, divorce disputes and minor matters in local courts[78]. The distinction between arbitration and adjudication is arbitration is generally a more informal and less expensive process, which tends to leave parties with more amicable results. An early form of international arbitration was developed following the Hague Peace Conference of 1899.
In this context ‘negotiation’ implies the parties making an agreement, in the absence of a third party, although one party may still have slightly more power than the other. In other contexts negotiation may imply an agreement by parties in a non-judicial or non-arbitral setting.[79]
In ‘mediation’ and ‘facilitation’ a third party helps an agreement to be concluded. The rapid development of mediation and alternate dispute resolution is evident in the United States given from 1971 to 1986 there was an increase in the number of dispute resolution centres from three to 350 according to the American Bar Association (ABA) Special Committee.[80]
[ Figure 1. Conflict handing mechanisms – Not shown here. The spectrum of power-based, rights, principle and needs based resolution methodologies].
In ‘reconciliation’ both parties seek friendship from each other.[81] Conciliation “implies a closer relationship of parties that lead to an agreement” (not just settlement).[82] Conciliation may involve use of Burton’s “controlled communication”, Kelman’s “problem-solving”, or Jurgen Habermas’ “discourse ethics”, which implies agreement is based on the idealistic notion of an equal sharing of power. Discourse ethics is a political theory which offers a “theory of justice…a theory of the right”. Jones considers that a critical mediation theory, in particular cosmopolitan theory, takes a ‘broader historical view of an emancipatory political process”, rather than “limited micro-dynamics of the problem-solving workshop”.[83]
Conclusion
This chapter has firstly outlined gaps in the literature and suggested hypotheses for the resolution of conflict, in particular the Palestinian-Israeli conflict. Secondly, an overview of the terminology and history of conflict resolution has been provided. This has included the origins of conflict resolution scholarship from sociology, social psychology and political science.
Thirdly, conflict has been identified as a consequence of frustrated human needs. Those needs have been developed by a variety of scholars, but especially prominent is the work of sociologist Paul Sites and international relations scholar John Burton. Those basic needs identified by Sites include control, security, justice, stimulation, response, meaning, rationality and esteem. Lastly, the methods of ‘conflict’ resolution were established including coercive-based, rights-based, or needs-based approaches.
The next chapter will expand on the human needs theory developed by Paul Sites and John Burton and incorporate this into a general method for conflict resolution. It will be demonstrated that such a method, which is built within a needs-based approach to conflict resolution, is fundamental for reconciliation and the building of peace.
References
[1] A term introduced by the author to summarise the essential nature of this approach. Typically this is known as ‘interest-based resolution’ see Connie Peck, The United Nations as a Dispute Settlement System: Improving Mechanisms for the Prevention and Resolution of Conflict, The Hague, London, Boston: Kluwer Law International, 1996, p. 10; For the trend to needs or ‘cooperation-based approach’ see Jay Rothman, Resolving Identity-Based Conflict: In Nations, Organizations and Communities, San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers, 1997, p. 61.
[2] Mohammed Abu-Nimer, Dialogue, Conflict Resolution and Change: Arab-Jewish Encounters in Israel, New York: State University of New York Press, 1999, p. 12.
[3] Morton Deutsch, “Social Psychology’s Contributions to 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 Psychology’s Contributions to the Study of Conflict Resolution”, Negotiation Journal, 18 (4) October 2002, p. 310.
[9] Kurt Lewin, “The Background of Conflict in Marriage” (1940), in Gertrude Weiss Lewin (ed.) Resolving Social Conflicts: Selected Papers on Group Dynamics, London: Souvenir Press (Education and Academic Ltd), 1948, p. 89.
[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.4—as cited 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. 197—as cited 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 Dennis J. 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,
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 Encounters in
Israel, New York: State University of New York Press, 1999, p. 12.
[31] “A Gala Celebration of Roger Fisher’s 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] Fisher’s rhetoric favours an interest-based approach to conflict resolution rather than a position-
based approach. However, what this author argues is that what eventuates from ‘interest-based
approach’ negotiations…are new positions, albeit re-negotiated positions. This does not take away
from Fisher the brilliance of his concept. Instead, the distinction made by this author is to give
evidence for the transitory nature of conflict resolution, that is more specifically conflict
transformation.
[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 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] Key texts include:
(1) Jurgen Habermas, Moral Consciousness and Communicative Action, Cambridge:
Polity Press, 1990; (2) Andrew Linklater, Men and Citizens in the Theory of International Relations, 2nd ed., London, New York: Pinter Publishers, 1994; and (3)David Held, Democracy and the Global Order, Cambridge: Polity Press, 1990—as cited in Deiniol Jones, op. cit., 1999, p. 2.
[42] Fisher, Getting to Yes, op. cit.
[43] Herbert Kelman, “Resolution of international conflict: An Interactional Approach”, in S. Worchel
and W.G. Austin (eds.) Psychology of Intergroup Relations, Chicago: Hall, pp. 323-342—as cited in
Mohammed Abu-Nimer, op. cit., p. 22.
[44] Leonard Doob and W. Foltz, “The Belfast Workshop: An Application of Group Techniques to
Destructive Conflict”, Journal of Conflict Resolution, 17, pp. 489-512—as cited in Abu-Nimer, p. 21.
[45] For an overview of other methods of conflict 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.
[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 says specifically “psychologists, sociologists, anthropologists, lawyers and international
relations students” in John W. Burton and Dennis J.D. Sandole “Generic Theory: The Basis of
Conflict Resolution”, Negotiation Journal, vol 2, no. 4 Oct 1986, p. 334.
[51] ibid.
[52] John W. Burton and Dennis J. 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 Definition” in 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] Dennis J. 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 thus suffer from the same flaw as pessimistic
realist notions. However, certainly the shift away from a negative exclusionary future to a
positive, collaborative scene will at least provide a potential for one.
[61] Geoffrey Watson, op. cit., p. 141.
[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 Movement in
Palestine and World Politics, 1880-1918, Lexington, 1974, p. 16.
[65] Jones, op. cit., p. 45.
[66] Robert van Krieken, Philip Smith, Daphne Habibis, Kevin McDonald, Michael Haralambos and Martin Holborn, Sociology: Themes and Perspectives 2nd ed, Frenchs Forest, Australia: Pearson Education Australia/Longman, 2000, p. 114.
[67] A. H. Halsey, “Class” and “Marxism”, Microsoft Encarta Encyclopedia Standard 2003, Compact Disc, Microsoft Corporation 1993-2002.
[68] Richard E. Rubenstein, “Basic Human Needs Theory: Beyond Natural Law”, in John Burton (ed.),
Conflict: Human Needs Theory, 1990, p. 350.
[69] ibid., p. 351.
[70] ibid. p. 352.
[71] Jim Wallis, The Soul of Politics: A Practical and Prophetic Vision of Change, London: Fount, 1994
p. 27.
[72] For his role as Defence Minister, in 1982, during the Sabra and Chatilla massacre of Palestinian refuges, carried out by Lebanese Christians (philangists), with alleged complicity by Israeli leadership.
[73] Key texts include: (1) Bernard Lewis, The Arabs in History, London 1950, Islam and the West, New York, 1993 (2) Martin Gilbert, Israel; (3) Howard Sachar, A History of Israel: From the Rise of Zionism to our Time, Second Edition, New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1976, 1996; (4) Martin Kramer, Arab Awakening and Islamic Revival: The Politics of Ideas in the Middle East. New Brunswick, N.J.: Transaction Publishers, 1996.; Ivory Towers on Sand: The Failure of Middle Eastern Studies in America. Washington: The Washington Institute for Near East Policy, 2001. (5) Daniel Pipes, Militant Islam Reaches America, 2002; Greater Syria: The History of an Ambition, Oxford, 1990. (6) Benny Morris Righteous Victims: A History of the Zionist-Arab Conflict, 1881-2001 New York: Vintage Books, 2001; The Birth of the Palestinian Refugee problem 1947-49 (7) Avi Shlaim, The Iron Wall: Israel and the Arab World, W.W. Norton & Company 2001; (8) Illan Pappe,
[74] Walid Khalidi (ed.) All That Remains: The Palestinian Villages Occupied and Depopulated by Israel
in 1948, Institute for Palestine Studies.
[75] Figure 1 was in part inspired from Hizkias Assefa, “The Meaning of Reconciliation”, People Building Peace: 35 Inspiring Stories From Around The World, European Centre for Conflict Prevention, 1999, p. 37; also see Mohammed Abu-Nimer, op. cit., p. 18.
[76] Assefa, ibid., 1999.
[77] As commented 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 Dennis J.D. Sandole, “Expanding the Debate on Generic Theory of Conflict
Resolution: A Response to a Critique”, Negotiation Journal 3(1) January 1987, p. 99.
[81] ibid., p. 37-38.
[82] John Burton, 1969, op. cit., p. 153.
[83] Jones, op. cit., p. 68.
posted by Stewart Mills at 4:43 PM
